requests For Adminship/Archive 163

There seems to have been no movement at Wiki: RfA Review/Collate, or at any later step in the review process, since October 2008. If this review is defunct, would someone remove the The current RFA process is under review ... wording at the top of this page, and mark all the review pages as historical? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. After all, any attempt to reform RFA always ends in failure, so it's not like this wasn't expected. Majorly talk 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the banner. If I missed some major activity by all means put it back, but the process certainly seems long-dead. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was unable to continue supporting it for a couple of reasons. Firstly I changed jobs, reducing my free time considerably and secondly, I began to feel like Sisyphus with some of the responses the work was getting from some quarters. The pages and responses are still there, should someone feel like picking up the baton. Alas, I feel we already know the answers, yet lack the will to grasp the nettle. Oh well.Gazimoff 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a relief. Although I have read the RFA Review comments and I often steal from them, I didn't want to highlight them, because the recommendations are mostly based on impressions of RFA from the first half of 2008. RFA has changed a lot, so I think we're better off focusing on one RFA at a time. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The result table of the RfA polls lists Support, Opposition, and Neutral counts and a support percentage. The support percentage seems to be calculated based on only S and O values, and Neutral is discarded. This is wrong, IMHO. Percentage should be calculated on all votes cast. Given that the granting of adminship is supposed to be based on high levels of standard a neutral vote can hardly be judged as a positive influence on the tally. In reality, a neutral vote is a vote of non-support. Kbrose (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A neutral vote is merely a comment. It carries no weight numerically, but can be used by the 'Crat to get a better feel for... something. I'm not really sure. There's a reason that section is all the way at the bottom of the page. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
So would neutral be counted as oppose, or support, then? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Try to think of it as more of a hug, than a vote. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
(2x(edit conflict))IMHO we shouldn't assume that a neutral comment is an oppose comment. Instead, let's let people that want to oppose put their opposes in the oppose section, and leave neutral to those who want to make the fact that they are sitting on the fence clear. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A Neutral does what it says on the tin - the editor commenting either has reservations or is not motivated enough to support the candidate, but equally does not find anything so worrying that they should oppose.
Neutral is probably the most interesting section on any RFA - and very often actually contains the most insightful and useful comments. FWIW I have no doubt all our active 'crats weigh neutral comments accordingly, and indeed have seen RFA's both pass and fail based on the commentary contained within this section. Pedro :  Chat  21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial question. The consistent consensus is that the percentages are measures of opinions pro or con. Our 'crats do a fine job as it is :) -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The percentage is only an indication in which way the RFA is heading, nothing more. So it's not important whether the neutrals are counted in it or not. As multiple people already pointed out, a 50% RFA can pass and a 80% can fail. SoWhy 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh. --Ali'i 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Neither has ever happened, as far as I know :-P Avruch ^T 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I've seen an ~80% RfA fail and a ~65% RfA pass. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If a comment is neutral, it is by definition not taking a position. It should not be counted. Chillum 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I've always thought of a neutral as a half-support, half-oppose. Reyk _YO! 03:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys might or might not be interested in what I hope will turn into a thread at WT:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3#Caucus. I offered to try to round up and sum up the various arguments that come up at RFA back in February. I did the work ... I read the RFAs and WT:RFA and RFA Review and whatnot ... and decided that we don't do very well in the abstract; we have a much better chance of getting consensus if we tackle one issue at a time, as it comes up in one RFA at a time. One of the issues in Ironhold's RFA is the previous RFAs. It's my guess we can get somewhere useful and avoid some hard feelings and misunderstandings all around, but the clock is ticking on getting it done in time to have an impact on that RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the number of RfA's is relevant in and of itself. However, the number of RfA's over a given period of time can be regarded as having various meanings. What those meanings are depends entirely on the individual who is campaigning for a victorious RfA election. Five in a month means more than five in a year, or five over three years. Five in a month could probably get you blocked. Five over a year will just annoy the hell out of people. Five over three years gives an opportunity to discern long term behavioral trends. Without context, it isn't necessarily a positive, or a negative indicator. In the case of Ironholds, I think his five are positive because they demonstrate a pattern of growth and improvement, while his most recent three include the relevant behavioral trends worth evaluating him on for improvement. My evaluation, at this time, was that I want to see his improvement continue before I support him. For others, the five RfA's indicate a lust for the mop that warrants an oppose. People who try out for anything five times are probably viewed as equal parts Don Quixote, Kenneth the Page, and Ralph Nader, and I suspect all three of those guys would do just fine as admins, but would end up failing an RfA along the way. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I can recall dozens of editors opposing just because an editor may have 4, 5, or even 6 (sometimes more) prior requests. Either way, it won't solve anything Dank55. A consensus to determine how many is too many will not stop opinionated editors. You either make it, or you don't. Synergy 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Just to make sure ... I'm not saying "vote for Ironholds before time runs out!" I did support, but I support some of the opposing rationales, too. My call for discussion here is completely about inviting people to do a better job of communicating their rationales, which can be more satisfying for the voter, and can help RFA do what it's supposed to do. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's about time don't you think? Don't worry, this isn't me bitching about people opposing over age (well, maybe it is...) I've given up on the idea that we evaluate people on RFAs through their edits, not the number on their userpage, and accepted that people are entitled to oppose minors. I can completely understand, and agree with some of the reasons, though of course not so strongly. So why the new thread? Ageism has reached a new level of absurdity, as pointed out by Cosmic Latte here, where someone is being opposed because they are minor, despite the fact they are an adult(!) Now I can understand why someone wouldn't want a child helping to run one of the world's top ten visited websites, but to oppose over a joke comment like that? Even when it has been pointed out, numerous times on the page, people are still insisting on using this reason. I'm almost tempted to support the man to attempt to offset some of the more absurd comments (and yes, they are absurd, because they are simply untrue) made in the oppose section.

And there's some who complain we don't have enough admins... this sort of thing is why. Well done. Majorly talk 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree in principal, though it is worth noting that the RfA in question would probably still be failing even if the obviously dumb votes were stricken. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Try to imagine if the candidate's only "fault" was the issue being discussed here. Majorly talk 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Well said. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not really "well said". "Overstated" would be more appropriate. There seems to be only one user, User:Xdenizen, who really thinks Baseball Bugs is too young. More people have mentioned his maturity (which indeed has little to do with age) than age. Age is simply a non-issue in this request for adminship. I just don't want this used as a selling point to form a policy against age-based opposes. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You miss the point of this thread. And besides, there were (when I last looked) several opposes along the lines of "He's only 13". Such misstatements have no place here. The point of this thread is to attempt to put a stop to opposes based on false information, especially when the person making the false comment refuses to budge. Majorly talk 20:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yet again, we come back to this point. Not every user is the same and every user can mature overtime. Does that mean because I'm 13 I shouldn't be an admin? I have matured alot since my last ageism discussion here on Wikipedia and I believe I'm almost ready for a mop. But should I be denied just because?N.G.G. 20:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This isn't the purpose of the thread - this thread is for discussing when people are opposed based on false information. This time it's age. Anyhow, I can think of numerous reasons why you could be denied adminship, not that I really agree with any of them, as we have several brilliant "minor" admins, and some atrocious "adults" as admins. Majorly talk 20:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I distracted from Majorly's main point. Getting things back on track, votes based on false premises should be banned. I assume the 'crats do this, but it certainly wouldn't hurt if one of them stated as much here. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And by "banned" you mean "ignored" I hope :) -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Thank god I wasn't up for an RfA or that probably would have garnered me 10 oppose votes! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll keep it in mind   -- Avi (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Majorly, I can't see any crat not discounting any !votes based solely on age in this particular RfA. BB has indicated that he is over 18 and explained the origins of the joke. Other's were familiar with the joke as well. Thus, I think your concern is unfounded. Many of the people who have opposed over the age have been contacted, and some of them have revisited their original opposes. One has reworded it while another struck theirs.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• At this rate we'd lose admins faster than we gain new ones. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

People are getting smarter, though. I just approached someone yesterday to nominate him/her for RfA and s/he said no. :( -- Avi (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an unwritten policy that we all agree on, that discrimination on the basis of race, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation is not acceptable as a reason for an RfA opposition. Age should be included in this as well. Kingturtle (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't agree, because race, gender, etc. have little to nothing to do with how someone will contribute as an admin. A less mature admin could be a problem. I would probably not oppose on that ground, but it is legitimate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The key is "maturity". Opposing for age is not legitimate if the editor displays no signs of immature behavior. There is a common sense reaction that makes most of us think a 13 year old should not be an admin. However, the sole criteria upon which any editor should be judged is their contributions. A history of immature contributions (including off-wiki behavior that stems directly to on-wiki events) rightly sinks RfA's because it directly correlates to someone being a bad admin. However, there is no direct correlation between youth, and success or failure with the mop. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Without commenting on the substantive issues, I'd like to note that age-selection on Wikipedia will encourage otherwise qualified candidates to lie about their age. While this practice has some benefits (encouraging minors to lie about their age) I'd prefer we not institutionally encourage lying in our administrators. The question remains however - what can we actually do about it?--Tznkai (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I had no idea that certain admins who I respect can't vote yet in the real world. But if someone is really 13, say, and tries a RfA, I'm going to be looking through his edits very carefully before supporting because even the most mature 13 year old has moments of childishness. I would say a very young editor has to meet a higher standard with me, fair enough?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That is pretty close to my view of things as well, in that I hold a bias that a 13 year old is less capable than a 30 year old. However, there is no shortage of 30+ editors making imbeciles of themselves on the 'pedia to belie my bias. I suspect we could come up with a list of such editors and admins (past and present) who fit that bill. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Completely disagree. Age should not be in that list. While I am willing to evaluate people based upon their individual contributions, I do think Age is a valid concern. A mature 15 year old kid is still a 15 year old kid. A mature 15 year old kid is still going to have immature 15 year old friends. A mature 15 year old kid, may still make mistakes when around those immature 15 year old friends---whether it is succumbing to peer pressure or making a simple mistake such as leaving a computer logged on while going to the bathroom. A 15 year old is much more likely to have friends over to their house and be goofing around than a 40 year old. A 15 year old can (IMO) be an admin, but I am going to pay a LOT more attention to his edits than I would somebody whose age I don't know. I am also going to have a shorter leash on immature behavior.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I can think of many immature adults, incredibly so. Some high profile editors on here come to mind. Majorly talk 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I won't argue with that, but as a general rule, adults have more self restraint than teenagers. Heck, college students might pose a bigger risk than teens based upon my reasoning above ;-) But the reality is that there are reasons why just about every country has various rules establishing minimum ages to perform certain activities. Some are more cast in stone, while others aren't; some are higher than 18, others are lower; but the point remains that there are reasons why soceities have minimum expectations often defined by age. Again, I am willing to consider people under the age of 18, but if they were careless enough to put their age on the internet, then they have (IMO) already shown at least one sign of bad judgment/carelessness! If you don't want to be treated like a kid on the internet, don't advertise your age. (Think about how many women obfuscate their gender on the internet because they don't want to be treated like women often are online---or men who pretend to be women online!) Disclosing your age is not required, but if you do so, then you should realize the ramifications of doing so.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree in general, but some societies in various countries (even our own country, at one point) have/had restrictions set by race, religion, gender, etc. Thus, just because it's accepted by society doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, even in America today you can still discriminate based upon race, gender, or religion---you just have to have a valid reason to do so and be prepared to do so within strict guidelines. As for being right/wrong, the difference between youth and religion/sex/gender descrimination is that every culture in every time period has treated youth differently--and there are valid reasons to do so. Youthfulness is also the only one of those criteria that naturally changes with time. Every adult has been there... and every youth will eventually out grow it. You can't say that about the other criteria.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
True, true. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"A mature 15 year old kid is still going to have immature 15 year old friends." Don't be so sure. One of my good friends started college at 13. The friends she saw regularly were all several years older than her. Highly intelligent children aren't necessarily interested in spending any time with immature age-peers. Dragons flight (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There are always exceptions, which is why I am willing to look at them on a case by case basis. One of my cousins got her driver's license when she was only 13--again extenuating circumstances and her mother had to get a judge to approve it, but exceptions always exist. But that is where the individual has to demonstrate that they are the exception to the rule. But pointing to the exception does not disprove the general concept. There are valid reasons why cultures have always treated youth differently than "older more mature" people. Yes, you can point to immature adults and mature minors, but guidelines established by communities based upon age, are based upon general practical experience.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
On a similar note, a kid who edits Wikipedia for a living isn't going to have many friends. ;) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
On a similar note, an adult who edits Wikipedia for a living isn't going to have many friends.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
"a kid who edits Wikipedia for a living isn't going to have many friends" sure about that? ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

shocking comment

I am personally of the opinion that legal minors should not be allowed (and certainly actively discouraged from) editing wikipedia, never mind admining. My reason is not primarily about the quality of their actions, although on average younger editors will be less mature and more problematic. (And before anyone attacks that statement as ageist, I ask what sane society would let a 9 year old drive a car or fly a plane if they showed that they could pass the required proficiency/quality test?). No, my principle reason for discouraging minors is for their own protection. Editing wikipedia can have serious consequences. You can incur legal liabilities for libel. You can unwisely give out information leading to stalking or real-world harassment. And, perhaps most worryingly, you can leave an on-line trail that will follow you into adulthood via google and can have serious consequences for you life and reputation. Those are serious risks, which all editors must weigh up. However, I am of the opinion that it is irresponsible for us to expose minors to such risks. In real life, where minors take on risks, parental consent is required. It should be the same here. No, we can't stop people editing as minors (if they don't declare their age, there's not much we can do), but it ought to be officially discouraged - and indeed known minors should probably be blocked. Sorry, but this hobby is too dangerous for people who are not legally of full age to consent to risk exposure. (An additional reason for preventing minors is that we are also responsible for the protection of out BLP subjects, and I don't think it is responsible for us to place their reputations in the hands of children - or annons, but that's another matter). These are the reasons why I will oppose all minors on RfA as a matter of principle. Is this ageist? Yes, in the same way it is ageist to support prohibitions on minors smoking, driving, flying, fighting in wars, buying firearms, watching porn etc. Discrimination is not always a bad thing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Vicki Van Meter... I'm just saying... Hiberniantears (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, as noted above, that this is effectively unenforceable. Frankly, I worry that rather than encouraging editors to be as transparent as possible from the beginning (which is good for everyone, not just admins) we're encouraging the exact opposite - because as soon as someone posts their age / location / workplace anywhere they're discriminated against because of it. Assuming that people will be found out eventually is not a solution to this, and when that happens it always leads to high dramaz of the EssJay variety. Incidentally, I've seen very little correlation between professed age and maturity on here in the majority of cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't let 9 year olds drive cars, but we do let 13 year olds drive tractors (in multiple U.S jurisdictions), and I believe in some places, fly planes. There is no magical moment at the age of majority you escape or gain liabilities or the sense to avoid it- and the stupid things I did on the internet problem is far worse for the college students we've got here. The fact is, minors who will do the majorly stupid things you describe are indistinguishable from adults from our perspective. I have no problem with putting some really loud and obnoxious "Please, monitor your kid's activities on Wikipedia, just like you should be but are not doing on Facebook, Myspace, Blogger and everything else" notice everywhere that matters, but the legal liability problem is not ours, but their parent's to worry about. Our ability to protect them is limited, and blocking them will do nothing but encouraging them to lie more.--Tznkai (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear. — Dan | talk 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, no. Of course we can't effectively stop minors editing. But if we say "we are happy for you to edit, and may even make you an admin" then we are actively encouraging it. We are responsible for that - and that is not good. If we say "we don't as a matter of policy allow minors to edit unless they've got their parent's permission" then it is down to parents as you say either to give permission, or to monitor their child's editing. Only they, and not us, can actually stop children editing. At least giving a warning would redflag parents who DO monitor activity that Wikipedia editing has risks.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Adminship is a carrot for good behavior - but it isn't really the problem. No where do we advertise "Hey kids! Come edit and be an admin?" We encourage everyone to edit - and ambition and civic duty takes its own course from there. That doesn't stop them from wanting to become involved and respected at WP:RFAR as a commentator, at FAR, as a creator of lists, or whatever. Wikipedia is its own reward for plenty of people, adminship is just one of more commonly acknowledged cookies. You and I probably would agree on what warning to publish, disagree on its effectiveness, but you still havn't adequately addressed the behavior modification problem. Excluding minors by policy will only encourage minors to lie. Let them learn that lesson at college or the workplace, and not here.--Tznkai (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
So, they lie? Should we care? Better than us lying by pretending it is OK, and risk free, to edit as a minor. At least if they have to lie, they know they are doing something unhealthy. Indeed, if they are truthful and declare their age, they are at more risk from ill-intended people. Best they don't edit. But if they are going to do so, best they know it is a bad thing to do, and conceal their age. Banning minors would have the effect of sending the right signal.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Of all the dangers the world presents to children, Wikipedia is not exactly public enemy #1. As websites go, we're the town library of the global internet village. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
True, but not an excuse for us being irresponsible. Plus, we are a serious project that also impacts on living people outside the internet village. Our standards ought to be higher. What you are saying is that it is OK to let kids play with the wildcats because they are less dangerous that the lions that the zoo next door lets them play with.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think administrators should be adults and that users should be over 13, but for different reasons. Administrators should be adults based on experience and responsibility. Sure, some who are younger may seem more responsible, but from my knowledge even the most responsible child admin still gets into situations that adults probably wouldn't. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

your identity on Wikipedia is entirely effective, i.e. regardless of who you are in "real life", you will be judged by your actions (edits) exclusively. If you are a baboon acting like an academic, you will get the respect due to an academic. If you are an academic behaving like a baboon, you will get the respect due to a baboon. Nobody will ask you for pictures or proof of identity. On exactly the same terms, if you act like a grown-up, you get the treatment due to grown-ups, and if you act like a five-year-old, you will also be treated accordingly. Your "real age" is really perfectly irrelevant, and shouldn't even be at issue here. We are interested in people with an understanding of what an "encyclopedia" is, that's all. Such people will tend to have an education, and consequently will normally be above a certain age, but there will always be child prodigies and grown cretins, and the former will be made an admin while the latter will be slapped with a ban after a couple of warnings, no "real life" questions asked. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That would only be true if your real-identity was never revealed, and your wiki activities had no impact on the real world. But both are untrue. Wikipedia does not exist in another dimension from the real world. It can, and often does, impinge on people's real lives and can have longterm consequences on them. We should not be asking minors to perform a risk-assessment, which if they get wrong, could impact on them. Your response is a palpably false wikiality.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
We approved a 14-year-old admin not long ago, and he's more mature than I am. There are other minors who are also regulars here at WT:RFA, and they are similarly mature. The minors who have passed RFA in 2008 and 2009 are all exceptional people; we need them, and I get the sense that Wikipedia is an important part of who they are. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
No, we don't need them (although it looks like we are willing to exploit them). But maturity is not the principle reason I'd ban minors from editing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Wiki could also probably get by without its black or Muslim admins. But it wouldn't survive with a rule that black or Muslim admins are not welcome, nor would I want it to, and I feel the same way about 13- to 17-year-old admins; it's not reality-based ... these admins have caused no problems, to my knowledge, and certainly fewer problems than adult admins. I personally draw the line at 12, mainly because a number of important U.S. laws draw the line at 12, but that's been a moot point in 2008 and 2009, because I'm not aware of any RFAs for 12-year-olds that had any chance of passing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am unconvinced that this criticism or its originating argument is on point. Furthermore, why are we protecting minors and not everyone else? I've found the average 16 year old does less stupid things than the average 20 year old, and a lot of the 50 year olds I've met need to be kept away from any sort of social interaction for their own sake. Why draw the line at age of majority? That line has a lot more to do legal consequences than social responsibility, nevermind trying to find a consensus point between the prevailing English speaking cultures on how to treat minors. Oh. Should we treat an emancipated minor any different? More questions and problems than answers, and not a practical consequence in sight. This is a shakey principle to stand on, and hardly a tangible benefit from the lot.--Tznkai (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Why draw the line at age? Well, because all societies do. We have disallow people from buying tobacco or fireworks because of their age. Maybe requiring an IQ test before being allowed to buy cigarettes would make more sense - and it would also probably lead to lower tobacco sales - but that's not what is done. It is a perfectly respectable and logical things to say "this activity has risks, which are not suitable for children to take". People may find that unnecessary, bit it is not a particularly problematic principle. Now, of course, anti-smoking laws can be, and often are, circumvented. That doesn't make them crazy to have.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Tobacco leads to health issues. Fireworks can set a city on fire. Nothing on Wikipedia is irreversible. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't ask why age, I asked why the age of majority? Is editing Wikipedia a more less dangerous activity than donating blood, but equally significant as voting (U.S) Less risky than consenting to sex? At 14 you're criminally responsible for your actions, at 13 you can take part time employment, 16 you can enlist. Where does the risk of editing wikipedia fall on that scale? Why the age of majority? --Tznkai (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I must note that although I feel age should not be an acceptable criteria, when taking Bureaucratic action in closing an RfA, I do not discount or disqualify opposition statements that focus on age. But I will continue to argue in these debates that editors should be judged on their merits, accomplishments, activities and interactions within the confines of Wiki English. Demographic information should not be a factor. Kingturtle (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• More to the point, editing an online encyclopedia is in no way akin to driving a car. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  Because it's hard to libel someone with a car? --Ali'i 19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  Oh, I've seen plenty of libellous signs attached to vehicles. Useight (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  Well, that, and anyone can use the rollback feature. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be a determinant factor, but I disagree that it isn't a relevant factor. I would never oppose "per 15" and would discount (not discard) opposes based solely on age. But, I do think discarding relevent information can be a mistake. Take religion for example. Say a candidate identified themself as a Catholic on their talk page. Opposing a person based upon their religious views is rightly viewed as a bad thing. Now let's say that the person who identifies themself as Catholic is part of Wikiproject Catholicism and Wikiproject Saints. Again, opposing them based upon that would be wrong. Now let's say that same person who identifies themself as Catholic has made a few edits wherein they removed some questionable material critical information about the Pope and the Catholic Church. That is going to have me looking more closely at the persons contributions and asking if the edits were indicative of a POV pushing. I might view those edits a little differently knowing they were made by a Catholic than somebody whose religious beliefs I don't know. Similarly, if we know somebody is a minor, that does impact the way we view their edits. The Catholic editing Catholic articles needs to take extra effort to ensure their edits are NPOV... the minor needs to take extra efforts to make sure their edits are showing maturity.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I don't really see a problem with minors editing Wiki English. Sure, those under 15 or so can be highly immature, but 16 or 17 year olds are basically adults. I don't see how they magically become responsible the day they turn 18. One of the main reasons older teens have such a hard time is that they are expected to act like adults (Be responsible, mature etc) yet are not treated like adults. I don't know what Balloonman is talking about when he says minors find it hard to get work. Around here being a minor means your most likely to get work because you don't have to be paid the minimum wage. 16 year olds can have sex in my coutry—in fact they can have sex much younger, it's only enforced if they have sex with someone much older than them. Editing Wikipedia doesn't have anywhere near the consequences sex can have (Babies and STDs), so I think about 14 or 15+ is alright, unless they're clearly immature. Simply put, I odn't think anyone should oppose and RfA based solely on age, although sure, let it be a contributing factor if you like.--Patton^t/c 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you are citing something that I've said in the past, but could you reference the comment above, I don't know what Balloonman is talking about when he says minors find it hard to get work?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You said it late lat month in another age thread.--Patton^t/c 19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I could not help reminding The 40-Year-Old Virgin in this conversation.--Caspian blue 19:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
eh? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
eh? (I notice that you seem to like me so much recently). Having sex at 15~16 is not a measure of showing how a person is matured in present. In the sense, 40-Year-old virgins could never be accepted as adults.--Caspian blue 19:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Although I'm not sure what "I notice that you seem to like me so much recently" implies. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In colorado, where I used to manage a large box store that hired a lot of teens, we wouldn't hire somebody under the age of 16---despite the fact that you could do so legally and do so for a fraction of the cost. If you were under 16, you found it extremely difficult to find a job because of all of the rules/requirements related to the hours, length of job duration, and supervision expected for those under 16. 16 and 17 years olds didn't get discounts on minimum wage, thus their employability is contigent upon the state of the economy. I've heard it referred to as the McDonald's Index to the economy. If the economy is doing good, then the person serving your coffee at the drive through at McDonalds will be some teenager with braces. If the economy is in trouble, then the person serving your coffee at the drive through at McDonalds will be some 40 year old business executive. Most places, all other things the same, will generally hire a random adult over a random teenager.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The economy is doing terrible at the moment and someone I know lost their job at a supermarket to 2 teenagers who work part time.--Patton^t/c 19:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
We can talk anecodotal til we're blue in the face, I could bring in my experience as a Youth Minister or with Junior Achievement. But anecdotal evidence is nothing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in January 2008, The unemployment rate for teenagers (18.0 percent) was higher than that of other age groups. On March 10 2009, they wrote The jobless rate for teenagers was little changed from January at 21.6 percent as compared to the national average of 8.1%. That rate is about 2-4 times every other identified segment except blacks! Or how about the nice little graph on this page that shows a 30 year period where people 16-19 have ALWAYS had a 7-8% higher unemployment rate than those in the 20-24 age bracket. Those 20-24 have consistently had a 4-5% higher unemployment rates than those who are 25-34. And guess what, those 25-34 have consistently have had a 2-4% higher unemployment rate than those over 35! Over 35, there doesn't appear to be any consistency... but teenagers have consistently been unemployed at much higher rates (10+%) than people over the age of 34! A quick look into the facts will show the avalanche of research on the subject and the repeated conclusions that teenagers are the ones who have the hardest time finding jobs and are typically the first to be terminated. (Unemployment rates, it should be noted, are defined by those who are unemployed, but looking for a job.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Teenagers dont't need jobs. I never had a job at that age untill I was going on a school tour. Got a job to pay for it then gave it up :p--Patton^t/c
ergo, part of the reason teens have a harder time finding a job---they are unreliable. Companies don't want to train somebody who is going to quit after they make a magic number required for band camp. The thing to remember, about the statistics above, is they are not based upon the population as a whole, but rather defined as those who are unemployed but looking. My stay at home wife does not impact the unemployment numbers, nor does the high schooler too involved with extra curricular activities. Unemployment rates are only those who are actively looking for work. I was not speaking out of my arse, but the reality of the real world.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is not a country. Being an admin is not a big deal. I know this comment is brief, but it is to the point. Kingturtle (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoorah. Also, as a side, the legal age for criminal responsibility where I live is eight.  GARDEN  22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Now speaking of legal age for criminal responsibility, let's compare Wikipedia policies with the law. It is quite simple actually: you break the rules, you have a negative track record, along with other unpleasant things. Corresponds with the current situation over here. Now, most minors know that the law is not to be messed with and stay away from committing crimes. Over here, most minors also know that policies are not to be messed with (especially when you have been repeatedly warned and your name appears on the ANI multiple times) and keep away from policy breaches. You are now assuming that all minors do not have a sense of maturity and are sure to make unconstructive edits over here, be it immediately or at a later point of time. You don't think that such people don't have the sense to think before they act, do you? Chenzw  Talk  12:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

From the top of this users contributions:

1. 20:25, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OverlordQ 2 ‎ (→Oppose)
2. 20:25, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ged UK ‎ (→Oppose)
3. 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3 ‎ (→Oppose)
4. 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Al Ameer son ‎ (→Oppose)
5. 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vivio Testarossa 2 ‎ (→Oppose)
6. 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Someguy1221 ‎ (→Oppose)
7. 20:22, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mentifisto ‎ (→Oppose)
8. 20:21, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mentifisto ‎ (→Oppose)

All of the votes are the same comment:

Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 

Should these votes be allowed? I personally think they should be indented, the user is clearly making a point. iMatthew // talk // 1:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, DougsTech seems to be basically a vandal fighter when he's here. Month here, month there - lot's of AIV and reporting User names. Not what I'd call a regular or big content contributor, but I don't see anything wrong either - everyone is entitled to their opinion and !vote. Perhaps he's just not aware of how many admins are not active, and sees a "total" rather than who's actually doing the mopping up. Either way, I don't see a reason to strike a vote, I'm sure whoever closes will take the "whole" picture in perspective. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 02:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Honesty only bothers me in a rationale if the honesty itself is a blatant display of bias ("I never vote for Australians"), because that's an open invitation for others to join in the bias. There are a lot of voters who nearly always support, and none who nearly always oppose, so I don't think it does any harm. Maybe DougsTech can be persuaded to tell us why he doesn't want more admins. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with your opinion here, Dan; it's a legitimate opinion to be holding, though it's a shame when worthy candidates suffer because of it. Also, thanks for notifying the subject of this discussion when the original poster didn't have the class. GlassCobra 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Er, glass try to assume good faith, just because the original poster didn't notify the subject of the discussion doesn't mean that the original poster "didn't have the class." He may have forgotten or didn't think about it, it only lacks class if you assume the worse in motives.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Spartacus is right, I completely forgot. But thanks for the bad faith accusations Cobra. iMatthew // talk // 10:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I respect DougsTech's opinion, of course, but this seems rather WP:POINTy. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a pointy and rather lame rationale to oppose someone. Prima facie, anyone? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's very clear he hasn't even bothered to look at the candidate's qualifications, and for him to go on claiming that he's doing "what the community is looking for" is absolutely preposterous - if the community didn't want more admins, we'd have shut this down or you'd see a lot more opposes. With only one current RfA in the "danger zone" of less than 70%, I don't see how that's at all a justification for this sort of biased commenting. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
He's nothing but the next Kurt Weber. Look where that got Kurt. Let the 'crats decide, and stop giving him attention. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a legitimate reason to oppose. I don't agree with it, in fact I believe the opposite, but I'm not about to start indenting opinions I don't agree with just because I consider them wrong. Townlake (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Although there are many elements that help RfA function ... crats, attentive "regulars", well-wishers, coaches, etc. ... there are two groups that we absolutely can't do without, or RfA collapses in an instant: we have to have a steady supply of suitable candidates, and we have to have people who can oppose convincingly and not come off as dicks. About 75% of what makes RfA work doesn't happen at RfA ... it's the fact that people with dodgy pasts take one look at what happens at RfA and stay far, far away, and that will only continue to happen if there is solid, persuasive opposition on some kind of regular basis. But people rarely come off as brilliant opposition in their first opposes, so I really try to be friendly with new opposers rather than slapping them down. I think the history of RFA supports this approach; opposers tend to write better rationales with time, if given a chance. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
What I've learnt in the past few years here is that these people rarely seem as consistent and patient as Kurt was with his prima facie opposing. I suspect this !vote, like many before it, will die out soon enough. Just don't feed him. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's a legitimate, though inaccurate, reason to oppose. If Dougs believes we have too many admins (and he will not be alone in this) then the opportunity is for discussion as to why he believes this. In passing, I've generally felt that it's allways non-admins who seem to think we have too many administrators. Now this is, of course, interesting. It may be an element of self-preservation ("don't de-sysop me - we need more admins") or it may just be that admins look at the backlogs and struggle to agree that we have a surplus of people wielding the tools.... There is a difference, of course, between people with the tools and people using them but that's another thread. Pedro :  Chat  08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• That's a nonsense reason to oppose (not to mind being downright wrong) and I am sure the bureaucrats will give such !votes the appropriate weight. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• It's certainly an assertion for which statistics that can be easily found contradict. However, we've agreed on the open nature of the forum at RFA, about the freedom of comment that accompanies it; so, so be it. As Stifle says, we have the 'crats for a reason and they're wise enough to give DougsTech's remarks the weighting they require. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If supports based on the opinion that there "aren't enough administrators" are counted, why should this not be counted? Not everyone will agree, but it's a legit position to take. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is every opinion that you disagree with IMatthew to be discounted in this way? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Point is an abusive of a process. Making the same vote based on a philosophical view cannot be a point. Perhaps it is SOAP, but only so if they have it on their profile too. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We can all agree I think the !vote is POINTy and not constructive. I don't think there's any need to indent it, though; the crats are (I hope) intelligent people and will be able to see that these comments don't count for much. (I just noticed Anonymous Dissident saying the same thing above, too.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No, we can't all agree with that. And for the love of headcheese, can people stop using "POINT" and linking to WP:POINT, when in fact no disruption is taking place. It's the most overused/wrongly used shortcut on Wiki English. I have two-thirds a mind to go RfD that bitch. Smiles! Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, stricken and changed "all agree"...my fault for not having read the whole discussion before commenting. Anyway, I still think it's pointy (sorry, can't think of another way to put it)—he's not voting on whether so-and-so would make a good admin, but whether there should be admins at all...and specific people's RfAs aren't really the place to be voting on that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong. It may be that's he's trying to make or prove a point. However, there is a difference between "making a point" and "making a POINT" (as some people would say). --Ali'i 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. And another non-POINT point: newbie opposers are the least likely people on Wikipedia to get love, and the people whose absence would make the whole thing collapse in rubble the fastest (assuming they hang around and get smarter and more dedicated to the process). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No, he is not voting on "whether there should be admins at all". If you read what he actually said, you'll see that his position is that there are too many admins, something I happen to agree with. The opposite of "too many" is not "none". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, voting on "whether there should be more admins". Better? Now feel free to talk about the substance of something rather than looking for things to nitpick over. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If you think that clear thinking and an honest appraisal of your opponent's argument is "nitpicking", then I'm afraid that I have nothing more to say to you except that I find that attitude to be offensive. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok then. Please forgive me if I don't get too worked up over being called "offensive" by someone who has been blocked numerous times for incivility. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is less about the specifics of this vote (it's not a popular opinion, but it's far from completely delusional); and more about making blanket votes across all active RfAs pushing the same point - while it isn't quite the classic "WP:POINT", it is bordering on being disruptive to get attention for your view. An opinion like "We have too many administrators" the more specific thing that DougsTech seems to be getting at "We should remove old administrators before voting in new ones" is something that should be probably raised on a policy level (whether it's here, or at the village pump, or via an RFC) rather than by making specific votes on RfAs. For better or worse, an RfA kind of needs to be an assessment of an individual candidate's suitability, and I don't think it's very helpful to oppose based on a policy point that particular candidate simply cannot change. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I was tring to say, only you've worded it better. !votes like this are votes for or against a policy, not for or against a candidate.
I remember during the Arbcom elections there was someone opposing every single candidate with a rationale like "Arbcom is a farce and needs to be gotten rid of." Does anyone remember if a consensus was reached about that person's voting? It might be relevant here as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the other non-RFA edits concern me, such as issuing a 4im vandalism warning for an edit that really doesn't look like much of vandalism, let alone the need for a 4im warning. MuZemike 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech got blocked 72 hours once in August 8, 2008 by User:Hersfold for "repeated abuse of scripts and circumvention of preventative action". I'm not sure what constitutes as "abuse of scripts" but issuing 4im looks like it's along the same line (except this one is abuse of templates). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The bureaucrats aren't stupid, and when Doug is the only user opposing a certain editor, or even if he isn't, they won't take his comments into consideration, considering all of its rebuttals. If you're still concerned, perhaps the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard is a better place to discuss it than here. Jd027^talk 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that only works on the assumption that the comments made by him are invalid. Commenting at RfA isn't like a private members bill; you don't need to get a certain number of "per" votes for your comment to be considered valid. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the bureaucrats weight comments appropriately, the key word being appropriately, and that even though he can oppose on any merry grounds he likes, in practice, his comments aren't going to make or break anyone's RfA. Jd027^talk 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. People that oppose my vote do not seem to really be opposing what I am saying, but rather how I am saying it. Remember, it is not your job to decide consensus (unless you are a bureaucrat.) --DougsTech (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, for the record, I oppose both the way you're carrying out your vote, and your reasoning behind it, but it's still your choice to make that vote. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid Dougs I am "opposing" what you are saying, not the way you are saying it. Perhaps you can bring this conversation back on track by demonstrating exactly why there are "too many administrators". Evidence would give more weight to your comments. Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Too many admins. You as an admin should know how to find this. You should also read what I have typed above and in various places. DougsTech (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No Dougs. You should back up your comments with evidence not vague "look above" (I read above - there's nothing demonstrating your reasoning at all ) or "look in other places" remarks if you want people to take your comments seriously. I can only assume that as you can't be bothered to give the community the benefit of your wisdom as to why there are too many admins it's because you don't actually have any evidence. Pedro :  Chat  22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Wow, Doug, that's helpful. "Why are there too many admins?" "Because there are too many." rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ha, yeah. If pedro had bothered to do ANY research into the situation he would have seen the comments on my talk page. I will make it a LITTLE easier for him and post them here. And that will also be the last I will discuss of this. Bottom line is, some people don't like my votes or opinion...but is completely compliant with official policy. "Perhaps not that it would function better with fewer, but that it would function worse with more. I have witnessed one admin's hesitation to block a user because it was not a BLATANT violation of policy...and another admin would come along and block the user anyway. Simply put - admins are like "judges", they interpret the rules and policies. Too many judges, and there are likely to be situations where one admin assumes WP:AGF, and another admin assumes bad faith. The AGF admin would warn and not block, and the ABF admin would block. Put it this way - There are 9 supreme court justices for a US population of over 300,000,000." DougsTech (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
And all the lesser courts suddenly disappear? Cheers. I'^mperator 22:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Supreme court justices compare, very very roughly to something like ArbCom, or maybe Jimbo. Not admins. Poor analogy. --GedUK  22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, saw that this morning on your talk Dougs, but I dismissed it out of hand as not relevant. Nice assumption of good faith by the way. What on earth has a "supreme court justice" got to do with Wikipedia? Many editors invited you to expand on your rationale, yet instead have you have acted like a petulant child. Shame. A lot of editors have sympathy with your point of view, that there are too many admins - yet you've managed to undermine your own argument not support it. Pedro :  Chat  22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin who merely reviews the requests and rarely actually votes, I honestly don't care about DougsTech's votes, and I don't think others really should argue it there. The problem is the attempts to argue about that on the requests page, where it is clearly irrelevant there. DougsTech, could you try to force the issue outside of the requests page? I know it's not your responsibility to stop others from posting there but I think it would be more productive for everyone that way. Simply add "and go to my talk page (or this page or wherever) if people want to argue it" or something. I feel bad for the people requesting adminship when their RFA go off into tangents like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and is it really any less POINTy than someone who says "oppose because doesn't meet standards in my user space"? Those sometimes are equally impersonal (1 FA, 3 GAs, 3000 edits, etc.) and is that really checking qualfications? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, but who is saying such opposes are acceptable? Majorly talk 23:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps all of these kinds of discussions could be brought to an end if it were possible to state categorically what the accepted standard for becoming an administrator actually is. Right now it seems to be little more than "I've made lots of friends, I haven't upset anyone, I've served my time at AfD, I've made sure that my last 1,000 edits were done manually, and it's three months since my last RfA." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dougs, the guys do at least have an argument (and it would be up to ArbCom, not any of us, whether it's a good argument) that if you oppose every single candidate and say "too many admins", that that's worth a ban from RFA. The argument would probably go: the CIVILITY policy says you'll get in trouble if you tell every RFA candidate "I hate you, and no I don't have to have a reason, I just hate you". Well, I don't know if denying someone a mop does actual harm, but it does more harm than calling them bad names, so if you'd get RFA-banned for one, why wouldn't you get RFA-banned for the other? I don't know if that would fly, but maybe you see now why people are a little uncomfortable with the idea that "there's nothing they can do about it" ... there actually might be, depending on how you explain yourself and whether it's consistent and how long it goes on. And guys ... RFA-newbies are just as confused by RFA as WP-newbies are confused by WP. Please don't bite; he's probably not here to destroy us all. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Malleus: What you're suggesting is pretty much impossible :) Majorly talk 23:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Impossible, maybe, Unworkable, likely, Controversial certainly. But I agree mostly with Malleus' comment - however this seems to be for another thread.... Pedro :  Chat  23:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I realise that. It was just, y'know, a dream. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I've read the thread a couple of times and still can't see why DougsTech's !votes are a problem. People are welcome to oppose or support for whatever reason they like, provided they don't engage in personal attacks, introduce obvious falsehoods or similar. An !vote with limited rationale, or one that appears to be replicated across many RfA's without reference to the particular candidate, might' be given less weight by the closing bureaucrat compared to a specific and well-documented one. A broad-brush !vote with limited attached detail is also unlikely to sway many others, so will probably have little effect on the overall RfA outcome. But there's no reason why either of these reasons should stop someone making such a !vote. "Oppose, too many admins" is the same as "Support per nom" - its someone's opinion, they're entitled to it, it will be given appropriate weight in deciding the outcome. For what its worth I don't agree with DougsTech, but his posts are neither "point-y" nor unreasonable as a personal view. Euryalus (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
And per Danks55's comment above, I'd argue "Oppose because I hate you" is a personal attack, while "oppose because the large number of current admins can lead to contradictory responses to situations" is a general point of view and not a criticism of any current admin. Euryalus (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No-one is really saying Dougs can't make these comments - he is more than entitled to - but if he wants them to have any actual effect he would do well to justify his statements with some research and proof. Until then he may as well state "Oppose - because the sky is not polkadot". This is the issue this thread (used to be) concerned with. Pedro :  Chat  23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
And, as an aside, if Dougs' reasoning is indeed that "the large number of current admins can lead to contradictory responses to situations" (which does seem to be a very accurate summary by Euryalus), then I propose that we block all account registrations on the basis that with ever more editors we get more and more diverse and contradictory views. Pedro :  Chat  23:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

One week ago today, I got on at around 15:00 UTC. There were twenty-two outstanding requests on WP:AIV, and all but three were blatantly obvious, needing almost no thought before implementing a block. It is not uncommon for six or seven of these likewise obvious reports to pile up, and CAT:CSD routinely reaches 150+ pages. Yes, we definitely have too many admins... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So they were easily dealt with, no big deal. Where were the other 1,500 or so administrators while you were toiling away? What's the advantage in having another one who isn't there either? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with J.Delanoy. The problems of occasional inconsistent decisions caused by two admins responding to the one issue, are less than the problems caused by not enough people to respond to outstanding tasks. There are many mechanisms for people to seek a second opinion on specific admin actions, especially if they are inconsistent with the commnon approach. By contrast the only mechanism to deal with too few admins to respond to vandals and nonsense pages, is more admins. But thats just my view, others are welcome to theirs. Euryalus (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
A slightly off-topic response to Malleus Fatuorum - a totally amateur analysis of admin activity suggests almost everyone who becomes an admin is pretty active in the months immediately after their RfA, after which there is natural attrition. Some return solely to daily editing, others specialise in one particular admin role, many simply stop editing Wikipedia or reduce their involvement over time. This is exactly the same, and for exactly the same reasons, as other editors. Hardly anyone who was an editor in 2003 is here today as sprightly and busy as they were back then. So surely new admins are needed to replace those that move on, just as new editors are needed to keep the overall encyclopedia growing? Where were the 1500 other admins when J.Delanoy logged on the other day? Doing something else, like the millions of other people who have edited Wikipedia at some point in time but aren't logged in at this moment. Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
We don't have 1,500 admins; we have 400–800 active admins, depending on what you consider "active". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
How many admin are needed for AIV? How many instead hang out at IRC or ANI instead of doing anything major? Adding more admin wont fix the problem. Culling the over population now and letting people know that if they don't use their tools in needed areas and instead waste away causing drama that they will be desysopped. Don't feed the already obese system. Starve it until it corrects itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you prepared to name the overpopulation? bibliomaniac15 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
We could start here. As jdelanoy stated, there is a need at AIV and yet you are busy making responses in a random forum. You were granted the tools because the community had a need and trusted you to use them properly. If you were doing so, as with most admin here, they wouldn't have time to be chit chatting. A backlog? Yet where do we find all of the free time to hold such discussions? Come on. If you want to claim there isn't a glut don't sit around like this. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, J. Delanoy was giving an example about the past. AIV only has two entries right now, there's not a backlog. And bibliomaniac is doing a lot more right now than just commenting on this thread. I think you're just trolling. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If there is no backlog now, then jdelanoy's point fails. If there is one, then my critique of the administrators here justifies that their responding shows that administrators are not doing their job. Either way, it only proves that we don't need more admin. It is nice to be right regardless of what is true or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It is nice to watch you say such ridiculous things so I can wait for someone else to come call you out. I'm gonna go have ice cream. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, Ottava, but not all admins must work at AIV and other backlogs every single minute of free time that they have on the wiki. Maybe they're just popping in, like Biblio might have been doing above. Xclamation point 02:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I've never used IRC and haven't posted on AN/I for months, plus I regularly help out at AIV. So I'm glad I'll survive your obesity cull. I think you're confusing admins with paid employees - no one, not admins, not editors, not wikignomes is compelled to do anything here. People contribute however and as often as they feel like. Over time even the most prolific editor will slacken off, perhaps cease edting altogether. the same with admins, which is why new ones are routinely needed to replace the others. I also this thread has moved away from DougsTech's !votes and on to other topics, so I'll leave it here. Euryalus (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Simply put, if you don't want to do the job for free, resign. If you are spending your time not working in areas that are backlogged but instead hanging out at places like this, then you aren't using your admin authority. Once the glut leaves, then we can start bringing in new people. To do otherwise will only make it seem like having adminship without cleaning up backlogs is acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Great. It is acceptable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
So, in summary your argument is that we need more administrators who don't do any administrative work. Doesn't that strike you as even a little bit illogical? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I never said anywhere in this thread whether I think we need more or less administrators. I would have thought such a good nitpicker as yourself would have noticed that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks. Try to address the argument, not the editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Wait. who said we were arguing? I was just voting on some RfAs ;) --DougsTech (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
!voting. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If there is no backlog now, then then Ottava's critique of the administrators here that administrators are not doing their job fails. If there is one, jdelanoy's point is vindicated. Either way, it only proves that we need more admins. Sorry, couldn't resist. Everyone, get back to work already. :) - Mailer Diablo 05:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, when Wikipedia starts paying admins a salary, then and only then can people complain about "not doing their job." This is, last time I checked, a volunteer project. Volunteer projects are dependent upon people volunteering their time, and people will do so where and how they want. Speaking of which, you are a content builder, what are you doing here and not working on an FAC? There are a lot more garbage articles out there that should be FA's than there are items on any backlog! Volunteers are needed in ALL facets of the community. And how ever, where ever somebody contributes is up to them. An admin who only uses his tools sporatically is still serving a purpose on a volunteer project.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me like saying "we shouldn't have more police officers because there's enough of them already." Wikipedia is a growing community, much like your average city, and as such, promotes "crime" in the form of vandalism, which may or may not escalate in the future. Also, there are some administrators too busy with their own life to patrol actively, thus limiting the effectiveness of having 1000+ administrators. As others have said before me, everyone is entitled to their own vote, but I think that the votes should be based on the user's ability, not on something the user has no choice in. All else I can say is, I hope that he doesn't want to become an administrator in the future, in case someone counts this against him.--Iner22 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Is all this relevant to RFA?

• This whole discussion makes me sick. The point of noting that Wikipedia editors and admins aren't paid isn't to suggest that people should suck it up or leave--it is the exact opposite. We rely on free labor, so we should build a community around the premise that what causes free labor to leave should be discouraged. Votes like the one above are reasonable...within limits. It's a perfectly reasonable point of view to say that there are too many admins on wikipedia. That could be debated by reasonable people. It is also reasonable to say that because there are too many admins, one more either isn't necessary or will be a net negative. That can be debated by reasonable people. It becomes unreasonable when it is applied indiscriminately to RfA after RfA--while I can be convinced that we shouldn't be promoting marginal candidates due to some alleged admin surplus, that isn't a reason to refuse to promote an excellent admin candidate. It is also isn't necessary to invoke a reason like that to refuse to promote a sub-marginal candidate. Application of that vote to every single RfA (not saying that dougstech is doing that yet, just posing some limit) sours the process and forces good people out. Prima facia opposes over recall pledges and cooldown blocks make the environment at RfA worse than it already is. We should strive to ignore those votes if possible, admonish those who persist in making them and if recalcitrance places us in extremis, we should be willing to escalate matters. Getting into a discussion over whether or nor there are enough administrators as a result of the vote is more than pointless--it is needlessly destructive. Protonk (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and let's throw in the forumshopping angle too, with a twist. People who have been around have seen lots of forum-shopping and know what it is, but maybe haven't made the connection to WT:RFA. At ArbCom, people talk about bad admin behavior all the time, and they do hold many of the arguments that many of you are making in high regard ... for instance, it does make a big difference whether an admin spends their time improving the project or whether the admin spends all day chatting and not getting things done. The problem with bringing this up at WT:RFA is that it's impossible to know (both in theory and in practice) who's going to turn out to be a super-productive admin and who's a month away from leaving. Since it's a problem we can't solve at RFA, it's forum-shopping to bring all that anxiety here and dump it on us ... take it somewhere where it will do some good, people. The "twist" is ... maybe people are onto something, after all. We talk a lot about recall, and recall roughly speaking has to mean one of two things: triggering a reconfirmation RfA, or triggering a trip to ArbCom. Kingturtle and some others feel strongly that reconfirmation RfAs won't work at all. So maybe people who are saying "admins ought to be more productive, and I think that has something to do with RFA" are right after all ... maybe in limited cases for limited times, we should be setting up criteria so that if the admin doesn't perform, it triggers a trip to ArbCom? Is that what people were thinking, and how would that work out? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Followup ... after getting feedback ... hot damn, I think we're converging on a solution. Back soon. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• You know what makes me sick? The fact that a few meazly oppose !votes actually led to a big, long RfA talk discussion, when that time could have been better put to use for something more constructive - and dare I say, more interesting. ;) Master&Expert (Talk) 05:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion to allow candidates to make statements on the 4th day of an RFA that ArbCom will probably consider enforceable; I know there's a lot to read because people are going to argue about unintended consequences, and we have to have these arguments, but there's no need to keep up with the arguments because no one really has a crystal ball, and we'll find out on the 4th days of RFAs whether this is working or not. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's really no point in sitting around here discussing this !vote that's not going to make or break anyone's RfA, but if it's really that much of a concern, here's an easy solution: someone go around to each RfA and post a support containing the comment "Not enough administrators." Jd027 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say this: are you out of your minds? These votes should be removed and the user blocked for pointmaking! Post haste! To say we have too many admins is either a) a bad faith attack on administratorship or b) a concern that does not belong here. Why is this even under discusion?--Ipatrol (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the lack of administrators (or lack of a lack) is not something for talk:RfA? Where would you suggest we take it, then? Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that the 'crat shouldn't take such a !vote into account if it is the deciding one. I don't know what Doug is up to, but I think it's violating WP:POINT. We're not trying to create an exclusive Patrician class. We could use all the help we can get from qualified candidates. This blanket rejection of all candidates and when asked for an explanation and getting this is nonconstructive. Perhaps Jd027's proposal to cancel out any of Doug's "too many administrators" opposes with "not enough administrators" supports would work, but then that may take away from a legitimate reasoned support vote (though a support vote doesn't need a reason as an oppose SHOULD have) Valley2city^‽ 02:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When someone added a support to your RfA without a reason, you didn't object to it, did you? The policy does not state that anyone must give a reason to oppose. The policy also states that ANY user is free to express his opinion. I think people may be angry that I am opposing their friend's RfAs, and making a ton of noise about it. When actually, it is well within policy. DougsTech (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Because it is much more acceptable to have a support without reason than an oppose without reason. "it is generally regarded as poor form not to explain the rationale behind the opposition as it does not give an administrator nominee useful feedback" -WP:GRFA. You may be within your rights to oppose the way you do, but do you think anyone is currently taking your !vote seriously? There seems to be near unanimous opposition to what your doing as you can probably see from everyone's comments Valley2city^‽ 03:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
When you support, you assert that you agree with the nomination; as such, support is the default position. When you oppose, you are expected to provide a comprehensive and thorough rationale. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This whole discussion reminds me of our old friend Kurt. There is no need to indent DougsTech's !vote. I trust the closing bureaucrat to take account of DougsTech's !vote appropriately. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
He does this for the drama. It is a loop-hole in the system, and he is exploiting it. I can see that Dougs is intelligent. He knows that no Crat will ever pay attention to his negative "vote" because of the carte blanche disapproval of anyone becoming an admin. Therefore a reasonable and prudent person could only surmise it is solely for his own amusement. However, it has now become a me against the world fight for him so the only solution (save him !voting negative on every RfA from now until Kingdom Come) is a policy change which will never happen. The whole situation is sickening. That's my opinion.--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$}  05:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Your comments appear to be inconsistent hyperbole. If you're so confident that bureaucrats will ignore DougsTech vote then what harm is done? What makes it "sickening" in your eyes? That DougsTech doesn't agree with your point of view? That's not sickening, it's intolerant. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for not being clearer... I meant the fact that we have this loooonnnnng discussion over something trivial is sickening (despite that I am still feeding in to it). Just curious, though; what's inconsistent about my statement? And there doesn't seem to be any unrealistic and extravagant exaggeration to make my point as a hyperbole would suggest. And as far as the weight that the Crats will give to his negative-as-a-policy-statement !vote, it seems that my opinion and that of the community seems to be on point. My logic is fairly clear.--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$}  01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I note that a closing bureaucrat, Bibliomaniac15 has weighed in on the issue in closing an RFA yesterday. See: Wiki: Requests for adminship/Smith609.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC) -- Source diff from the RFA: [2]

  "As a result I carefully examined the oppose and neutral !votes. Disturbingly, several users saw it fit to oppose because of the "lack of a need for the tools." This should not be so; an oppose of this sort is so vague as to offer no constructive criticism to the candidate, nor does it indicate a serious concern in the user's ability or conduct. Votes based on too many admins were immediately thrown out, of course."

• • Good to see a bureaucrat using their brain and not their calculator. Majorly talk 03:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • I applaud, bibliomaniac for making that decision, meaningless !votes should be treated as such.--Giants27 ^T/C 03:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Of course he threw them out, did anyone here expect him to take them into account when making the decision? He is an admin himself, so of course he doesn't care for my vote. As I have said in the past, admins stick together. But that will not stop me from opposing them, we are all invited to express our opinion by the RfA.DougsTech (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I thought your whole problem with there being too many admins is that they work at cross purposes, contradict each other and deliver inconsistent results. Now you're saying they just back each other up all the time. You can't have it both ways, Doug. Reyk _YO! 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
          • He threw it out because it isn't a valid !vote. Surely if the rule is "admins promote other people, because they are all working in a little cabalesque club" they'd promote everyone when they could reasonably justify it. Your logic is faulty; "admins stick together" would be a fine theory, yes, but at the time Biblio made his decision the candidate wasn't an admin. It would be like saying "oh, well of course X is going to help Y become a member of the Alpine Club; they're both Alpine Club members you see, they always stick together". Ironholds (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
            • (EC) DougsTech, I threw out your vote because it had nothing to do with the actual conduct or ability of the user. You have not managed to show why the users in question would be bad admins in the multiple RFAs I have closed in which you have blanket opposed. Quite frankly, that's disrespectful to the people who have submitted themselves for fair consideration by the community. I also disagree heavily with your oppose in that one, you have contradicted yourself as Reyk pointed out, and two, Category:Administrative backlog. From someone who does have the ability to judge your oppose and judge consensus, let me make it clear that your opinion will be discounted until you find a better, individualized reason to oppose. bibliomaniac15 05:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
              • If the vote is going to be discounted, can they just be removed? We need to be more firm about stopping nonsense seep into RFAs. We put up with it for too long with Kurt Weber. Let's nip it in the bud. Majorly talk 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The RfA record to date for DougsTech shows zero supports and all opposes (including the unparsed one in the link). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• • What a negative individual. Majorly talk 14:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, if my votes are to be removed, then you need to find some "nonsense" support votes to remove. Each oppose has an explanation of the users opinion...most support do not. I don't mind if a bureaucrat does not agree with me, I don't expect him to. He is an admin, and he is adding another admin to be on his side. What about this, I will oppose using this explination "Oppose per too many administrators, this user could only add to the chaos that takes place by the admins. Remove some admins before new ones are added" That seems good enough, even though my current oppose is fine.DougsTech (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The part of your argument that I question is this: if admins are trying to be some sort of power-wielding cabal, wouldn't we want to actually have fewer of us? That way we could keep the power concentrated in a very tight-knit group. The fewer there were of us, the more power we could each individually wield; therefore, you could support by the same theory, that the power needs to be distributed into more hands for the sake of checks and balances. A "when everyone's an admin, nobody is" of sorts. Useight (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No, your "argument" is totally nonsensical, and has no place whatsoever on RFA. Majorly talk 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Here you didn't provide an explanation at all. These admins get mad when someone opposes and give a reason that they don't agree with, but don't say anything to those who support with a nonsense or no reason at all. DougsTech (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Typically, supports without explanations are considered to be a shorthand of "Support. I agree with the nomination." I'm not a big fan of them either, but they're a lot better than opposes that don't include a reason. That's why I always include a candidate-specific explanation (if you'd like to look, they're all here), and everyone is suggesting you do the same. Useight (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one's thought of WP:DNFT. --Philcha (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem with WP:DNFT is that it assumes the troll can do no actual harm if you ignore him; unless all the crats who are closing RFAs sign on to the idea that DougsTech's vote doesn't count with the current rationale, Dougstech can sink your RFA. And even if the crats did sign on, DougTech could twiddle the rationale until they did buy it, without having any change of heart. I understand that this is a tough issue; maybe it will get simpler if we agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere ... if someone's rationale was always "Running for RFA is a sign of power-hunger, so I oppose", then a topic-ban from RFA would be appropriate, probably. So ... where do we draw the line, and which side of that line is DougsTech on? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
We draw the line at someone giving a bullshit !vote with zero evidence to back it up other than "I just think so". Clearly, he's an opinion of one against at least a dozen dissenters above (and that's just who wandered into this argument). He's past the line; I don't know where Wikipedia RfA decided that "anything goes". This is a clearly inappropriate !vote by someone who is clearly ignorant about how Wikipedia actually works. Like Dan said, his argument can tank an RfA - I've seen as ridiculous shit happen many times before. Someone will misquote a candidate - or take something totally out of context - and call it "uncivil". Then ten other people who don't bother to research the candidate at all (kind of like DougTech) jump on that bandwagon, citing, "oppose per X. I don't like uncivil people." Enough. Enough. We need to remove the bullshit from Wikipedia before it irrevocably tips the project into the abyss of any other barely credible knowledge site. Will we let reason rule the day, or allow misguided and ignorant editors to cause the disruption that is clear here? Tan | 39 02:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally arbitrary break

What surprises me is all of the sound and fury generated by one editor's oppose vote based on a belief that there are too many administators. Surely everyone's entitled to their opinion, even those people you don't agree with? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
So, then Malleus, I can oppose because an editor is Black? Gay? Straight? Left Wing? American? Actually that's a good reason. People are entitled to their opinion but certain opinions are not acceptable. I have no doubt you will throw back some clever words at me, but, frankly I don't care mate. Some people ^[who?] think that God Hates America beacuse homosexuals fight in their armed forces (to pick an example). Some people ^[who?] think that child pronography is acceptable as nudity should not be something to be ashamed of.
Malleus, you really need to wise up, get of the idealism horse, and learn that the right to epxress an opinion is not actually as cast in stone as you think. Certain opinions are not welcome - whether the context be Wikipedia or real life. And the opinoin of Dougs Tech, grounded as it is in fantasy, hatred of authority or whatever (but not grounded in fact) comes under the blanket "not an acceptable opinion" rule for me.Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, so far as I'm concerned you're entitled to oppose on whatever grounds you like, and that includes sexual orientation, political tendencies, or nationality. I likely wouldn't agree with you if you did, but neither would I try to suppress your opinion, or your right to express it. You may call that idealism if you wish, but I call it respect for the views of others. Racist arguments, for instance, need to be dealt with openly, honestly, and rationally, not by suppression.

However, what's being discussed here is nothing like as significant as racism; it's just one editor's opinion that there are too many administrators, and to conflate that with child pornography really does take the biscuit. Anyway, who appointed you, Pedro, as the judge and jury of which opinions are acceptable and which aren't? You may think of me as a hopeless idealist, but I have to say that I now think of you as a rather unappealing fascist. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I admit that many sticks held together will not break as easily as a few on their own. But I still find your argument that "everyone's entitled to their opinion" laughable. I thought you knew Malleus that we are not, in fact, entitled to express an opinion here. Shame you're getting flamed here and at Wikipedia Review isn't it? Perhaps not calling people fascists would be a start? Perhaps stopping demoaning the "children at RFA" whilst acting like a petulant 5 year old would also help? Any how, as the sub header of this thread indicates, this really has nothing to do with RFA. Pedro :  Chat  21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
What an extraordinary outburst. BTW, what does "demoaning" mean? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so you've come down to typos as an argument - classy - didn't I see the same thing from you on WR when you were baiting Majorly over there recently? Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
You've been close to meltdown for some time now Pedro, as others have noted. Time for you to take a break and regain some perspective? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ready when you are. Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

← I think it would be best if you removed my name from that list, because I am of the opinion that for the last six months or so you've been acting like a complete dick. I don't think you've realised that yet though, which is why I'd recommend a break. In any event I have no faith in the recall process, and not much more in you. Please feel free to have the last word; I've said all that I intend to say on the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is all of the above discussion really relevant to RfA? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Malleus, you have my last word. [3] Even if you think recall is bust, I don't. If I've been acting like a dick then best I take a break. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the point of that? You can just ask for it back again whenever your temper improves. Deeply unimpressive. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
For gods sake Malleus. Just step away for once. Synergy 22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, thats one less. More admins should do the same. I wonder how long before he wants it back. Either way, I think he should go through a new RfA to get it back. This is definitely a step in the right direction. --DougsTech (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, one less person to delete articles that are pure personal attacks, causing hurt, taunting, classroom bullying etc. at 08:00 tomorrow. Good news all round I guess..... Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If you were actually doing those things, you wouldn't have time to be here arguing. DougsTech (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, lucky for you, but bad news for the recipients of attack pages I'm now free of admin rights, so I can spend my time here instead. And thanks for disregarding my 8000 uncontested deletions Dougs. Cheers for that. Pedro :  Chat  23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, why has no one done anything about this blatantly obvious troll? Which real editor starts off their wikilife playing on huggle? Majorly talk 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
DougsTech, I suggest you rethink that comment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It follows my opinion of their being too many admins. He seems obviously confrontational, and instead of using any valid policy, he is arguing over another editors opinion. Admins should remain neutral in discussions concerning admins. Instead they jump in and back each other up. Sadly, the only way to stop this kind of behavior is by limiting the number of admins on the system. --DougsTech (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you point to an example of Pedro being confrontational or "arguing over another editor's opinion"? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)To be fair, I could probably find loads :) Mallues is right that I've been on the edge for months now. I think the points here are 1) this is well off topic 2) Dougs' "too many admins" line is mantra that he has totally failed to back up with proof (despite multiple requests) Pedro :  Chat  23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Again I will copy and paste this to you, Pedro. Please read it and try to comprehend. This will be the THIRD time i have explained the reasoning behind my !votes. You can continue to say that I am voting without explanation, and you will still be totally wrong. "Ha, yeah. If pedro had bothered to do ANY research into the situation he would have seen the comments on my talk page. I will make it a LITTLE easier for him and post them here. And that will also be the last I will discuss of this. Bottom line is, some people don't like my votes or opinion...but is completely compliant with official policy. "Perhaps not that it would function better with fewer, but that it would function worse with more. I have witnessed one admin's hesitation to block a user because it was not a BLATANT violation of policy...and another admin would come along and block the user anyway. Simply put - admins are like "judges", they interpret the rules and policies. Too many judges, and there are likely to be situations where one admin assumes WP:AGF, and another admin assumes bad faith. The AGF admin would warn and not block, and the ABF admin would block. Put it this way - There are 9 supreme court justices for a US population of over 300,000,000." --DougsTech (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
As you've said yourself, this is the third time you've talked about your reason. Unfortunately for that, other users have already commented on the false analogy with the judges as well as the apparent contradiction between admins sticking up for each other and admins contradicting each other. Besides, the number of justices in the supreme court is rather arbitrary. Seven would work just fine, as well as eleven. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"Seven would work just fine, as well as eleven." That is pure openion, we are all free to express it, as you just have. --DougsTech (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That argument has already been dismantled. If you want to make a comparison to the supreme court your best choice would be comparing arbcom to it. But how many state, federal district or appellate judges are there in the US for the population of 300 mil? Nableezy (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That argument is totally valid. We don't have many different levels like that. We only have one group of admins. --DougsTech (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Participating in this discussion. Wow this is getting old. People need to move on. I cant tell weather its good or bad that my few opposing votes have created such a huge discussion. Certainly hope more people oppose on the same grouns of the number of admins being too high. --DougsTech (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see Pedro being "argumentative" or "confrontational" in this thread: I mainly see him disagreeing with you. I should also note that while you continue to cast your oppose votes with your current rationale, discussions regarding said votes and rationale will continue both here and on your talk page; simply stating "this is getting old" and "People need to move on" won't end these discussions. Acalamari 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
So admins are not allowed to express opinions any more? That isn't how it works. Any admin is entitled to voice his view in situations like this one. If they were to become involved and then use their tools, that would be a different situation. Please stop twisting things to suit your opinion (or one of your opinions, anyway; I forget if you have managed to reconcile the hypocrisy in your statements here and the oppose votes that actually started things off). Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of this conversation, first it starts with a terrific admin stepping down, then it ends with a (to avoid breaking WP:NPA, I'm making this a ENTER WORD HERE space), calling him "argumentative" and "confrontational", nice job DougsTech, everyone takes issure with your stupid !vote and you have to realize, hey maybe I should stop !voting that way and make individual votes, but I guess not.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

←Someone was just weighing in on this in an irc channel, and it occurred to me that DougsTech either has a good-faith position, which is possible, or else he's a very, very clever troll, because he's managed to position himself very, very close to the dividing line for what would constitute bannable behavior ... close enough that there's guaranteed to be a lot of shouting from both directions (I got an earful in irc). In either case, the solution is to argue intelligently about where to draw the topic-ban line in general, and then figure out which side of it Dougs is on. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• My $0.02. I think most of us agree that DougsTech's opposes are unfair. However, we've gotten to the point where we all sound like a bunch of broken records. This has been discussed for weeks, and I honestly don't see what good further discussion will do. User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA applies, in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• The issue isn't "unfair" vs "fair". Who's to be the judge of that? It's simply about the supression of unpopular opinions. I'm somewhat sympathetic to DougTech's basic premise, but I think that he presents his case unhelpfully. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I am inclined to disagree. I mean, I don't think heaping abuse for the situation is warranted, but on the other hand, I think that there is correctly a level of presupposed premises involved in an RFA. One of them is that, by having RFA, we are saying we are open to more administrators. A vote that denies the premises of RFA is not one that I would expect a bureaucrat to take seriously. He's welcome to his opinion. But on the other hand, by positioning himself actively outside of the consensus view on the subject, he gives up a fair share of his claim to be contributing to the consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think that argument stacks up. Companies have personnel departments. They wouldn't have them unless they wanted people to apply for jobs. Wikipedia has RfA. It wouldn't have it unless it wanted people to apply for adminship. You attribute too much intelligence to the self-serving machine. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I must disagree, as well. RfA is to determine if we can trust an individual candidate with the tools. Unrelated discussion, such as whether or not we need more sysops, is irrelevant in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

An honest question

An honest question if I may for DougsTech: Isn't it possible that administrators back each other up not because they are cabalistic, but because they trust each other to do the right thing? Or that they have actually balanced the rights and the wrongs of another person's [administrator's] actions and not found them wanting? There are obviously many things on Wikipedia that are not done with controversy, but when someone generally acts sensibly, they are !promoted to administratorship. Is it too much to trust that they will continue to act sensibly, even after promoting? Sure, feel free to treat them with distrust to ensure that they don't turn to evil-doing, but if, for all intents and purposes, they have not not evil-doing, then you should not say that they have.
When you say that you see 2 admins who behave differently with one user, why is it that you do not approach the one's actions whom you disapprove of? You think it worthless to say: "hey, was this really deserved?"? Do you actually follow through with the words that you've left here; the words that say you cannot find anything worthy of salvaging in people who, for-the-most-part, work to better the encyclopedia? I struggle to comprehend someone having such a willing disbelief in the human good... --Izno (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a few "incivilty" blocks would get your head thinking in the right way? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It appears that this has been brought up in the past. I was unaware of this until now. After reading User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA and the related documents, consensus seems to be that all users are free to voice their opinion, and it is up to the bureaucrat to decide consensus. I have stated my position many times. I am through discussing it, this is a complete waste of time. I am going back to contributing to the community that I intended for, and suggest others do the same instead of arguing over my !vote. If you dont like my !vote, counter it with an opposing !vote and state your opinion. --DougsTech (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If you thought I was seeking re-explanation or argumentation, then you were wrong. It is saddening to me, that is all, and was seeking further explanation (which is not the same as copy-pasting nor the same as explaining your position in another way). You are free of course to discontinue discussion, but that would only leave a bad taste in my mouth. /shrug --Izno (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that was sarcasm... but I could be wrong of course. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

An idea for all... If you think DougsTech's opinion is unreasonable, why not ignore it? By constantly discussing it, you only guarantee that you're going to see more and more of it here on this talk page. This discussion really isn't proving productive at all. I think we really just need to leave it up to the bureaucrats how much weight this argument will get (since, for better or for worse, that's what we select them to do). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech admins aren't like judges. Admins are users who can ban block and protect. The more we have the faster work gets done. In case you didn't notice Supreme court judges cost a lot of money and there isn't a terrific shortage of them simply because only a tiny fraction of cases go that far. How does having more admins harm the project? It can only benefit it. BTW supressing someone's opinion makes you look bad, much better and fairer to discredit his opinion completely in public ;-). Anyway DougsTech please respond to this, I think we all want to know the answer.--Patton^t/c 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. people try not to jump in and start calling his opinion dumb I'm trying to start a reasoned debate here ;-).--Patton^t/c 20:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Haven't we discussed this long enough? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
ALl of that discussion above was basically labelling him a troll and not attempting to readon with him...--Patton^t/c 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Something curious

I pointed this out already, but thought it worth bringing up again. What kind of editor starts off their wikilife playing on Huggle? DougsTech has started a massive 0 articles in his time here, and his most edited article, Ohio, has 10 edits from him. People, why the hell are we putting up with this obvious troll? At least Kurt didn't oppose every single RFA. Blanket opposing every RFA needs to be stopped, and soon. Majorly talk 01:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, often, new editors have no idea how the rules work and thus, don't know of the existence of tools like huggle. Often, through exploration, they come upon things like that. I am doubtful that he is his how account.  Marlith (Talk)  03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
He just gets worse and worse. Now he's opposing users for being here less than a year.--Patton^t/c 18:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• So? There's people who oppose for having less than 5000 edits. Is that not equally ridiculous? Where would you like to draw the line? Only at opposes that you personally agree with? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be preferable. Yes. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
But, using that logic, that would also mean that every RfA would succeed, as different people could find something that they don't agree with on every opposition, rendering it useless. While there are some reasons to oppose that are ridiculous, these people sincerely believe that this is a problem that the nominee has to correct. Wikipedia is a community, and everyone's vote counts, unless there is a very good reason not to accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iner22 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want a support of a ban, just take this matter to AN/I, I doubt there will many objections. He doesn't contribute at all to articles, and it seems like a recreated troll only sent to disrupt RFA. I agree with Majorly, Kmwebber was a pest but he at least contributed to articles. I'll support a ban there. Secret ^account 19:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

He's not even trying to do anything about there being too many admins

He's been asked many times, here and on his talk page, why he thinks there are too many admins and how many does he think is sufficient, and every single time he has ignored the questioner, or else told them he is entitled to his opinion and there's nothign we can do about it. If he really thinks there are too many admins shouldn't he at least try to discuss it/get rid of a lot of them? At least kurt participated in discussions concerning AfD and genuinly tried to act constructively.--Patton^t/c 11:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"try to discuss it/get rid of a lot of them"? In what means exactly would he go about that?  GARDEN  12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ninjas. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Village pump discussion? Start a proposal to have a limited number of admins?--Patton^t/c 14:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that would be very fruitful..  GARDEN  14:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
He could at least try responding to questions people have instead of repeating (angrily) that he answered them before somewhere else, even though he did not. Just about the only question he has answered is why he thinks there are too many admins, and the only rationale he can come up with is a horrible analogy to the US Supreme Court. Timmeh! 15:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Awfully ignorant and arrogant is how he's coming off at the moment. Unless he can explain himself more fully than a cryptic backlink then I see no choice but to prevent him disrupting RfA further.  GARDEN  15:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Whereas chaining himself to the railings is proving to be highly effective. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, he is, in my opinion, being irritatingly stubborn. But if his sole goal is to create drama and disrupt procedure then he has very much succeeded.  GARDEN  15:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This really is the crux of the matter. This person does not seem interested in engaging in debate on the subject but would instead rather engage in mindless repetition of an action he knows to be ineffective and disruptive. There is nothing stopping Doug from going to WP:VP or WT:RfA or any of a dozen other places and making cogent arguments to pursued people. Instead he posts to RfAs in a pattern that a 23 line bot script could mimic. This is simply attention getting. The idea that Doug is not being allowed to disagree is utter nonsense, he just should not be going to an RfA and trolling it. I don't use the word "trolling" lightly, but at this point I find it hard to believe Doug does not know his actions are disruptive, yet he chooses to act in a way that he knows will cause drama. That is the definition of trolling. There is absolutely nothing stopping Doug from promoting his idea without being disruptive. Chillum 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If we give him an Oscar do you think he'll stop? :) I agree 100% with you here.  GARDEN  15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm starting to agree. At first I simply thought he was doing some low-grade attention-seeking for his niche viewpoint. Then I started to wonder if he was being actively disruptive to get attention for his niche viewpoint. With the repeated evidence that he's not willing to take his proposal further than repeated boilerplate RfA votes, I'm thinking he's just being disruptive for the sake of it - trolling indeed. If you were to pick an opinion with near-100% opposition just to rile people up, there are few better choices than this one. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"Perhaps not that it would function better with fewer, but that it would function worse with more. I have witnessed one admin's hesitation to block a user because it was not a BLATANT violation of policy...and another admin would come along and block the user anyway. Simply put - admins are like "judges", they interpret the rules and policies. Too many judges, and there are likely to be situations where one admin assumes WP:AGF, and another admin assumes bad faith. The AGF admin would warn and not block, and the ABF admin would block. Put it this way - There are 9 supreme court justices for a US population of over 300,000,000."

---That has already been posted 3 times in 3 different places. If you have LOOKED, you would have found it. Dont try to make it look like I am not explaining myself, when CLEARLY I AM. You need to learn to LOOK for answers before asking the same question. Now, before you ask another question, and complain to others that I am not answering your every inquiry, you need to make sure that the answer is not already there. --DougsTech (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC) And here is another that I found "I am also very tired of seeing admins disagree, and the project suffer. There are admins (Ryulong...and someone else..?...idk) who have been found to be abusing their power and CLEAR consensus was to de-sysop, yet nothing happened. The other admins (his friends?) always step in and defend when it is clear he is wrong. Admins who abuse their power just seem to go to their friends to back them up. Even when the community clearly disagrees with an admin action, the admins are always right there with each other. It's community vs. admins and admins ALWAYS win, because the can revert, delete, block and all that. You can't argue with an admin civilly, usually because he will use the tools to revert you or block you...and ofcourse if he doesn't, his friends will. I am really tired of arguing this, people who support don't give anywhere near this much feedback." --DougsTech (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if this has nothing to do with this part of the discussion or if this has been brought up before but has anyone looked at this, according to that he has opposed 22 RFAs, and 3 couldn't be found (most likely went neutral).--Giants27 ^T/C 21:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Suggest that we either completely ignore him, or else nom him for admin. Topic ban is not an answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring him won't be possible. There will still be editor's commenting and asking questions on every oppose !vote he makes. Why would a topic ban not be the answer? It would solve the troll and pointy templated oppose problem. Timmeh! 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Simply put, we have enough admins because some admins are bad admins? I have yet to see an admin, and yes I know of Ryulong, who could not have a reasoned, civil and constructive discussion. An admin cannot pass RfA without having some degree of clue, even if they are a bit over confident in their own judgement. Also you haven't answered as to why you don't raise this as a discussion, either here or someplace else. Why don't you? It is ususally more effective than spammign RfA...--Patton^t/c 22:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A bold suggestion

Anyone who is not convinced they can change Dougtech's mind, stop talking. Anyone who is convinced, take it up with him on his talk page. Also, no more edit warring over his votes, please? If you don't like them, argue against them or vote the other way. If you think they're invalid, leave a polite comment under his vote, and ask the Bureaucrat to carefully consider. Less drama, please. --Tznkai (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything I post to his talk page is removed. What do you suggest I do? Majorly talk 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm striking part of my statement as excessively snippy on my part. And my honest answer? Ask the closing bureaucrat to consider disregarding the vote as invalid, and walk away. If he's removing comments, he's apparently not wishing to listen to you. Although I seem to recall us having a process for this kind of thing, you may consider availing yourself of that.--Tznkai (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

When someone is unwilling to communicate then the option of going to his talk page is rendered moot. A RFC on this users conduct will likely be more productive. As for reverting his "vote" as trolling, I stand by that. I revert inappropriate behavior all the time, as any good Wikipedian should do. Chillum 00:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
And if I find your comment here "inappropriate?" Be careful with that rationale, it causes a lot of trouble. Bottom line: its the bureaucrats call at the end of the day, and edit warring is always a bad idea.--Tznkai (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)