Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dylan620 2

Edit count stats
Username:	Dylan620 User groups:	reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Sep 15, 2007 20:50:05 Unique pages edited:	5,451 Average edits per page:	2.42 Live edits:	10,512 Deleted edits:	2,676 Total edits (including deleted):	13,188

Namespace Totals

Article	3520	33.49% Talk	186	1.77% User	1429	13.59% User talk	3690	35.10% Wikipedia	1260	11.99% Wikipedia talk	112	1.07% File	6	0.06% MediaWiki talk	2	0.02% Template	76	0.72% Template talk	167	1.59% Help	2	0.02% Help talk	1	0.01% Category	6	0.06% Portal	5	0.05% Book	48	0.46% Book talk	2	0.02% Month counts 2007/09	6 	2007/10	1 	2007/11	0 	2007/12	0 	2008/01	0 	2008/02	0 	2008/03	0 	2008/04	0 	2008/05	0 	2008/06	0 	2008/07	0 	2008/08	208 	2008/09	140 	2008/10	276 	2008/11	506 	2008/12	485 	2009/01	102 	2009/02	733 	2009/03	285 	2009/04	448 	2009/05	643 	2009/06	311 	2009/07	2288 	2009/08	1304 	2009/09	334 	2009/10	180 	2009/11	69 	2009/12	185 	2010/01	79 	2010/02	207 	2010/03	19 	2010/04	101 	2010/05	144 	2010/06	19 	2010/07	14 	2010/08	13 	2010/09	10 	2010/10	22 	2010/11	479 	2010/12	164 	2011/01	281 	2011/02	118 	2011/03	203 	2011/04	135

Top edited pages Article

88 - Timeline_of_the_1996_Atlantic_hurricane_season 88 - Timeline_of_the_2004_Pacific_hurricane_season 62 - Timeline_of_the_2001_Atlantic_hurricane_season 29 - 2010_Atlantic_hurricane_season 27 - 2009_Pacific_hurricane_season 18 - Typhoon_Virginia 14 - Rocko's_Modern_Life 9 - Believe_(Staind_song) 9 - The_Sound_of_Madness 9 - Tornadoes_of_2010

Talk

11 - Rocko's_Modern_Life/GA1 7 - Hurricane_Paloma 7 - Rocko's_Modern_Life 6 - Timeline_of_the_2001_Atlantic_hurricane_season 5 - Hurricane_Ioke 5 - Timeline_of_the_1996_Atlantic_hurricane_season 5 - Hurricane_Kate_(2003) 3 - Fart 3 - Hurricane_Ioke/Poll 3 - Syriana

User

603 - Dylan620 72 - Dylan620/Today 46 - Dylan620/School 42 - Dylan620/Userboxes 31 - GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion 18 - Dylan620/Barnstars,_cookies_and_whatnot 18 - Dylan620/monobook.js   16 - Dylan620/Timeline_of_the_2002_Atlantic_hurricane_s... 16 - Dylan620/Userbox_gallery 13 - Dylan620/Sandbox/Tropical_Storm_Norbert_(2008)

User talk

228 - Dylan620 176 - Juliancolton 53 - Irdicent 44 - Vicenarian 39 - Cyclonebiskit 35 - Hurricanehink 29 - Neutralhomer 29 - Javert 28 - Yellow_Evan 25 - Jason_Rees

Wikipedia

116 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 96 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 83 - Administrators'_noticeboard 49 - Huggle/Whitelist 49 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention 46 - List_of_banned_users 36 - Times_that_100_Wikipedians_supported_something 17 - Requests_for_adminship 16 - Featured_list_candidates/Timeline_of_the_1996_Atla... 16 - Sandbox

Wikipedia talk

40 - Requests_for_adminship 18 - WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones 11 - List_of_banned_users 5 - Sockpuppet_investigations 5 - WikiCup 3 - WikiProject_Nickelodeon/old 3 - WikiProject_Meteorology 2 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion 2 - Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Biography_(arts_and_ent...   2 - Sandbox

File

2 - Muggu.JPG 1 - RelaxedPenis.JPG 1 - TiananmennBrutality.jpg 1 - Dust_Bowl_-_Dallas,_South_Dakota_1936.jpg 1 - Prince_Albert_Piercing.jpg

MediaWiki talk

2 - Bad_image_list

Template

37 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1 16 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2 4 - Puddle_of_Mudd 3 - 2010_Atlantic_hurricane_season_buttons 2 - Shinedown 2 - RfA-nom 1 - Aerosmith_singles 1 - 2008_Pacific_hurricane_season_buttons 1 - Magos_Herrera 1 - Spanish_senate_election,_2008

Template talk

156 - Did_you_know 4 - Metacritic_film 2 - Introduction_to_Wikipedia 1 - Template_doc_inline/sandbox/doc 1 - Template_doc_inline/doc 1 - Template_doc_inline/testcases 1 - Template_doc_inline/testcases/doc 1 - Template_doc_inline/sandbox

Help

1 - Redirect 1 - Advanced_templates

Help talk

1 - Section

Category

1 - Wikipedia_tutorial 1 - Greek_music 1 - Italian_brands 1 - Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wikiuser999120 1 - English_indie_rock_groups 1 - Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wikiuser999120

Portal

1 - Drink/2008_Drink_news_archive 1 - Science 1 - Current_events/2005_June_21 1 - Slipknot/Did_you_know 1 - Bacon/Things_you_can_do

Book

6 - Foo_Fighters 5 - 1993_Atlantic_hurricane_season 4 - U.S._Severe_weather_terminology 4 - Deftones 4 - Radiohead 4 - Nirvana 4 - System_of_a_Down 3 - Tool 3 - 1991_Atlantic_hurricane_season 3 - Aerosmith

Book talk

1 - Deftones 1 - U.S._Severe_weather_terminology

Malleus' oppose (discussion moved from main page)
Moving lengthy indented discussion over Malleus Fatuorum's oppose here from the main RFA. I've left the original !vote and first response from Dylan there (copied here). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you give any example whatsoever that demonstrates this user should not be considered mature? I only ask because you really haven't justified the opinion. Your only justification was that his "brain is still developing," and that seems kind of weak- the brain doesn't stop developing until ~25 years old. "Developing brain" certainly ≠ "immaturity". Of course, if you think everyone under 25 years old can automatically be considered too immature to be an admin, you're free to hold that opinion.  Swarm   X 22:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion starts here
 * 1) Oppose. There are already too many children in positions of authority here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have every right to oppose, but age ≠ maturity; there are 15-year-olds who are easily more mature than some 50-year-olds. On top of that, I'd appreciate it if you evaluated me based on my contributions, rather than my age. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 02:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're talking biological nonsense. Only on wikipedia would anyone make such a claim. Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus, Dylan has a point. Age doesn't equal maturity and you should evaluate him on his contribs and not his age.  Evaluating someone on just their age is not following AGF. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dylan, please remember to be civil and consider malleus's decision. thanks! Monterey Bay (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What on Earth has AGF, possibly the most misunderstood policy in the history of misunderstood policies, got to do with anything here Neutralhomer? Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you are not assuming good faith by only evaluating his age and not his contribs. Age has nothing to do with being an admin.  There is no age limit to be an editor or admin on Wikipedia, so age doesn't matter.  If you are going to assume good faith, you should take his contribs and only his contribs into account. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then let me spell it out for you, as you clearly don't understand AGF. Dylan620's brain is still developing, and by by no stretch of imagination can be considered to be mature. I understand that there's a body of opinion that these facts should be ignored, and that anyone who can fake "maturity" (which is really a synonym for civility in this wikimadness) for long enough is deserving of the legendary mop, but I'm not one of them. There's really nothing else to be said. Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, I am questioning your maturity, but since this isn't about you nor me, I will step aside. I suggest you do the same. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 04:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please try to AGF. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And to think 150 years ago they had teenage military officers. :)  Swarm   X 19:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And they had small children working down the coal mines, performing dangerous jobs in cotton mills, cleaning chimneys ... are you suggesting that these are all good things? Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Er...no. You opined that "only on Wikipedia" would anyone claim that age ≠ maturity. I'm merely stating that young people have been trusted with much more serious things IRL. Indeed, people become legal adults and can enter virtually any job when their brain is "still developing". Nothing to do with child labor advocacy.  Swarm   X 20:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument is specious; there is no mention of "maturity" on the application for a driving licence for instance. Would you argue that "mature" 12-year-olds have as much right to drive a car as anyone else? Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you hoping to achieve by this discussion? I have stated my opinion and that's that. End of. That you or others may not share it is a matter between you and your consciences. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think Malleus Fatuorum is being immature. Physically, some kids are way more mature than others (i.e. Lina Medina). Mentally too, some kids are mature beyond their years (see: List of child prodigies) Pass a Method   talk  09:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "There are already too many children in positions of authority here." How many is too many? Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble  09:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Any is too many. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But as a matter of definition the overwhelming majority of kids are not "mature beyond their years", and no evidence has been presented suggesting that this candidate is in any way exceptional. It is not immature to recognise the incontrovertible facts; rather it is those like you who try to deny them who demonstrate immaturity, quite probably because you are a youngster yourself PassaMethod. Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is silly. It is perfectly reasonable to oppose putting children in positions of authority. There will obviously be some children who are mature enough, but the unconditional probabilities are against that and a desire to avoid the base rate fallacy is a sound one. I wouldn't oppose someone because of their age but, of all the reasons I've seen in opposition to this candidate, this is the only one that is well grounded in theory (probability theory in this case). --rgpk (comment) 13:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dylan620 has 1300+ edits under his name, and seems to do fine. I am 23 years old, but my youger siblings seem more mature than my older siblings. Because of this, i usually don't judge age as a factor when evaluating someones maturity. I think Malleus should show the same consideration. Lina Medina proves humans can be physically mature at 5 years old. This List of child prodigies demonstrates kids can be mentally mature beyond their years too. (i know im repeating myself). I just think western society belittles young people too much. Young people are sometimes priceless when it comes to voicing opinions because youngsters tend to be less judgemental. Pass a Method   talk  18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're clearly delusional. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Dylan's RfA has 72 supports, so i guess 72 established users are dumb and you're super smart right? Pass a Method   talk  19:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That about sums it up nicely. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User:PassaMethod seems to have started editing last month and has less than 1000 edits. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And if PassaMethod is really 23 years old then I'm a Chinese whore from Mars. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * . The defender's argument, if you could call it an argument, is so self defeating that it beggars belief. an/i is bad enough without giving it over to people with this level of logical inability. An openion fails AGF? Group think at its worst, and a absolute failure to follow 5the spirit rather than the letter of the rule. Ceoil  22:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia values all contributors equally..." conveniently on Malleus' user page. --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 18:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally speaking, I disagree with malleus but this whole discussion is not really helping....-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was trying to figure out how old Dylan620 is, since his age is not on his user page (I briefly looked through its edit history, and was too impatient to read through all of his first and second nominations). I ended up Googling "How old is Dylan620?" (LOL) due to all this debate of his age and found a MySpace page which seems to be his. On that note, it says he is 18. If he is indeed 18, then I really am not understanding anyone calling him "a child." He isn't even a minor in the general sense anymore. Only in certain cases, such as drinking alcohol. I mean, 18-year-olds can join the army and legally do just about everything else. But oh well. This has been debated enough. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I see that at Requests for adminship/Dylan620 2, he is stated as age 15. And since he hasn't objected to being stated as this, I can only assume that he must be age 15. But, yeah, this debate has run its course and the second nomination is over. So... Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff
Ceoil, do you have a source for Hitler liking cats? (diff). It has been suggested that Hitler had ailurophobia. Perhaps you are confusing this with cats that look like Hitler. - Pointillist (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hitler didn't kill every child he encountered. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Coffee's support

 * 1) Support - To counter Malleus' oppose: We have seen time and again that maturity and age are two separate entities. Take Anonymous Dissident for example... someone who even at a very young age has shown vast maturity in some of the most sticky situations, and is one of the few admins who I personally hold in high regard. The fact that Dylan is younger than most admins, does not mean he isn't mature enough to make tough decisions regarding this project. Therefore, as I do not see any concerns regarding his maturity or otherwise that would lead me to believe that Dylan wouldn't make a fine admin, I support his request. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 07:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant? Anonymous Dissident wrote fine articles on real encylopedia topics before RFA2, while Dylan should be encouraged to write, for his own good. (Why focus on Malleus? Malleus never opposed Anonymous Dissident at RFB. Malleus didn't oppose AD at the successful RFA2, or  at RFA1.) Have you noticed that NuclearWarfare Winter has [occasionally 20:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)] mentored Dylan for years?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 07:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't. I gave him some advice several times, but I would hardly call it mentoring. NW ( Talk ) 15:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was more careful and wrote "occasionally" a few entries below. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly relevant, Malleus opposed due to the candidates age, therefore I countered his argument with an example of someone who was equally young who has showed vast maturity over his time as an admin. I also don't know why you mentioned Nuclear Winter's mentorship, that doesn't seem relevant to my support at all. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 08:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You stated that you "do not see any concerns regarding his maturity", so I drew your attention to Nuclear Winter Warfare's concern (#1 below), which is graciously expressed after years of  occasionally  [emboldened & underlined 20:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)] mentoring Dylan and after years of wise service to WP. Are you suggesting that Dylan's maturity is comparable to Anonymous Dissident's, and therefore worthy approval now, or that Malleus would care about AD?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First, there is no User:Nuclear Winter. Second, I think it's rather clear what I'm saying: Age is not a relevant judgement for adminship. I'll repeat myself again in simpler terms just for you: 1. Malleus Fatuorum opposed based only on age. 2. Dylan is young... Anonymous Dissident is young. 3. Anonymous Dissident, has showed that his age did not affect his adminship; likewise Dylan shows no concern that his age will affect his adminship. 4. I disagree with Malleus' oppose based on these assertions, therefore I placed the "To counter Malleus' oppose" directly before my statement. Whether Malleus cares or not is not my concern. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 09:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Age is a perfectly good reason for objecting. Anonymous Dissident is other stuff exists. Hitler liked cats, what do you take from that. Ceoil  09:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement "1" ignores what Malleus wrote, "no evidence has been presented suggesting that this candidate is in any way exceptional." Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 09:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Was that statement not in direct relation to the candidate's age? I believe it was... in which case my comment stands as is. (Besides, unless Malleus wants Dylan to write a symphony for his enjoyment, there really isn't anyway to judge if someone is "exceptionally" mature, it's merely left to the eye of the beholder. I'd also counter that no editor has to show exceptional maturity, but should rather show adult level maturity.) I don't quite understand why your critiquing my support this much... my views have been clearly stated and they aren't going to change no matter how hard you try to pitifully dissect them. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 10:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Ceoil: Nice straw man you just created there. If I recall correctly, I never once said that Malleus couldn't or shouldn't oppose due to age, or that age wasn't a good reason to oppose, instead I said I disagreed with his opinion and wished to counter it with an equally valid opinion (which is that age is not relevant to adminship based on the presented example [there are plenty more examples, but I need not present them as my point doesn't need 10, 100, or over 9,000 examples to be made]). &mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 10:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You should listen to your conscience, which has noticed the contradiction between your number 1 and mine (what Malleus wrote). Your apology will bring partial relief and reduced shame. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 11:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Pity" is hardly evoked by your dialectics, which tantalize with the form of discussion.
 * Coffee's "pitifully dissect" his "views" [sic, arguments] recalled tragedy in the The Poetics and also The Topics [warning of the unseemliness of contentious disputation, which I linked], wishing that I had heeded the advice, "Do not argue with every one, nor practice upon the man in the street: for there are some people with whom any argument is bound to degenerate. ... It is not good form."
 * Intellectual life interests me, while "dissecting" your dead fallacies bores me. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Show me that Malleus took anything other than age into his consideration when making any of his comments relating to the candidate, and I'd be willing to listen. But you can't, because he didn't bring anything into the argument other than Dylan's age to say/prove that Dylan lacked his standard of maturity... and he never even stated that he viewed Dylan as acting immature, instead he made a comment about his body not being fully mature yet. That still means that he only opposed because of Dylan's age, no matter how hard you try to twist it. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 11:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)To describe the shortcomings of a young teenager, unless that teenager is an old soul and brilliant, can only be viciously cruel, as Malleus surely recognized.
 * I quoted his earlier statement only to make the rest of you adults and more mature teens aware of your gross irresponsibility a past problem. A good young man has had a few problems in the past with obsessive behavior, and you all want to give him a lot of tools, when his writing is what one would expect of a young man.  Don't kid yourself that you are helping him or supporting the youth. You are enabling him, and distracting him from serious intellectual development. None of you will help him if he needs to repeat a year of school, will you?   Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 11:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First, who died and made you a doctor on teenage development. Second, his parents decide how long he gets to stay online, not you. Third and most importantly, just because writing is what you want/expect him to do, it does not mean that anyone else has that same notion. Most kids his age are probably playing video games or are finding worse things to get into, at least he's here on a constantly changing encyclopedia trying to help. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 11:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on you two - do you honestly think this continued bickering is a good use of anyone's time? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really... it's actually quite annoying. I would think it appropriate to be moved to the discussion page though. (I would but I can't for obvious reasons.) <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 11:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coffee. My entire debate with Malleus centered around age. But i wouldn't take the guy serious though. He even went as far to say "Dylan620's brain is still developing". At least 5 people on this talk page disagree with Malleus but Malleus still thinks he's correct. We should probably have a "minimum age limit for adminship rule", or something like that, so we can avoid this type of bickering. Pass a Method   talk  15:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should make every 16-year-old editor an admin, while they still know everything. Or was that "President"? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are aware that his brain is still developing, right? That's not an opinion nor is it offensive. – anna  16:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What is more worrisome is that many mental faculties start degrading at age 28, however "experience and treachery will defeat youth and virtue every time!" Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But just look at who those five are, and how little they understand. You for instance PassaMethod clearly have not even the slightest grasp of basic neurophysiology, or dishonestly choose to discount the self-evident truth in pursuit of your warped agenda. Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Look if you are so adament that age should be an issue in adminship, then propose a new guideline. I will say however that i would firmly oppose such a guideline. Pass a Method   talk  18:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Any discussion about introducing new guidelines, especially where the sacred cow of RfA is concerned, is tediously unproductive, so I'll pass. Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saying, it would help you sound more genuine if you were a bit more civil in your dialogues. Especially when basing an oppose on immaturity. Pass a Method   talk  18:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is duly noted and has been filed in the appropriate receptacle. I'll just add that your curious equating of what passes for civility here and "maturity" simply further demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about. 18:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very quick response. Your computer must be some sort of supersonic or something. Pass a Method   talk  19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called a Watchlist... — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 21:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanna throw my two cents in here, ageism does NOT belong in RfA's. Just because I am not over 21 does NOT mean I am immature. This ageism deters others from editing. Peter.C  •  talk  •  contribs  02:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that you're overstating the value of your contribution; one cent would be be gross overcharging. Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone saying Dylan going to use his admin tools in an immature way is no way following the guideline WP:AGF by suggesting that there is a possibility that he will do so. Anyway, I disagree with their points simply because Dylan has: been an editor for more than 3 years, during which he accumulated 13,188 edits; and, had helped, among other works, promoted Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season to FL status. I don't understand how anyone can suggest that, with these achievements behind him, Dylan can make a U-turn and misuse his admin tools, provided he gets promoted. Should he does this, we can always de-admin him, which I think would be extremely – I repeat, extremely – unlikely. <b style="background:SaddleBrown;color:Gold;">Sp33dyphil</b>  Ready • to • Rumble  05:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to have completely and comprehensively missed the point. Perhaps you could point me towards this de-adminning process that you appear to have so much faith in? Malleus Fatuorum 05:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems we punish honest behavior. Dylan could have easily lied saying "im over 18 and thus an adult". Instead he chose to reveal his real age and get judged on his contributions. But i guess some of us are a little prejudiced. Pass a Method   talk  09:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that the human brain continues development until some time in the mid twenties (no, Malleus, I do not mean sometime in the second decade of the twentieth century), so any opposition based solely on age would logically extend to users aged less than twenty years as well. Would the opposition agree with that statement?-RHM22 (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow you, RHM. Do you mean that people who oppose based solely on age would have to oppose anyone under age 20? If so, why that particular cut-off? If not, could you clarify your question? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's basically what I meant. Malleus said that he opposed because the candidate's brain hadn't fully developed yet, which is true of anyone aged less than 26 or so.-RHM22 (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I said no such thing. Please do not put words in my mouth. Malleus Fatuorum 05:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's how I took it. You opposed because "there are already too many children with authority here". Neutralhomer followed up by suggesting that the candidate could be mature, regardless of his age, to which you responded in part: "Dylan620's brain is still developing, and by by no stretch of imagination can be considered to be mature." Perhaps I misunderstood, but my take was that you opposed because the candidate is immature, and could not possibly be so until his brain is fully developed, which occurs some time in the mid twenties.-RHM22 (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you took it wrong. I opposed because Dylan is still a child, not because he is immature. It wasn't me who brought up the boogie man of immaturity, I simply tried to explain to NH that his comment about maturity couldn't possibly be biologically correct. Malleus Fatuorum 14:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so if I understand, you think that Dylan is not mature, but someone else his age could be?-RHM22 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't understand correctly. I made no comment about maturity other than to correct Neutralhomer. I opposed Dylan because of his age, nothing to do with maturity or immaturity. Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, but that seems like a bit of a backtrack to me. If it's not about maturity, what's the rationale for opposing based on age? It seems that if you want to use his age as a reason to oppose, it's because you don't think that someone that young would be capable of carrying out the admin duties effectively.-RHM22 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't help how it seems to you, I can only reiterate that you're wrong. There are many reasons why I might consider a 15-year-old unsuitable as an administrator, but none of them have anything to do with maturity, which really only means civility here on wikipedia. I might, for instance, not approve of a youngster having access to some of the more prurient deleted content. I might consider that a 15-year-old has more important things they should be spending their time, such as schoolwork. I might consider that most 15-year-olds consider adminship to be some kind of gaudy bauble that they too eagerly chase. I might consider that someone still in school does not have the educational background to legislate in content disputes. None of these things have anything to do with maturity, which is repeatedly thrown up as a smokescreen to hide the plain and self-evident truth that wikipedia ought not to be run by children. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, though I would disagree that none of those things have anything to do with maturity. Still, my apologies for misunderstanding your original statement.-RHM22 (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Indenting
I'm sorry but my contributions may be guilty of mis-numbering the "oppose" points. I shall try to fix the problem in an hour. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 18:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Goodvac (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (I did the same error yesterday, but was able to fix them myself. This is the first time I've contributed to this processes.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

On Kiefer.Wolfowitz's oppose (moved from main RfA page)

 * 1) Oppose A young teenager—who has confessed his own past "addictive" responses and making "hundreds of edits" when discovering new editing tools (ONLY IN 2009 NOTE WELL—"I was tired of letting them make me feel badly about myself, so in February I began to tag pages for speedy deletion and revert vandalism. A couple days later, I was granted rollback rights – I became an avid vandal-fighter for about a week before slipping into a month-long wikibreak. After that, I thought, 'Hey, maybe I can help with account creation!' That is how I became an account creator. About a week later, I curiously rummaged through some old RedirectCleanupBot (talk · contribs) archives, and found Schutz's tool. I became addicted immediately, tagging broken redirects left and right (which is why broken redirect cleanup makes up the vast majority of my 2,000+ deleted edits). Then, in July, I began using Huggle and made hundreds of edits per day through combat of vandalism. Lastly, in August I began reviewing proposed DYK hooks (achieving my first featured list around the same time)."—should not be granted administrative tools now. Doing homework, studying, reading, and writing and contributing to his family and friends are the primary responsibilities of  this young man. His researching a topic and then writing a good article (or several) over the next years should provide him with ample opportunities to contribute to the project while developing discipline. At the same time, he should know that research is quite different than writing WP articles, and that he should strive to become a researcher by excelling in school and thinking for himself. Let him write some articles, and continue to grow as an editor, without the distraction of new tools.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where in the rules it says you have to be a certain age to edit Wikipedia? Can you also show me where in the rules it says you have to be a certain age to be an admin?  Can you ALSO show me where in the rules it says you have to be a "certain maturity level" to be either an editor or admin?  If not, then your reasons are moot as they don't correspond to policies and rules of Wikipedia. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Life is unfair. Get used to it!" (This is worth repeating loud and often.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it you can't. That's what I thought since the rules don't exist.  Thanks. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reasons can't be "moot", and wikipedia has no "rules". Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote a personal note on Neutralhomer's talkpage (explaining the "Life is unfair" wisdom), and I would consider it a personal favor if everybody would practice extra kindness towards him. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 04:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this oppose says why he wouldn't make a good admin. I wasn't aware it was bad for the site for people to like what they're doing and contribute to what they enjoy. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 11:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Coffee, let's work on your dropping such passive-aggressive behaviors, and instead your simply writing like an adult. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, speaking of examining "the straw in your eye before pointing out [others]", it would do you well to take your own wisdom... and stop being patronizing, as you have been in nearly every post to this page. As editors to Wikipedia, we are all volunteers... we are all equals... race, religion, gender, and age aside. We may disagree with different opinions from our own, and we may even just dislike other editors. But for you to continuously set yourself on a high horse around this discussion shows a lack of understanding and maturity on your part. Therefore from here on out, I will refrain from replying to you about this RFA or anything related to it, as it's obviously getting nowhere for either of us... and I have much more important things to deal with in real life and on wiki than arguing with a pretentiously pompous editor. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 00:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument is absurd. We are by no stretch of the imagination all equal, although we each have equal rights. Can you not understand the difference? Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I was referring to "equal - a person who is of equal standing with another in a group; having identical privileges, rights, status, etc.", not "equal - identical in size, quantity, degree, intensity, etc.; the same (as)". I'm sure you knew that already, but of course you too built a straw man (look it up, it's exactly what you just did there) to refute my argument. Nicely done if might say so myself... <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 01:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Coffee, don't you feel better after an outburst of ressentiment after your sense of injured merit rather than mumbling "I didn't know" or "I don't understand"?
 * Please write again. I care. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He is a minor, and the a responsibility of WP and its volunteers is to avoid ensure gross negligience in granting him additional tools, which are usually reserved for adults with far more intellectual maturity. It is prudent to be concerned with whether WP is good for him—not whether he be good for WP. You may not understand that it is a trivial concern whether he might damage Wikipedia as an administrator today, but perhaps someday.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 11:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, actually that's the parents responsibility. Our responsibility is to work to develop a common resource of human knowledge. Read our disclaimer: "None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, vandals, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia, in any way whatsoever, can be responsible for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages." <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 12:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your abnegation and explicit denial of responsibility merely confirms Aristotle's account of how discussion with you is doomed. You deny that elders should help raise youth: "Not every problem, nor every thesis, should be examined, but only one which might puzzle one of those who need argument, not punishment or perception. For people who are puzzled to know whether one ought to honour the gods and love one's parents or not need punishment, while those who are puzzled to know whether snow is white or not need perception. The subjects should not border too closely upon the sphere of demonstration, nor yet be too far removed from it: for the former cases admit of no doubt, while the latter involve difficulties too great for the art of the trainer." Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again a straw man argument... I believe I said the parents ("or elders") did have responsibility to raise their youth. You on the other hand do not have that responsibility, nor do I. It's called having boundaries... and just because you are older than Dylan doesn't mean you would lead him the right way, or that he should listen to you at all. Give it a rest, you're no one's dad on this site (unless you actually have your children on this site, in which case that would contradict everything you've said [unless they're writing articles of course]). <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 12:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review the meanings of "elder" and "parent" which have been distinct for over a millenium in English (and Swedish ...), and examine the straw in your eye before pointing out ....
 * In this question, as in others, Dylan shows greater wisdom than you: Read what he wrote about protecting minors, above, where he discussed his record of responsible action. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one of the most ridiculous and insulting Oppose rationales that I have yet seen. You have no idea of what Dylan's responsibilities are, or how he organises his time to fit Wikipedia activities around them. (He might edit Wikipedia while looking after younger or older relatives, he might on occasion have edited Wikipedia as part of schoolwork or homework, he might discuss Wikipedia events with parents or friends, as I know some younger editors do. Maybe he edits more during school vacations when he has little or no homework? Maybe you just haven't thought about any of this.) The one thing we can be sure of is that it is adult contributors who will in many cases have significant real-world responsibilities, but we don't feel the need to lecture them about those responsibilities every time an adult (or person of uncertain age) stands for RfA, or oppose them because we have a vague feeling that they might spend time doing admin tasks instead of supporting the economy or their dependents or spending quality time with their children or anything else we might feel adults have a responsibility to do. Your continued badgering of other participants in this RfA (you have thirty-one edits to this page so far, in addition to the lobbying on talk pages about it,
 * What are you talking about, "lobbying on talk pages". I believe I've had two discussions on others's page, and your visit to mine? Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * is that an indication that you have a balanced perspective on this?), and your utterly inane supplemental question (posted several hours after you had already Opposed), focus almost entirely on the candidate's age and your opinion (backed up by nothing at all) that admin status would be strongly detrimental to his development - when in fact, any responsible parent would be delighted that a teenager was independently spending their free time doing something constructive and potentially educational. And it's parents who make that decision, not unrelated unidentified internet adults that have appointed themselves as usurping the parents' right to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Any user who consistently prioritizes WP ahead of his/her own real life needs to get off, immediately. If an adult who professed an addiction to WP stood for adminship, I would most certainly oppose him/her. If you're constantly unable to recognize life's real priorities, then your judgment is already showing problems. I've seen multiple child editors outright quit because their grades began to drop due to an inability to realize doing homework and studying was more important than rolling back edits on Huggle. Many editors do that, while you are responsible for your own homework. School is required (until a certain age, at least, in most jurisdictions), while WP is secondary and entirely volunteer-based. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I was an admin and a minor for several years (starting at the age of 15) and nothing really bad happened. --Rschen7754 05:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rschen repeats himself below, where I'll reply. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 02:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WP should develop a PG-administratorship for already existing administrators, that does not have access to such content, and require a statement that applicants are 18 years or older. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, both your question and comments are inappropriate and much too personal, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * RHM22, I recognize that others disagree, but you it would be helpful for you to explain your comment with a few sentences. Do you regard Fetchcomms's comment (a few lines above) as inappropriate and too personal? (I recognize that others have less concern with minors and other vulnerable contributors that I do, as has been made clear on another recent occasion.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't consider Fetchcomms' comment to be overly personal, because it's a generalization. What I mainly object to is when someone says something on the order of "you need to focus on your studies." Who's to say that this person isn't focusing on his studies? It may be that he just likes to edit Wikipedia in his spare time, just like the rest of us do. Besides, even if he will focus all his energy on Wikipedia and none on homework, that's really not for us to question, nor is it a reasonable rationale for opposing. Questioning his maturity is reasonable, even though I don't agree. However, opposing because you think he should involve himself in more "real world" activities is, frankly, a little ridiculous. As the others have stated above, Wikipedia is a not a nanny, and we should have no say in how much time this fellow spends on the internet.-RHM22 (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I am concerned that he has written so little, and I applaud NW for years ago suggesting that he try to develop an article. Many others have suggested that he contribute to content, and perhaps a few share my concern. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, and that is perfectly reasonable. My only problem was that your oppose basically says that your rationale is that he needs to focus more on his studies. As you can see by my neutral !vote, I am also unsure about his qualifications. I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for opposing with a valid rationale, or even a rationale that had some level of validity, but in my opinion, opposing on the basis of the candidate needing to do more home work is not valid, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your consideration and thoughtful words. I would have been cowardly and unjust towards the candidate if I had been less explicit, because I do recognize his considerable intelligence and precocious maturity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have noted, in several changes above, I was wrong in assuming that the candidate's activity level was sufficiently high to cause serious damage to his studies or family/social life. On the contrary, since 2009 (and the most serious problem was in the summer) his activity levels seem to have been reasonable. (I thank NYB for kindly noting my error.)
 * Nonetheless, I shall continue to oppose his receiving administrative tools, now, on the belief that writing an article would be very good for him and also help provide him with a broader perspective. If he challenges himself by developing a significant habit of contributing to content, and his maintains his normal activity level, then I would be delighted to consider him as an administrator when he turns 18---I was unaware that Administrators have access to deleted content that is inappropriate for children, and thank Malleus for his informative (recent) answer.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting on the candidate right now, but I do have to say that I have been an administrator since I was 15 and nothing bad has happened. I didn't break the encyclopedia. Also, I didn't write my first FA until I was 18; such article-writing experience is *not* necessary for adminship. As far as your concerns regarding deleted content, the stuff is mild as compared to what is freely available off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Finally, this is the wrong place to agitate for such a policy change; WT:RFA is better rather than on someone's RFA. --Rschen7754 18:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I never argued that all or most teenage administrators have caused problems, so I am unsurprised and happy that you are a fine Wikipedian and a fine administrator.
 * From what I've seen tonight of Rschen, my last statement went beyond politeness into wishful thinking. At 21 years old, according to his own remarks, Rschen is too old to be quoting stock phrases of WP policy (with blue links) and failing to understand what has been patiently explained again and again. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 02:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Today, we are writing on Wikipedia, not on sites that feature inappropriate material "off Wikipedia". However, such sites require some affirmation that the viewer is an adult, presumably because of common sense and because of liability concerns. Thus, WP has less restrictions than those sites (if Malleus is correct), because you have access to material that USA-based sites would never sponsor, because of culpability and liability. I am suggesting that we at least match the level of child-proofing of adults-only sites, which means that minors should not become administrators: In particular, Dylan should not become an administrator now. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, look at all the stuff that's in our Wikipedia articles. You don't even have to be an editor to see all of that. --Rschen7754 19:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly fair to Dylan...you're asking to change the RfA rules mid-process for him. I also think that if a minimum age requirement is going to be placed, it'll have to be placed and enforced retroactively. How many admins will get locked out of their tools if that happens? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not enough. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alan, are you affirming that WP should allow minors access to material that would not be stored on the sites of sadistic vivisectionists, pornographers, white-supremacists, or the recipe book of the Ohio Grange Auxiliary (shudder of horror)---even though presumably at least pornographers require that Peter Orno affirm his being 18 years old? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to propose changes in the RfA rules in the appropriate place, which was linked for you by Rschen7754. Such changes will require community discussion and will not have any effect on the outcome of this RfA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously the proposition that an affirmation of being 18 be a minimum requirement of administrator office-holding influences my vote and Malleus's, etc., and thus this election. Demiurge1000, you neglected to add the redundancy of Malleus's noting the RfA rules. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) The thing is, I don't think I've ever run into any deleted material that is more offensive than some vandal making personal attacks or mixing profanity with references to body parts. Anything illegal is usually oversighted (by an oversighter, and you *do* have to be 18 to be an oversighter). I do agree that if you are a checkuser or an oversighter or an arb, you need to be 18 as there are legal consequences for your actions. However, that isn't necessary for an administrator. (For the record, I am currently over 18). --Rschen7754 20:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rschen, you recognize that Dylan has mentioned wanting to work on files, and has already worked been fighting vandals on on nude pictures, one of which (piercing) I would consider to be inappropriate for children. I am uncomfortable with him continuing to work on such issues, and today's vote concerns him. Of course, we write rules for all, so we are not hiding from the consequences of our position(s).
 * (I don't care about him or you reading about accurate sexual information, of course. I would prefer that you had access to the information that Swedes have---to reduce the level of unwanted pregnancies and the level of guilt, which was rejected by the puritan Milton btw.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the big deal about Dylan looking at pictures of Queen Victoria's husband.-RHM22 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins have more direct, short-term actions they perform daily, which seldom (if ever) are held to any sort of legal standard. CUs, oversighters and ArbCom members' actions are somewhat less frequent but much longer-lasting in scope, and will more often be held to some sort of legal standard. Huge difference between blocking an IP vandal for a few hours and evaluating and/or reporting a physical threat made via edit summary. For the record, I personally don't give an airborne fornication about how old a RfA candidate is; what I care about is whether that candidate can be trusted to correctly make use of the mop. I've come across 15-year-olds I'd trust with my life and 60-year-olds I wouldn't trust not to wet themselves with a squirt gun. It's what's between the ears that matters, not what the calendar says. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not up to you to legislate his "morality" or what he looks at or doesn't look at or is or isn't exposed to. It's not up to Wikipedia to do that, either. WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. It's policy. --Rschen7754 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rschen, please recall that we have been discussing material that has been deleted as violating WP policy, not about material that already exists. (I have only commented on one DYK proposal as containing material inappropriate for the main-page, and have never argued for removing anything as inappropriate---partly because my interests are elsewhere---so it is inappropriate to to charge me with "legislating his 'morality'"). Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Since anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly." - WP:NOT. This is true for anyone using the site. I'm aware that we're discussing deleted material. As an admin who has access to deleted material, I don't see what the concern is. --Rschen7754 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Alan and Rschen. This seems to be an attempt to make something out of nothing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another value-added comment, DU.
 * Rschen, why did you again bring up the WP material that all users may view? We are discussing deleted material (violating WP policy) that you may view as administrator. (We all make mistakes when writing quickly.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * KW, I'm not following your argument about deleted content; can you clarify? My understanding is that the vast majority of deleted content is non-notable bands and businesses, test pages, etc... there's nothing in the deletion policies that allow an article to be deleted simply because it's too sexually explicit. If an article's content is judged to be inappropriately explicit in relation to its topic, the overly explicit material is simply removed through normal editing, and remains viewable to anyone looking through the page history, which both admins and non-admins can read without even logging in. What am I missing? 28bytes (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @28bytes, thanks for your thoughtful and clear question and comments. I'll repeat that I have very limited knowledge of the more "controversial" parts of Wikipedia. I did try to stop a DYK about Sexy Cora that described her death for a 6th breast enlargement and for her hospitalization after performing 70 fellatios (trying for 200). I emphasize that I have never suggested censorship, anywhere, and certainly not on WP. I voiced concern about the ghoulish content, not about sex.
 * I respect Malleus's WP knowledge and his precision in writing, which both far exceed mine. Therefore, I trust him when he says that deleted content may be problematic for a minor, and don't wish to speculate about what such content may be. The minor's vulnerability requires greater ethical and legal concern. (I do not believe that such content be harmless for adult.) Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus has never been an admin on the English Wikipedia and would not have the access to gauge whether deleted content would be problematic for minors since he cannot view deleted content. --Rschen7754 00:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you assume too much. Certainly Malleus has never been an admin, and never will be, but I'm not Malleus. That's just the name of this account. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Your statement sounds plausible, but I recognize that you are making a lot of assumptions. Consider Malleus's record of accuracy and careful statements about WP policy, and compare it with your own. Are you really so sure? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Special:ListUsers/sysop lists all the users who are currently administrators. --Rschen7754 00:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It lists all of the accounts that are administrators, not the users. Big difference. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ecx2) That's true. I think it rankles with him. He did stand for RfA, but was turned down. Some people questioned his maturity, if I recall correctly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This simple troll is an administrator, apparently. David Watts must be so proud of him. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF; I'm only trying to clear away any misconceptions you have about minors being administrators. --Rschen7754 01:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The misconceptions appear to be all yours Rschen. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They did indeed, which provided me with a great deal of amusement, nothing rankling at all. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's why I keep mentioning WP material that all users may view - because in most cases, it's about as offensive as the WP material that not all users may view. And I say "most" here to be safe; I've personally never run into something more offensive. Sure, occasionally something quite offensive is uploaded, but it's hard to find; you have to really be looking for something like that to find it. --Rschen7754 23:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rschen, please go to bed. Tomorrow try to find Hodge's penguin book on logic and start to read and work some exercises. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or even look up the old joke about the mathematician, the philosopher and the logician who see what appears to be a black sheep while travelling together on a train journey. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rschen, you should at least admit that your conclusion about the person behind Malleus's account was unwarranted. You seem like a nice fellow, but please look at what you have written and just find something useful to do, like sleep. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Watching you'all try to debate Malleus is like watching a pack of dogs making its first attempt at walking on the hind legs. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's probably panic among the admin kiddies now, desperately trying to identify my admin account. Good luck to 'em. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are only 34 bureaucrats on the whole wiki; I don't know how many are actually active. I recall there was a big delay on the last close one as well (Slon02). While looking up Malleus' joke I found one about a mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer. There is a whole website of science jokes, really bad ones too. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the logs - the account Malleus Fatuorum has never had administrative privileges. Therefore, unless he looked at the deleted content before it was deleted, he would not have access to deleted content. I'm not saying anything about the user - he cannot be faulted for what he cannot access. (Or, he could theoretically have another admin account, which would be quite improper, but I doubt this is the case). --Rschen7754 01:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be rather slow of understanding. I never said that the Malleus account had ever had administrative privileges. Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct; the comment wasn't addressed to you. --Rschen7754 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A glutton for punishment cruisin' for a bruisin' ... Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Malleus did indeed have an account - or the same account - under a slightly different name, and this was only the case due to Malleus' ignorance of basic Latin grammar at the time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever. The point I'm trying to drive into Rschen's brain is that Malleus is just an account. It's not me, and anyone may have many accounts. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sock accounts are serious violations of Wikipedia policy, person who is not Malleus. I should hope that you have the good sense not to use them. Danger (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I should amend: illegitimate sock accounts are serious violations of Wikipedia policy. Danger (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sock accounts are not the same as alternate accounts Danger. I do wish that that those who spout policy actually understood it. Administrator User:Chillum openly used an alternate account for many years with no complaints. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Danger, would you please provide blue-links to the appropriate policy, and perhaps a synopsis? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 02:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Demiwit100, "I wish I could be like David Watts ..." Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am a dull and simple lad


 * And when I lie on my pillow at night
 * I dream I could fight like David Watts
 * Lead the school team to victory
 * And take my exams and pass the lot

A benediction
I share Malleus's concern that becoming an administrator on WP and fighting vandals is "cool" for some teenagers, particularly after having seen that Dylan is already training other teenagers in becoming administrators.

I want the teenagers to think seriously about the amount of intellectual work (reading, writing, revising, revising, revising, discussing, revising, etc.) each of you has to do, starting now, if you want ever to be able to write with the knowledge, precision, and grace of Malleus or NewYorkBrad or EllenoftheRoads, for example. Write about SpongeBob SquarePants (for my younger relatives, not for yourselves) or the Artic Monkeys or about the voting age or The Golden Compass or whatever you want. Just write, support each other in friendship, and have fun!

Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)