Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Crazytales56297

User:Crazytales56297

run at Fri Dec 15 01:25:59 2006 GMT

Category:	4 Image talk:	5 Image:	44 Mainspace	1436 Portal:	1 Talk:	93 Template talk:	5 Template:	27 User talk:	697 User:	333 Wikipedia talk:	29 Wikipedia:	573 avg edits per article	1.53 earliest	16:36, 27 May 2005 number of unique articles	2126 total	3247 Editcount generated using Interiot's wannabe Kate's Tool.  Nish kid 64  01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of question 7 on candidate's age
Discussion moved from main page.

Note from Yuser31415: I disapprove of asking this question. One may choose to reveal or not reveal their age and I frown on people who oppose based on age. Maturity of edits should suffice. Yuser31415 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note from Canadian-Bacon: Questions asked by users on RFAs are completely optional for the candidate to answer. Therefore it is the candidate's choice whether to reveal his age or not.  Canadian - Bacon  05:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of this question as we hold teenage editors to the same standards as everyone else and have teen age admins and at least one teen age 'crat. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand there's a really discussion to be had about this question, but can it please happen at WT:RFA instead of the candidate's RFA, especially since he's already answered the question. Thanks.--Kchase T 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This relates to the previously existing RfA talk discussion here. The issue of asking a candidates age is not only irrelevant, it is an invasion of privacy. Agent 86 23:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support that. Asking a candidate his or her age will only make that person feel they have to answer the question, or be outvoted because they didn't answer. In this day and age when privacy is important, especially on the Internet, that question should never be asked. Besides that, too many people oppose based on age, when maturity and quality of edits should be more than suffice. Thank you for considering this. Yuser31415 01:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that in general this question places undue weight on the issue of age, as well as raising at least an arguable privacy issue for younger editors. However, in this instance, the candidate had already disclosed the information on his userpage and on the question page of his former ArbCom candidacy. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I too agree, there are many young teen (including myself) who edit wikipedia and should never be judged upon their age, since it is quality that matters not age. &mdash; Seadog Talk 02:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's your opinion that it shouldn't matter. It's mine, too. But is there a good reason that people should not be allowed to think it matters? -Amarkov blahedits 02:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone may think what they like. Whether they can write it or not is another question. If someone dislikes something on Wikipedia, they can dislike it, but they must remain unbiased when writing. Yuser31415 02:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But if I think it matters, and that isn't bad, I should be allowed to determine it. Otherwise, I'm making an uninformed decision, when the information I am being denied might have changed my opinion. -Amarkov blahedits 02:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A biased decision?!! I think asking the question pressures the candidate into answering something they might have wished not to, for instance a question like "Are you married? If you aren't, no adminship for you!". I don't think candidates should be asked any questions to do with Real Life; it is their Wikipedian actions that count for a Wikipedia position. Yuser31415 02:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You think that. I think that to an extent. But everyone else isn't obligated to, and why should they be not allowed to ask for information they want? And how well do you think an admin who feels pressured into revealing personal information by an optional question will fare when some random troll tells them that they must unblock, or they will get sued/hurt/whatever? -Amarkov blahedits 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's another case altogether, possibly warranting a block. In a RfA, the candidate is expected to answer the question, "How old are you?" If he or she is not expected to answer it, then why ask the query? The candidate doesn't have to answer it, per our privacy policy. Yuser31415 02:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The candidate doesn't have to answer it. There's no rule that says optional questions must be answered. Our privacy policy doesn't apply to questions that do not have to be answered, any more than it applies where stewards are required to reveal their age, and proof of said age. -Amarkov blahedits 02:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How about having a vote to see other peoples' opinions? Cheers! Yuser31415 03:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as nobody attempts to enforce the results, I have no objection. -Amarkov blahedits 03:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Had edit conflict with Amarkov: on second thoughts, I'll forget about it at present. I suppose that the question is allowed (although the candidate can choose not to answer it and must not be pressured). Not that I approve of asking the question Yuser31415 03:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That in my opinion is the best way to confront this. &mdash; Seadog Talk 03:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What, have a vote or not have a vote? (I didn't quite get who you were replying to :) Yuser31415 (Review me!) 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)