Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Lord Roem 2

Lord_Roem's edit stats using X!'s edit counter as of 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC):

Username:	Lord Roem User groups:	autoreviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Dec 26, 2010 17:57:46 Unique pages edited:	2,390 Average edits per page:	2.89 Live edits:	6,838 Deleted edits:	73 Total edits (including deleted):	6,911

Namespace Totals

Article	2882	42.15% Talk	386	5.64% User	187	2.73% User talk	929	13.59% Wikipedia	1372	20.06% Wikipedia talk	690	10.09% File	3	0.04% Template	298	4.36% Template talk	91	1.33%

Month counts

2010/12	383	2011/01	813	2011/02	246	2011/03	156	2011/04	0	2011/05	0	2011/06	0	2011/07	0	2011/08	0	2011/09	0	2011/10	0	2011/11	0	2011/12	286	2012/01	437	2012/02	627	2012/03	223	2012/04	558	2012/05	580	2012/06	642	2012/07	422	2012/08	82	2012/09	1	2012/10	270	2012/11	471	2012/12	527	2013/01	114

Top edited pages

Article 255 - Washington_v._Texas 163 - Legal_Services_Corp._v._Velazquez 87 - United_States_free_speech_exceptions 57 - Taylor_v._Illinois 50 - National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Seb... 44 - Zivotofsky_v._Clinton 44 - United_States_v._Alvarez 42 - Illinois_v._McArthur 40 - Compulsory_Process_Clause 34 - False_statements_of_fact

Talk 13 - Legal_Services_Corp._v._Velazquez 9 - Manoj-Babli_honour_killing_case/GA1 9 - National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Seb... 9 - United_States_free_speech_exceptions 9 - United_States_Senate_Democratic_primary_election_i... 8 - Mithraic_mysteries 8 - Nikolai_Tikhonov/GA1 7 - Washington_v._Texas 7 - Secret_trusts_in_English_law/GA1 7 - Battle_of_Marash/GA1

User 142 - Lord_Roem 17 - Lord_Roem/Draft 7 - Lord_Roem/sandbox 6 - Lord_Roem/Sandbox 4 - Lord_Roem/Shelf 2 - Lord_Roem/EditCounterOptIn.js 2 - Emitevoba/HonaJark_Productions 2 - MBisanz/ACE_Draft 1 - John_J._Bulten/Friends 1 - Lord_Roem/common.js

User talk 227 - Lord_Roem 16 - Richwales 15 - Ironholds 13 - Ute_in_DC 9 - Peter.C 8 - Cla68 8 - AGK 8 - HaeB 7 - Newyorkbrad 5 - Courcelles

Wikipedia 67 - Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom 37 - Requests_for_adminship/Lord_Roem 37 - Arbitration/Requests/Case 36 - WikiCup/History/2011/Submissions/Lord_Roem 32 - Arbitration/Requests/Motions 31 - Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment 31 - Dispute_resolution_noticeboard 29 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 23 - Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence 22 - Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard

Wikipedia talk 79 - Requests_for_mediation/Continuation_War 53 - Requests_for_mediation/Occupy_Wall_Street 45 - Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard 41 - Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence 35 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-11-21/Kendrick_mass 33 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-01-14/Gibraltar 32 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Columbo 29 - Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012 26 - Requests_for_mediation/India,_Afghanistan_and_Paki... 22 - Arbitration/Requests

File 2 - Pendingcasesformonth.png 1 - Arbcomextremes.png

Template 22 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_4 22 - ArbComOpenTasks/ClarificationAmendment 19 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1 16 - ArbComOpenTasks 14 - ArbComOpenTasks/CaseRequests 11 - Casenav/data 10 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2 9 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_3 7 - ArbComOpenTasks/Motions 5 - Did_you_know_nominations/Seling_v._Young

Template talk 91 - Did_you_know

Discussion about question 14

 * Thank you for your direct answer, which was what I wished to hear. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not an appropriate question, Kiefer, and Lord Roem should feel free not to answer. --Rschen7754 18:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Rschen7754,
 * The community has a statement that editors are free to oppose minors by considering their age:
 * Requiring that administrators be adults (a perennial proposal): "Editors are free to use age as a personal rationale for opposing adminship on RfA".
 * It is an appropriate question particularly for a candidate who shut down his own RfA last time after having opposition, whose user-name is "Lord", and whose behavior raised concerns of "hat-collecting" from Arbitrator, Administrator, lawyer, and adult Salvio Guiliano.
 * RfA nominees are free to ignore any question, and their behavior will be judged by the community. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are making the candidate disclose their age, which is highly inappropriate. --Rschen7754 18:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the question is inappropriate although the candidate has answered anyway. The link provided by Kiefer does not say that the question is appropriate, only that a voter may use a candidate's age as a reason for opposing the RfA. In my mind, that would apply if the candidate voluntarily disclosed their age, which some editors do.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After all, I am with Rschen on this one. Asking for age is extremely inappropriate. Cmach7 (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please consult a dictionary. I did not ask for his age. I asked whether he was an adult. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  01:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Back off guys, Kiefer did not ask his age. Asking if he is an adult != "How old are you?"  Move on.--v/r - TP 02:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be ageist in appointing admins: whether a candidate is viewed to be generally capable, trustworthy, honest, etc. is obviously much more important than age alone. Some older users are arguably just as likely to act in immature ways as some younger users. However, I see no harm in asking as to whether candidates are minors. -- Trevj (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Trevj. I did not use the word "only", and I agree that adulthood is not the sole criterion. I agree that some adults (as well as minors) should not be administrators. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)