User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Ageism

Young administrator candidates (Archive 66)

Do we ever take notice of the fact that the nom is obviously a kid, or do we just keep going like he was an adult? :) Dlohcierekim 03:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should discriminate against candidates or nominees based on age (or any other inherent characteristic). Hold all candidates to the same standards regardless of age. We have some great editors under the age of 16 and I see no reason why one of them couldn't become an admin if they met the usual standards expected of candidates. Best, Gwernol 03:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a 14-year-old bureaucrat, for what it's worth :-) Kirill Lokshin 03:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! That is amazing. I just feel sorry for the poor kid out there with his string of teenager mistakes and with 18 opposes. So much for my opinion that we should block all school accounts on sight. :) Dlohcierekim 03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, do we? I thought he had grown up. (Not that it matters anyway, age discrimination in RfA is senseless. There's "mature" contributors who I would like to be as far away as possible from the mop.) Tito xd^(?!?) 08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, his userpage still says 14; I have no idea if that's still the case, or if he's merely neglected to update it. Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This was actually a hotly debated issue on Fetofs's RfA a couple months back. I personally think age discrimination in RfAs is ridiculous. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 03:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Evaluate candidates on maturity, not age. (Disclaimer: I am a 16-year-old admin.) Johnleemk | Talk 07:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If we knew everyone's age, then we might want to discourage those under 14 from standing. But we don't - and even where it is declared, we can't verify it. So judge maturity by actions. (Disclaimer: I sometimes act like a pre-teen) --Doc 10:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I know plenty of adults who are less mature than most children. --Kbdank71 11:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As my name was mentioned, I thought I might give my opinion: I think that, being part of the net, Wikipedia has no means to know my age if I don't tell it voluntarily. You have to think what you would have not knowing of the age (and probably you would have considered maturity). Also, it's wiki experience that counts most; when editing here you have to deal with conflicts. But then, I guess I'm a bit biased :) fetofs ^Hello! 00:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, age has no part in adminship (I'm 15). —Mets501 (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Age has no part in who should be an admin. However, maturity does: if you have a 13 or a 30 year old who acts like a "typical" 10 year old, neither should get the tools. One thing I am concerned about though is that it is probably more likely that a young candidate take a failed RFA badly.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you get into a serious problem on Wikipedia, "Hey, I'm just 15!" really can't be an excuse if you've chosen to go through RfA and say that age doesn't matter. You've chosen to be treated as an adult for better or worse. --W.marsh 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Age doesn't matter as much as maturity. I've seen admins as young as 12 kicking and screaming (in a positive manner, of course). --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with this. Age is actually not a concern. The level of maturity is. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 18:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Age absolutely is a valid part of a larger look at a candidate for adminship. There are some cases where im immensely surprised to find some current admins who were young when promoted, but for the most part, it's along the lines of 'I could tell'. It's not a litmus test, I wont make up my mind solely on the issue of age, but I find it much harder to support someone under 18. Not impossibly hard mind you, and I end up swayed as often as not, but it is just more reassuring to know someone has reached at least adulthood, seems to temper them and add a bit of maturity from what I see. We dont live for the exceptions. There are mature teenagers, and immature 30-somethings, and thats what the discussion part of RfA is for, to sway those who see that. But for the majority of cases, if you're in highschool, you've got some growing to do. Get over it, do that growing, its not like im saying you suck as a person because you're young. -M^ask 21:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For legal issues, I can understand why someone would want aged 18+ admins. But, then again, how can one prove age on the internet? Moreover, wouldn't that compromise "No big deal" even more than it already has been? I agree with the above user; age is another statistic, like edit count — stats serve as half of the equation in RFA, and the other half is the discussion aspect. — Deckill e r 21:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with AKMask on this. Deckiller raises the obvious practical question: how do we know how old someone is? That aside this kind of age discrimination is illegal in some countries where Wikipedia operates, and IMHO its immmoral everywhere. The question we should be asking is about maturity, not age, as maturity directly impacts their ability to be a good admin. Since even AKMask admits that age!=maturity then adding an age barrier does nothing the improve the RfA decision process but it is instruction creep. We already judge people on their maturity and find some older folks lacking and some younger folks to be wise. I may be old and creaky myself but I still remember being young. Gwernol 22:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Age should not be a factor. If for no other reason, we don't know most users' ages. That would then make it unfair on those who have chosen to be honest and tell their age, and are then punished for it. If someone isn't acting like a little kid (in the bad way), then don't oppose them for it. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 22:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Newyorkbrad)Discriminating against someone based on their age makes as much sense as discriminating against someone based on their being from developing country. Many young people are not as mature as adults. Many people from non-first world countries are either computer illiterate and/or unable to communicate effectively in English. Therefore young people and people from non-first world countries are less likely to make good admins. This should be taken into account when judging RfAs from people under the age of 21 (the age of majority in many countries) or RfAs involving people from less well off countries. It's just more reassuring to know that someone has grown up in an English speaking country and surrounded by technology. It seems to temper them for the online environment and add a bit of English communication proficiency from what I see. We don't live for the exceptions. We should pass over people from countries outside of the developed world. Right, or did I miss your point? Basing an argument on stereotypes and generalizations is not a mature rhetorical approach.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think. Your sarcasm confused me for a moment. (You are being sarcastic right?) There is no reason to think that a 40-year-old new to Wikipedia should be more knowledgeable about the project than a 15-year-old who has been around for a year. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was meant to be a weak reductio ad absurdum, commonly seen as sarcastic agreement. I'm sure that there are some people on the project that feel that admins should only come from English speaking countries in the Western world. If someone commenting here feels that way then my argument could be rejected, however I have a strong feeling that the vast majority of commenters will agree that it is an absurd conclusion. Breakdown of logical argument follows. Let A stand for young people, B stand for immature people, C stand for good admin candidates, D stand for people from places outside the developed/English speaking world and E stand for computer illiterate people/people with poor English communication skils. AKMask said Most A are B. B are not C. Therefore A are not C. I responded Most A are B. Most D are E. B and E are not C. Therefore all A and D are not C, but all D != C is an absurd conclusion. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Youthful RfA candidates should be treated just like everyone else if they are serious candidates. I ran successfully for public office when I was in my early 20's and can shout as loud as anyone "judge people by their qualifications, not by their ages." Of course, in some cases we don't know a candidate's age anyway (e.g., I had no idea User:Mets501 was a teen when I supported his RfA last month, but now I am sad I'll never get to reminisce with him about the 1986 World Series).

On the other hand, when a young nominee (such as a current candidate at this writing who appears to be 12 years old) has no real chance for the mop in his/her current RfA, the situation calls for the same kindness and thoughtfulness that we would have wanted to receive if there had been an Internet and a Wikipedia when we all were 12 or 13. Especially if, as in this case, the user is a serious article editor and we want him to stick around in that capacity. It's particularly important that at least some of the comments be positive -- but that this be done without patronizing the candidate, these are some of the brightest kids around and will see through that -- and that we avoid pile-ons in these situations. Newyorkbrad 23:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

WOW! I just felt bad for a certain RfA candidate who was getting shredded without regard for his age (12-14). I just found his mistakes more understandable as age/maturity related. Then I find out we have a teenage 'crat. I don't care how old an editor is. All that matters is ability. I don't think we should take age into considerationregardling qualifications. Should we temper our "constructive criticism in any way? Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't edited this page since the HRE fracas, but I think I need to say a few things. As someone who was made admin at 15 (I became admin a few days before my 16th birthday last year), age plays little to no part in it, it's maturity. HOWEVER, regardless of one's age, I think there's one underlying point that must be made here: If you accept and choose to go through with the nomination, you have to expect and accept what comes at you. This certain candidate is being opposed on mostly fair grounds, with, as far as I can see, only one struck out age-related issue. He's being opposed on how he would use the tools, and his actions in the past regarding policy, not his age. Chacor 01:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"On the internet, no one knows you're really a [16 year old] dog." -Kim Bruning 10:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been discriminated against because of my age before on Wikipedia (quite often by vandals but a couple of times by respected editors too). I don't think age should play a part in the process – quite often a 13, 14, 15 year old can be more mature, and more responsible than a 30 year old. — FireFox ^(talk) _{10:51, 13 August '06}

As a member of the over-30 admin group, I also think that it more relates to maturity than chronological age. I happen to think that there is a positive correlation between the two, but it isn't 1. If over a period of six months to a year, and a few thousand edits, the user demonstrates the maturity, diplomacy, and discipline needed to be a 'crat or sysop, then why not? I know plenty of fourty year olds that make my kids look like sagacious octogenarians :) -- Avi 14:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm 13, I can't be an admin sometime soon? That is not right. Until I stated my age just a few weeks ago, I could have been mistaken as an adult because of my maturity. Abdullah Geelah should certainly be an admin soon. --Kitia

Based on the discussion above, Kitia, I don't think anyone is saying that being 13 (or any age) means you can't be an administrator if you are qualified. To the contrary, I think the consensus above is to judge the candidates strictly on the basis of qualifications and that age is either not a factor at all or at most a peripheral one. In fact, I think that younger people have a greater chance of being treated as individuals and on the same plane with older people on Wikipedia and similar projects than virtually anywhere else -- which is exactly how it should be, and exactly how I would have wanted it if there had been a 'net and a Wikipedia when I was 13. Newyorkbrad 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Malber's age question (Archive 76)

is totally inappropriate. We cannot be asking candidates to reveal personal information. I attempted to talk sense into him before, but no response was ever received. Do people agree that asking this question is reprehensible? If so, does anyone have any ideas on how to stop this behavior? - crz crztalk 15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... why can't we? It's not as if anyone is required to answer. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NVM... I see there's been discussion of this previously... No, they're not required to answer. But that doesn't make it appropriate to ask. - crz crztalk 15:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see the point in asking to be honest. Most other factors will be taken into consideration before the age issue (if there is one) - you don't tick all the boxes and then suddenly change to "oppose" because they reveal their age. Bubba hot ep 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I'd be pretty tempted to !vote "oppose" if they said they were a fetus... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'd be inclined to concur. However, they haven't made a fetus-friendly keyboard yet. The placenta sticks the function keys... nevermind! Bubba hot ep 16:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Age is not a restriction on adminship. The question is irrelevant. It is akin to asking what eye color the nominee has. --Durin 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- My opinion too. So if it's irrelevant, why bother restricting it? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I think age is plenty relevant, but it's not appropriate to request its disclosure. - crz crztalk 16:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    - What? If it is indeed relevant to adminship, then not knowing it would make a judgement ill-informed. So why is it appropriate to not request its disclosure? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      - What is so hard to understand? I think ageism is appropriate in RfA's. Age could have been disclosed on the user page or apparent from other disclosure. However, I think that requesting personal info such as name, age, address, sex, HIV status, social security number, and sexual orientation is not appropriate. - crz crztalk 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        So, if someone chooses not to disclose their age on their own, people have to make uninformed decisions? Huh? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        [edit conflict] I think that age is largely irrelevant; an editor who is 15 can be more mature than an editor who is 25 (I'm assuming that some vandals are adults). I think that the truly immature who seek an RfA will get weeded out, either through their answers or their edits, making the question unimportant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        This is what I was trying to say. If someone is a prolific vandal-fighter, holds themselves well in general discussions, contributes well to XfD and all kinds of policy talk: finding out they are 16, say, should not then count against them. I suppose it is the context in which the question is being asked. Bubba hot ep 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        {edit conflict} IMO personal questions such as age have no place in RFAs and even though the question is considered optional many others will oppose since it wasn't answered. — Seadog^Talk 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are no restrictions on adminship. There are no standards. So by that logic, all questions are irrelevant and it's just a popularity contest. However, the one standard we have is consensus and since everyone is allowed to develop their own standards on what qualities make a good administrator, any question is relevant. —Malber (talk * contribs) 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  - - - crz - I totally agree. What I'm about to say on it's own would sound really stupid, so I'll clarify my point before I start, I detest RfAs where numbers come into play, whether it be age, length of time on project or edit count, candidates should be judged solely on the ability to do the job, although I can understand edit count and time on project being a little more relevant to ability to use the tools correctly, age is totally irrelevant. Anyway, onto my comment. I think it should be acceptable (if somewhat frowned upon) for a !voter to revise their criteria and vote according to whether or not the candidates age is displayed on their userpage and if the age is displayed, vote according to the age stated. I fully support any proposal to prevent any editor from asking the age of a candidate openly on their RfA page. If a !voter is really determined, it would, I suppose, be acceptable to ask in private through e-mail the age, but not to disclose the answer on Wikipedia. Age should also cover school or college grade/form which would give an idea as to age. Ideally, the 'crats will ignore any votes made regarding age, but there should be no explicit rule as this is always going to cause !voters to find another random and probably equally pedantic reason to oppose. We're only trying to sort out candidates who might make good admins from candidates who might make bad admins through the RfA process, age has nothing to do with that process. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for an employer to ask a prospective employee what their age is. The prospective employee can choose not to answer the question if it is asked, but it is STILL wildly inappropriate to ask in the first place. Above, I see a number of fine editors asserting that _because_ the candidate can choose not to answer the question, the fact that the question is inappropriate in the first place is somehow resolved. It isn't. Frankly, asking the question in an RfA places an implied obligation to answer. Just as a teacher cannot proselytize in a public school because they operate in a position of authority, a question about age in an RfA is imbued with an implied authority and places an implied burden on the candidate to answer, whether or not the burden is real. The question is inappropriate and the community should clearly state such and be undivided on the matter. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's irrelevant, but IMO it's due to privacy issues. An editor should never be chastised or treated to any negative backlash for not revealing personal information. For some editors, the disclosure of age could be the final piece of info that enables RL to intersect with Wikilife in ways they don't want, and, in the case of underage editors, it could put them at risk. Anchoress 16:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (signing in agreement with Anchoress: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

The inappropriateness is another issue I have with it. I mean, sure, I can walk up to a random woman and ask for a blowjob, but that would be very inappropriate (and, worse yet, probably wouldn't work). But, between appropriateness and relevance, the fact that an editor's age is irrelevant is, in my opinion, the stronger reason to oppose the question. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you may have killed the conversation whilst people digest that piece of information (with pictures!) ;) Bubba hot ep 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The previous discussion that Crz recalls seeing can be found here. Malber uses a template for his de facto standard questions. As it is user space, rather than delete the last question I've asked Malber to remove the last question. I see that Malber applied the template to Asterion's RfA and left off the age question, but it's still in the template. While I've spilled a few electrons on the topic, the two main reasons I find the question unacceptable are privacy and that it is ageist. If a person wants to volunteer this info without prompting, that's their choice, but they ought not feel any pressure to do so. I'm somewhat concerned that one nominee may have felt so (see here). Agent 86 18:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it was there, Crz removed it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Yes, I just found that now in the edit history. Thanks!Agent 86 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    - The thing is Malber did not actually check my userpage, I reckon. I have an age userbox clearly stating my age. Regards, Asterion^talk 20:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Crz is right. One thing wiki has taught me is that very young editors are still sometimes capable of leadership roles. RfA candidates should be judged by their on-wiki (and wiki-related) actions, nothing else. I think "optional questions" are not really "optional" in the eyes of many as well. Grand master ka 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just responding to a couple of points made above: (1) "I'm assuming that some vandals are adults" - no need to make an assumption like that. Vandalism is not correlated with age. All ages carry out vandalism, though it does seem to be more prevalent among younger people. Vandalism might help here. (2) "in the case of underage editors, it could put them at risk" - revealing personal information can put editors of any age at risk if someone targets them. No need to emphasise younger editors over older editors.

As for asking the age question, I don't think it is needed. There are times when I am discussing something with someone on-wiki, and they don't quite seem to get something, or they seem to be persistently flippant and immature, and I find myself wondering (how old are you?). As a principle I always try to avoid saying that, as it doesn't help. Judge the actions and the words, not the man (or woman, or boy, or girl). Carcharoth 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that one need not be a teenager to be a vandal. Nothing more was meant by it, though I could have phrased it a bit better, I suppose (for example... I could have phrased it like I just did...). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is inappropriate, for 2 reasons. 1. It encourages voters to vote against people that do not reveal personal information. 2. It encourages voters to vote for a candidate based upon an irrelevant factor, rather than the candidate's degree of responsibility. HalfOfElement29 05:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber's response

There are no restrictions on adminship. There are no standards. So by that logic, all questions are irrelevant and it's just a popularity contest. However, the one standard we have is consensus and since everyone is allowed to develop their own standards on what qualities make a good administrator, any question is relevant.

Is this an invasion of privacy? No, because no one is actively investigating this information without the nominee's consent. The nominee can simply decline to answer or come up with some pithy answer. Or they can answer truthfully if they are not bashful.

Is it illegal? I don't think so. Someone stated that a potential employer asking for the same information is inappropriate which is, at least in the United States, incorrect. Any job application will ask for an applicant's date of birth and any HR department records this information. Using this as a basis for making an employment decision is also generally in many circumstances not against the law, at least in the US. Besides, this is a volunteer project and not subject to employment law. And anyone voting Oppose or Support can choose whether or not this question has any relevance on their decision. —Malber (talk * contribs) 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I wouldn't ask the question, but I will defend your right to ask it. Do you add a disclaimer making clear that people really, really don't have to answer the question? Carcharoth 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I may do so, but I would prefer not to pollute the potential answer. —Malber (talk * contribs) 20:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Malber. Federal law allows an employer to ask your age or date of birth if there is a legitimate reason for them to ask for that information -- such as to perform background checks or for identification purposes. [1] Asking for an applicant's age so that it may be used in the hire/don't-hire decision is illegal. (And FWIW, I oppose Malber's RfA question.) | Mr. Darcy talk 19:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Still the problem with the question is that it has nothing to do with administrative action, I would rather support an eleven year old wikipedian who is a very clever vandal fighter and all around good candidate than a 30 year old who isn't. In my opinion it doesn't help and it puts the younger editor in a little bit of a worry that he has to answer this personal question or his/her RFA will fail. I do not support asking personal questions on an RFA at all. — Seadog^Talk 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this would shed some light on Malber's views on teenagers – [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], the last diff on WAvegetarian's comments. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh.. thought he was a teen him self.. anyway those diffs. presented distress me alot. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... I agree with him word for word, and I am a teenager. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Matthew Fenton on this one, those diffs really shocked me. There is a serious civility problem going on there. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too, the scare me. — Seadog^Talk 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the question on par with questions such as, "what color is your hair," "what is your gender," "what is your nationality". None of those questions would be asked, why ask the age question?

Actually, I believe nationality has been asked once or twice, and I remember an oppose because the user in question was Romanian. Stupid, but... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to be negative, but it does not suprise me, lol. It just seems a little absurd to me? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's absurd, there is no concievable way in which country of origin could impact how good of an admin you'll be. But there's no real reason to make an explicit provision to prevent the question, because some people might consider it important, and if the bureaucrat thinks it's absurd, it's within their discretion to discount a few opposes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, after thinking about it a little more, I started thinking that. I still stand by my claim though that it hink it is pointless. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The question is inappropriate and irrelevant, but you can't take away people's right to ask foolish questions and inappropriate questions. Let each person the question is asked of either respond or ignore it, as they see fit. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber's reasoning leaves me wanting. It is very much an invasion of privacy to ask someone their personal information. The statement, "no one is actively investigating this information without the nominee's consent", is incongruous. By posing the question, Malber is indeed "actively investigating this information". The "consent" is not in the asking of the question (which should not be done), but in the answering (which is unnecessary to answer in any event). There is a complete failure to address how the question is not ageist.

As for the "illegality", I have not suggested that it is illegal per se. As I stated in the earlier discussion, the issue isn't entirely about legal standards. However, those standards (which go beyond employment law) are useful to illustrate the matters at issue. Agent 86 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So the question is ageist. Why does that matter? We're vandalist, we're POVist, we're civilityist, and we're usually intelligenceist. (Yes, I KNOW those aren't real words). Yet nobody seems to care about those. Why? Because they're recognized as being important for an administrator to have. I don't see why discriminating using standards that everybody doesn't happen to agree with is worse. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just picked up a quote from Jimbo that I feel is fairly relevant: "To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters." I think that sums up the opinion of several editors in regards to the age matter quite well. Let an editor's actions speak louder than their age (and the easiest way to do that is to not ask about the age at all). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Seadog applauds. — Seadog^Talk 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if anyone wants to ask me how old I am: I'm old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes, but young enough to play naked Badminton on a packed beach in the middle of winter. Bubba hot ep 20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA, out of curiosity, exactly HOW old is that? lol. If those were requirements for being an admin, I think the age question would be perfectly valid. (thank goodness those arent requirements.) lol. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To EVula: Jimbo was talking about editors, not administrators and the context of the question was about the importance of having experts as editors as opposed to laypersons. My question relates to who we give the mop. Would you want someone who can't drive, can't vote, or can't drink having the capability to block you or delete your articles?

To Agent 86: we're not investigating through a third party, looking into a nominee's permanent school record, or calling their doctor. I'm asking a direct question which can easily be evaded. Plenty of people have cribbed other people's answer to my WP:IAR question. I'm certain anyone uncomfortable with the age question will do the same and crib someone else's pithy answer.

To Nick: Nice research on my diffs, but I stand by what I said. Someone else might be concerned about how you've been keeping track.

To all: This question is designed mostly for other people if they consider it a standard. I've responded on someone else's talk page that I don't normally participate in Support or Oppose discussions unless the answers to the questions move me strongly one way or the other and especially don't if the vote is a landslide in either direction. Otherwise I remain neutral. I wouldn't base my decision solely on the age question. I appreciate a truthful answer but wouldn't oppose if someone didn't answer candidly. However someone else might have stronger misgivings about granting the mop to someone who hasn't gotten out of grade school. —Malber (talk * contribs) 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber: I've been following this discussion without commenting in this thread, though I've stated my opinion in similar discussion in the past. You ask above, "Would you want someone who can't drive, can't vote, or can't drink having the capability to block you or delete your articles?" In New York where I am located, one has to be 16 or 17 to drive, 18 to vote, and 21 to (legally) drink. Are you really suggesting that there is a credible view that being under 16 or 18 or 21 is a negative toward being a Wikipedia administrator? And are you really suggesting that there is a significant class of RfA candidates who "ha[ve]n't gotten out of grade school"–yet would appear qualified to the !voters unless they were induced to state their age? I see that lower down you say that you "wouldn't base [your] decision on the age question" but I'm still not quite following exactly what you feel the relevance of the age criterion is. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your questions: maybe and possibly. I haven't queried every participant in an RfA. But there is a perception outside of Wikipedia that it is run by adolescents with too much time on their hands. I don't base my decision on the answer to one question. Because I don't have the time to research edit history and dig through diffs on talk pages, I put most of the weight on how a nominee answers all of the questions. —Malber (talk * contribs) 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the quote wasn't directly applicable, which is why I prefaced it with "I feel [this] is fairly relevant". To answer your question, no, I don't have a problem with someone who can't drive, drink, or vote being an admin, as the three items are entirely unrelated to administering Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why ? - There is the discretion of allowing optional questions to allow !voters to decide how they are going to vote. Your abusing the system asking an irrelevant question and not using the result to !vote each time you ask a question. In light of your answer above stating there is a perception outside of Wikipedia that it is run by adolescents with too much time on their hands I think your question about age could well be a violation of WP:POINT, I genuinely think your asking your question to try and prove a point. Why, I don't know but there you go. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it doesn't matter how old you are to be an admin. It doesn't matter if someone asks "how old are you?" All that matters is how you answer the questions. A mature teenager is preferable to a childish adult. And I don't know why you have to fret so much about the reputation of Wikipedia; we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to defend its honor (well, we sort of do). Full disclosure: I'm a 16-year-old admin, and I've been deleting articles and blocking people without much problems. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that I'm in the minority, but I think that asking an admin candidate for their age is a fair question. As with all questions, responses are optional. -- Samir धर्म 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine ... but ... if the applicant answers the question, what does a !voter then do with the answer? (Frankly, I find the issue of the propriety of the question less critical than some, simply because most younger applicants have enough information on their userpage to give the answer or at least a close range away anyhow. But I still don't see what a reader would do with the information to translate it into a comment or a !vote.) Newyorkbrad 22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Until I read through this lengthy correspondence I had thought that there might be some merit in setting a lower age limit on qualification for admin status, although I would have been uncertain as to what the limit should have been. Very early teens, I guess. Having read User:Malbers correspondence with a teenage editor, I now feel that any opinion which he holds is one with which I do not wish to be associated. I am aware that it is being suggested elsewhere that a suggested answer to the age question, if asked, is "Old enough to apply for Adminship" and I would recommend this answer in all cases. I will use it myself if asked in the future. I am 63.--Anthony.bradbury 12:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As another 63 year old admin, I concur. My age had nothing to do with my qualifications for adminship, and that should apply to everybody. -- Donald Albury 20:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Rephrase the question

Why not rephrase the question? Something like:

Do you think an admin's age is relevant to the tasks they may need to carry out on Wikipedia? Are there cases where an older or younger admin might be more suited to a particular task, or to interacting with particular users? Do you think admins or editors should give an idea of how old they are?

This would be less intrusive than the current form of the question. In all cases of intrusive questions, my thought is that the way the user responds is actually more revealing than the actual content of the answer. If a user gets upset over a question like this, then you start to think to yourself: how would this candidate handle themselves under real pressure? Though any question can be designed to do this, not just an age question. In the recent ArbCom elections, I saw one of the candidates (and only one of the candidates) respond rather bruquesly to an 'age question' that someone else had asked. I followed up on this and found that the responses to my follow-up told me more about the candidate than reading pages and pages of questions and answers. See here for details. I also liked that candidate's response to the age question, that they were under 65, neatly turning the usual implied "are you really young" into an answer that implies "I'm not someone doddering around on a zimmerframe". Carcharoth 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Echoing Newyorkbrad a bit, how does that help us assess the candidate up for nomination? His or her opinion on a generic admin's age is really irrelevant to whether or not the candidate would make a good admin. The only way the answer could help is if the candidate "volunteers" their own age in the context of answering the question. It's a bit subversive - the only way for the answer to be relevant to the nomination is for the candidate to divulge their own age. Agent 86 01:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. On the other hand, the rephrased question does implicate some interesting issues, deeper than "should User:Foo be made an administrator?" I wouldn't mind a bit if someone asked me that question on an RfA, although you'd have to sit through some philosophical ramblings to get to the answer. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Write the essay - you now have me intrigued. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already here scattered in a dozen threads all over the site, but I will have to collect it sometime soon. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting away from the admin question briefly, there are plenty of examples of editing where age does matter. I know that the science pages often have to remove 'helpful' stuff added by schoolkids who have learnt something at school, but who will, in a few years time have to unlearn that stuff and learn what current, mainstream science says (rather than the school textbooks). The reverse is always true, in that years of experience and knowledge in no way stops someone from being completely and utterly wrong. And the really good idea that completely changes things can come from anyone of any age. My feeling about the age question is along the lines of: don't make a big deal out of it, but don't totally ignore it either. Carcharoth 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Diversity among admins

Another thought. It would be reassuring to know that we had admins of all ages. Just as it is good to have editors of all ages (providing they know how to edit), it is good to have admins of all ages (providing they know how to handle the tools). The editor diversity can be seen by randomly visiting userpages, and you soon see the diversity of editors. Randomly visit admin pages, and enough give some idea of their age that you can see the same spread. So again, I support Malber's right to ask the question, but I agree it is generally not relevant. I would, though, ask everyone to consider the next time they make an off-colour joke with another user whose age you don't know, that they really could be anyone, of any age. Carcharoth 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruption, disruption, disruption

... and that is what I see. Malber is setting a classic example of how to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I would support a block, in case he continues or does not rephrase his question in a better way. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I would too. The persistent personal information stuff is just not cool. Extra not cool when the userpage states the age clearly. - crz crztalk 09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing discussion questions is disruptive. —Malber (talk * contribs) 14:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too - Glad it wasn't just me who thought Malber was disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 10:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In what way is Malber disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point? --Centrx→talk • 10:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the comments above, and specifically the diffs I have provided. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree that this is disruptive and would support a block if he refuses to remove/rephrase the question. – Ch acor 11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am strongly opposed to Malber asking the question, and he should stop asking the questions now while this debate is still ongoing but we should get someone external to the discussion to read it and if a block does occur, I would sincerely hope nobody who participated in this discussion does it. Then again, Malber may stop asking the question. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone not see this suggestion as being punitive? I suggest a de-admin for Nick. WP:POINT is not policy and can't be used as the basis for a block. Such a block would be contrary to the blocking policy and shows a severe disregard for process on Nick's part. Plus there is no logical argument that asking questions is blockworthy. —Malber (talk * contribs) 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"I suggest a de-admin for Nick" - a typical response from a typical troll. – Ch acor 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If people are allowed to have their own criteria, why can't age be one of them, and why can't the option to answer the question be offered? I honestly don't see the big deal here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, look at the diffs I have provided above. Malber possesses a unreasonable bias against all teenagers. I fail to see how he would not make it a point to oppose every candidate when they say they are minor. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And so what if he does? Why is this an issue? Is he not allowed to have his own criteria for adminship? The diffs above have nothing to do with the subject here - if he's incivil toward younger editors, then deal with that, but don't punish the guy for having standards you disagree with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Taken from the top of WP:POINT

This page in a nutshell: If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point � and it may get you blocked.

However if blocked (especially by anyone here) it may be punitive. I think a block would be neither neccessary nor constructive. However I still remain firmly opposed to the question. I can see that if people don't remain calm, WP:CIVIL is going to come into play. Discussing the blocking of Malber and the de-admin-ing of Nick will lead to "nasty" comments if people don't calm down right now. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 14:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

/me deadmins himself, wait – that didn't work. Ask the question one more freakin' time and there are a few things that are still working. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose you blocking someone for asking a question like that. His feelings on younger editors are completely irrelevant to whether it's a viable optional question here, especially given the specific lack of general criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

/me deadmins Jeff. *w00t!* — Nearly Headless Nick 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Aw hell. That'll leave a mark. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a de-admin for Nick, another recall for myself, a decapitation for Malber, and earl grey all around. - crz crztalk 14:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

...and a partridge in a pear tree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad we're all having fun here. Mimsy has an axe to grind, so any block by him would be punitive. His muddying of the discussion with out of context talk page discussion is particularly in-civil and unbecoming of an admin. —Malber (talk * contribs) 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well yes. We are all unbecoming and stupid sometimes. But some people never learn. There will be no punitive blocks handed out. The block is subject to the condition when you will further disrupt and ask another candidate *the question*. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest, is this the longest discussion topic ever on this talk page? I mean starting with crz's original post yesterday down to here? And mine's a Lapsang suchong, btw. Bubba hot ep 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... Has it occured to anyone to just drop this? Desysopping isn't going to happen here, and as much as anyone can pretend it will, neither will blocks due to asking a candidate's age. Nothing will come out of this. Wider discussion than four or five people would be necessary to do anything. Move along. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to stop asking about people's ages until there is a consensus one way or the other. I'm not sure this is the best forum to work that out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber blocked

Just so everyone's aware, Mimsy blocked Malber for 48 a few minutes ago... - crz crztalk 15:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And I've removed the offending question. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 15:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope everyone has enough common sense to not remove it from RfAs where people have already answered it. And not to edit war to keep it out. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Question was unanswered. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And I hope nobody thinks it was somehow justified by asking a candidate "the question". He was blocked loong after the last time doing so. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And... I didn't see his recent contribs. A block is absurd. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If this was because of the question, I hope an admin has the good sense to unblock, if not Nick himself. If it was due to soemthing else, ignore this, but there's a good case that Nick shouldn't have been the blocking admin here regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... Nick's replies to Malber are just... weird. "Unwilling to yield to consensus"? What consensus? It must be hiding, because I don't see it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I was in strong disagreement with Malber on the merits of "the question," based on what I have seen this is an extremely troublesome and problematic block. I will comment further on Malber's talkpage but it really is regrettable that things escalated to this extent. Newyorkbrad 16:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say some admins have become extremely hair-trigger in handing out blocks. The one who gave this one in particular. Perhaps that should be a question to RfA candidates. During my 18 month term as admin I only once blocked a long standing contributor, and that was where there was absolutely no choice. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The question (albeit it slightly modified) is back, sadly Malber isn't content to let the question go. It's the first thing he did after being unblocked. This is really starting to get out of hand here. I've notified the candidate that answering is totally optional and comments such as "Old Enough" would be fine too. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. I became an admin at 20. I obviously don't agree with letting the question stand, but blocking him for doing it has made this way more of an issue than it needed to be, I'm afraid. Grand master ka 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the block, but rather this is playing out in the middle of RfAs and an RfA is a baptism of fire without a disagreement continuing with regards to this damn question.

I certainly think there is enough evidence that shows Malber is disrupting Wikipedia. He has asked the question when the age was available on the candidates user page and their first edit after being unblocked was to add the question back in (I removed the original version) and he also reverted on another current RfA. This coupled with the fact Malber isn't actually asking the question with the intent to !vote is worse. I'd like to see this issue sorted once and for all but I don't really think anywhere near RfA is the place to do it. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

From what i'm seeing, I concur. It seems Nick didn't act with malice however.Just H 19:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As many parents say, there's nothing wrong with asking questions. There is, however, something wrong with asking questions incorrectly, i.e. in a blunt manner. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I disagreed with the original block, the re-instituted question leads me to believe that Malber is not willing to wait for concensus on the issue. I would strongly recommend that he wait until the community can determine concensus before asking the age question again to avoid causing further disruption.Canadian-Bacon 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with establishing consensus on this issue is that is we allow this question, when we have to allow all questions (sans flagrantly inappropriate ones). If we don't allow this questions, then it opens a Pandora's box of what is to be allowed and what is not to be allowed, leaving the definite possibility of chronic gridlock on this page. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

True, once we try to figure out what's appropriate and what's innappropriate as a question, it just gets difficult and very subjective. But there has to be some form of solution that we can all agree on without wiki-drama. Canadian-Bacon 19:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A blanket ban of asking for personal information such as age, appearance, location, religion would be sufficent. Only questions which can be used to directly assess the suitability of the candidate for the roll of admin are really suitable for RfA. Asking personal questions is, in my opinion, slightly abusing the right granted to ask questions of a candidate to assist in deciding which way to !vote. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does he need consensus to ask a question? If you don't like the question, don't answer it at your RfA. What's the big deal, seriously? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the question is one which requests the nominee reveal personal information. A lot of editors on Wikipedia take privacy as a very important issue, and there's definately a point where we have to say "this question is just too personal" or else we could end up with an array of very invasive personal questions like "what is your name" or "where do you live". Now I'm not saying that the age question is crossing any sort of line, personally I'm not one to judge what people base their RFA votes on, if age is a factor for them, so be it, I'm just saying that we need to get concensus on where we draw the line for how personal questions can be. Canadian-Bacon 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And the question is optional. If we were talking about including the question as a standard, should-be-universally-answered deal, maybe you'd have a point. If privacy of your age is that important (which I'll never understand, but I also don't hide behind anything either), then you don't answer it. Problem solved - let the candidate decide. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber: How old are you? - crz crztalk 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Old enough to use a mouse and keyboard...so I guess that makes me old enough to be an editor :) In a way I question the intent ~~and good faith~~ of this question and don't see how this relates to the current discussion. Since I'm not up for an RfA I'll decline to answer (however my fellow Hive-Mind inductees know where to find my age.) If I were to be up for RfA and were asked this question I would answer it candidly. I would answer this question privately if asked. —Malber (talk * contribs) 20:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um...I believe that Crz was being sarcastic, not acting in bad fatih. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone needs to first ask for consensus to ask a question. Does someone have to ask for consensus before participating in a talk page disucssion? I also feel posting coaching comments on how to answer a particular question is a disruptive action and can pollute the answer. I've refactored to give the nominee some options without altering the original question. Why not just see how the nominee responds? —Malber (talk * contribs) 20:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, nobody has to ask for consensus before asking a question. In fact, be bold! That is the specific criteria I have employed when I just struck out your age question in the most recent RfA as the candidate had not answered it yet. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think striking out someone else's question is as disruptive and in-civil as striking out someone else's vote because you didn't agree with it. —Malber (talk * contribs) 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that reverting the strikeout and asking the original question are both incivil, and disagree with your characterization. This is a wiki after all, are you asserting some sort of ownership over the content? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously ownership over comments on discussion pages is protected, or we wouldn't have the rule about not editing other peoples' comments on talk pages. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is obvious. While RfA is inherently a discussion, the questions above seem to be more of a meta structure _to_ the discussion. And if they were, in fact, protected in the same manner that comments on a discussion page are, then Malber's removal of the "You don't have to answer if you don't want to" text that another user posted is inappropriate. Malber, you can't have it both ways. Please reconsider what you're doing, it seems to be intentionally disruptive. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete or strike out the comments. I moved the discussion to the talk page, where discussion on an RfA belongs. —Malber (talk * contribs) 14:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I could just e-mail the candidate and tell them not to bother asking your question, if it'll be disruptive advising them on Wikipedia. All I ask is that you please, please, please stop asking the question and just drop it, surely you've seen there is concern here over the question. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of reigniting controversy, is there a reason why Malber is not allowed to ask the question? He can do so as he sees fit; we're not here to mollycoddle candidates. We're just here to note that there is controversy in asking said question, and we ask Malber to tread carefully when asking this question and ask candidates to tread carefully when answering this question. Now can we drop this? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Phyiscq is quite right, though the question seems highly problematic all optional questions are answered at the discretion of the nominee. Lets not add insult to injury by pushing Malber to yield asking the question or sending a message to avoid answering the question to a whole mailing list of candidates.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone had better block him again before I lose my temper and do it myself. --Desk banana 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That is, quite frankly, absurd. It does not justify a block, and I don't believe anyone actually thinks it does. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I've not blocked him yet. --Desk banana 00:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't admins be basing their decisions on policy and not emotion? —Malber (talk * contribs) 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we fricking end this long thread yet? It has gone in circles with no results whatsoever except for making this page absurdly long. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Considering the "long thread(s)" above, What does everyone suggest that I do with Malber's questions? Considering the controversy surrounding them (apparently to the point of disruption and a block), and (possibly more importantly), since it's been stated over and over that answering questions is optional, would anyone have any issues with me just removing the questions, and just avoiding any further incidents? - jc37 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Or you could simply answer the best way you see fit. There is no right or wrong way to answer the questions. —Malber (talk * contribs) 14:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy about what's happening at the moment but I absolutely do not want the question impacting candidates in any way, so it's really up to yourself on how you answer because I don't want you being penalised for any thoughts I give you on the matter. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If Malber wants to keep posting the first three non-offensive questions, by all means carry on. On those, I still think their near-blanket application to most RfAs is an end-run around the consensus achieved on the existing "standard" questions and that if any "optional" questions are asked, it might be better to do so in the "discussion" part of the RfA. As for the age question, I'd prefer to see it gone. Asking the question is an invasion of privacy and ageist. I suppose I could always bring the question template to MfD, but I had hoped a discussion would resolve things without that "formal" process, which wouldn't really address whether the question ought to be put or not. Agent 86 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What it all comes down to

Malber, I don't think anyone is happy with you taking it upon yourself to add 4 standard questions, making every candidate answer 7 instead of 3. Although I originally thought NHN's block of you was out of line, I think you are treading very close on being disruptive via WP:POINT. If the community wanted every candidate to answer 7 questions, they would be added to the template. This is clearly an abuse of the principle of editors being "allowed" to ask additional questions. Please, stop. Use discretion with the questions instead of applying them liberal to all (or nearly all) RfA's. -- Renesis (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What? That is totally not the issue. There was a discussion on this a while back, and I believe it was decided that it wasn't a huge problem. Regardless, the issue here is the content of one, not the fact of asking everyone more questions. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I didn't say that this was the issue. It has just caused the whole question thing to get out of hand. Either those 4 questions are standard, or they aren't. -- Renesis (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)]

I'm not seeing anyone objecting to the fact that Malber asks the same question of every candidate. The objections are about the content. And including a subsection of "What it all comes down to" implies that it's actually related to the rest of the discussion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I am out of step -- does everyone else actually like the same questions being asked of every candidate, age question or not? The reason I say what it all comes down to is because the age question is finally the one that crossed the line in the mind of most people. And, it shows that we have a problem here - we "allow" everyone to ask questions, but the flexibility of that allowance is causing huge problems now, with blocks being handed out and Malber becoming increasingly zealous with the questions. -- Renesis (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Amarkov - Hold on now, you know why I am annoyed and why others are annoyed. It's two reasons which combined with Malber's thoughts on Wikipedia are resulting in Malber disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

1 - The question can be considered invasive. 2. Malber rarely uses the answers to decide what way to !vote. Asking a candidate to disclose personal information is, I consider, unfair. A user has a right of anonymity here, this is Wikipedia and if Malber isn't happy, he should consider leaving Wikipedia and joining Citizendium where they're ageist and refuse to have admins (constables) under 25 and where they want to know every members personal details. Not using the response to the question is an abuse of the privilege of being permitted to ask questions of candidates. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... that isn't my point here. My point is that you don't have a problem just because he asks the same questions of everyone, and representing it as that is misleading. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with Malber asking the same questions of every candidate because Malber has himself admitted he will not normally !vote even after asking his questions and they being answered. Excluding the age question, I would have no problem with Malber asking the same questions on every RfA provided Malber intended to !vote in each and every RfA he posts those questions on. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, we're only allowed to ask the questions that you like and now it's mandatory that we vote if we ask a question? If I don't give a vote I'm neutral, I don't need to state that. Do you want me to pat my head and rub my tummy as I edit too? —Malber (talk * contribs) 21:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one getting the vibe here that there is something else to these questions - something not nice either...? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber, with the exception of questions which ask the candidate personal information such as age, location etc, I really don't care what questions you ask. I'd prefer if they were helpful to you and to other !voters to decide which way to !vote on the RfA but you could ask favourite fruit or a serious and probing question on admin related actions, I really don't mind. If you think your questions are important enough (and apart from the age question which is a contentious issue, your other questions are good) then why not suggest on this page that your questions are included as part of the standard RfA questions. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sub or sub-thread to respond to here, anymore... Among the problems I see with Malber's traditional three optional questions is that they are asked indiscriminately of every candidate. For candidates who won't do new page patrol or manage CAT:CSD, the G11 question is almost totally irrelevant. For candidates who won't block, the question about punitive block has a similar effect: essentially testing a candidate's ability to read the relevant policy page (as noted elsewhere, they seem to be catching on from other RfAs). Even the SNOW question isn't relevant to vandal-fighters. I understand Amarkov's perennial point about candidates receiving the whole toolset and requiring understanding of the full body of policy, but the three present questions are more general than Malber's three optionals.--Kchase T 05:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

<unrelated comment>Cool, I have a perennial point.</unrelated comment> -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been completely uninvolved so far and want to make a small number of points. First, I don't believe Malber is violating WP:POINT. Second, I think it is fair and reasonable for someone to ask an editor's age in an RFA. Third, I think it is equally fair and equally reasonable for the candidate to not answer or ignore the question. Fourth, to be honest, I have to say you're all making a lot of fuss out of nothing. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber's continuing disruption

I am quite surprised why Amarkov fails to see consensus here. No one, except you and badlydrawnjeff has agreed that Malber should continue asking this question. Privacy is the right of every individual, and on the internet, we should not in any way ask them to reveal their age for adminship. It puts undue pressure on the candidate. As for Malber's recent disruption, he has made it a WP:POINT to stalk my contributions.

His disruption continues – [8] – Tell you what, I'll drop the whole matter and just get back to editing if you'd drop your pompousness and sanctimony just apologize for the inappropriate and out-of-process block. Here's your chance to be civil. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) and gets warned – [9] by an admin.
He goes to a deletion review of my AfD and states – [10] –*Overturn Deletion was out-of-process and contrary to consensus. Suggest that deleting admin be referred to ArbCom for possible de-sysopping due to this and several other abuses of administrative powers within the past few months. —Malber (talk • contribs) 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
More trolling on User:Heligoland's talk page – [11] – Pot, say hello to kettle. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
He nominates two categories for deletion which I created for listing the sockpuppets of a troll. – [12].
He is warned by one of the administrators – [13], [14].
Every individual on Wikipedia and the internet for that matter, has a right to anonymity and privacy. Privacy increases participation – as noted by the Arbitration Committee – Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Many_edit_anonymously.
There would be no need in setting up a situation, where a participant feels pressured to disclose his age or anything personal for that matter. Our privacy is our own.

And as for Amarkov's arguments where he is candidly not trying to see consensus, or probably avoiding it, I am listing the names of users who have disagreed as to Malber's asking age-related questions.

Who are in support of such questions or don't see any point in stopping them –

Amarkov, in case you have been in hiding, its time you caught your act up and stopped patronising trolls, in this manner – [15]. Yes, my block was out of process, I am in dispute, I shouldn't have blocked. I left an apology on your talk page. Malber has shown that he is keen to further disrupt Wikipedia; and for those of you, who are not aware of Malber's history; please have a look at his contributions and then comment. His last 500 contributions have been dedicated to testing the system to its limits (notice how he has only indulged in RfAs), making WP:POINTs, trolling – [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] on being warned not to vandalise wikipedia, [27], [28] Journalist's reply, [29], [30] stalking me, [31] gets warned by another admin, and vandalising Wikipedia – [32], [33], [34]. – And I am sure Malber is going to term this as "stalking", this is production of evidence; stalking is what you have been doing. I ask everyone to stop feeding the trolls, and put an end to this. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Mimsy confusing WT:RFA with WP:RFC? Does anyone else see this incivil character assasination as wildly over the top and inappropriate for an admin? BTW, I've removed the "offending" question from my template. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Its time to move on and just leave everything behind. We should respect one's privacy and not go into asking for one's age in the public scene. Its not a nice thing to do if they do not feel comfortable of revealing it. Wikipedians may have the choice to edit anonymously and its up to them what private information they wish to reveal. Ter e nc e Ong 10:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick is correct. Who we are on wiki, should not be relevant to who we are off wiki.Baka man 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

YUser31415's opinion

Could I voice my opinion here please? This is how I interpret the question.

The main argument for asking the question at present, I believe, is "because we can; it doesn't harm anything". Okay, so it does harm something. Every time someone asks the question, there is a large discussion on that candidate's RfA discussion page, with some people saying "I don't think this question should be asked" and others saying "we can, we can".

Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech. The question is unrequired, unneeded, and considered offensive by some. !Voters who oppose based on age are indicating bias against that age group. Do we elect admins just because they are married, live in UK/US, and because they are between 30-40 years old? No. We elect admins because of their skill, their judgement, and their patience. We should continue to uphold this principle.

Thank you. Yuser31415 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider to this conversation, I think it's just the mental age, i.e. maturity, that matters, and it usually shows in the editor's contributions and comments on talk pages. It's not a question of age in years. Admins should not be forced to reveal more (irrelevant) personal information than other Wikipedians. –mysid ☎ 11:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)