Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Lord Roem 2#Discussion about question 14
Lord_Roem's edit stats using [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Lord_Roem&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 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:
::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)