Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:17, 8 October 2015

This is an RfA talk page. While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy. Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs. Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere. Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed. Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Discussion on Eric Corbett's oppose

Note: Per an Arbitration decision, Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) is not allowed to participate in actual RfA discussion (only voting), so he is unable to reply. Esquivalience 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I will not ask how old the candidate is, I will simply say that I believe that schoolchildren should be focusing on their schoolwork, not wasting their time as administrators here. Eric Corbett 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What evidence led you to the conclusion that Thine Antique Pen is in school? clpo13_(talk) 17:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you this candidate's parent or guardian, Eric? If not, why would you take it upon yourself to dictate how the candidate spends his time? I am certain he does not need your help to manage his time, and adminning certainly doesn't take up more time than content writing. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric can't comment further, folks, he can vote but not engage. Old story. Montanabw 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems counterintuitive. Shouldn't voters be able to defend or clarify their position when asked? clpo13_(talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'm confident the crats will ignore this "oppose", as it deserves. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Eric is banned from doing so. It's notated here (under his prior username, Malleus Fatuorum). Epic Genius (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric's comment is more likely to be an WP:OUTING. But again, I'm pretty confident that no admin will dare to warn or take action against Eric. Jim Carter 18:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric is allowed, like any other editor, to state his opinion on a candidate and you should respect his views. Frankly as a parent I make a point of getting my kids away from the computer every day for a time so they aren't socially isolated, so I see where he's coming from. Now drop it. Ritchie333 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note that we've had a 13 year old Bureaucrat before, much less a 15 year old Admin. Apparently worked out fine. Some people are more mature at 15 than others are at 51. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, what do you know? Turns out this has happened before. Now will I be the next editor to be criticized, because I'm 17? Epic Genius (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Epicgenius, not until you do something daft like running for Admiship with 116,000 edits under your belt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)