Posting here, because my original aside in the thread was not intended to derail the thread.
Master Ceadeus 27 wrote:
Personally, if it's something I can justify taking care of myself, I like to block for underagedness, simply because I think having their account disabled permanently is a bit harsh.
However, if they're problematically spreading their age on wikia, I think it's best to report them.
That's just my two cents.
I think a local admin blocking them is "a bit harsh". If they have done nothing that would merit a block if they were 18, then what's the purpose?
Q1: Under what conditions you can you "justify" blocking them?
Q2: What is "problematically spreading their age on wikia"?
Q3: Imagine that Setheo, Gojira57, or Cottonmouth255 is actually 12. They each have thousands of edits, so it's safe to say the wiki wouldn't be the same without either of them - so how would it help the wiki to block them simply for being 12?
I'm not looking for an argument, or to convince you of anything, I would just like to understand your opinion.
Q1: If the underage user is 1) posting their age excessively 2) an unconstructive user anyway
Q2: Duh. It's when a user posts their age on multiple places across multiple wikias, highly increasing the chance that something bad happens.
Q3: I know Setheo personally; he's in his twenties. Cottonmouth is in college. If Gojira is 12, he's got the most grown-up voice I've ever heard on a 12-year-old. Assuming, however, they were twelve, then unless they were doing one of the above, no, I wouldn't block them. They're smart people and if they were 12 would know better than to spread their age.
My reckoning is this: if you're 12 and wanna be on wikia, you can! Just don't tell anyone your age and no one will be the wiser.