On 4/7/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
One of the reasons for a nay vote on a recent RFA was that the editor at
issue is a teenager (16 I think). Now that was a shameful no
vote--can't
think of a reason to vote against them, so knock
them for their age.
Meanwhile, she really is a teenager and works in areas where few admins
walk. I didn't see the no vote, so don't know if there was more
attached
to
it, but age alone? Since when did Wikipedia show that age in either
direction should be at a premium? KP
I became an admin when I was 14. I can't see anything wrong with teenaged
admins; IIRC at one point we had a 13-year-old 'crat. Still, as long as
this
ageism is only a fringe thing on RfA, it's probably not worth knocking the
process itself over a few misguided Wikipedians.
Johnleemk
You're right, especially since there are plenty of worse reasons for not
voting for someone that I've come across on occassion, and because I didn't
actually see this vote. KP