On 6/7/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
The 11yr old withdrew his nomination. He'd only been editing for 3months and 500 of his cout were on his own pages! He'd also, posted a blocked on somebodies page. (Perhaps out of spite or just not an admin yet). Most of the critism was ok, but but lad didn't know what hit him. On his user page he says he's taken a wikibreak! awww. Sometimes a lot of the kids act more maturely than the adults. Michael
On 07/06/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
And, I wager if he hadn't said he was 11 years old, and he'd passed,
people
would shat themselves later when seven years from now he would be old
enough
to run for Board of Directors. Or ArbCom, when he got his driver's
license!
Oh, he could run for ArbCom. If he got it, though, he'd be the arbitrator without checkuser or oversight ...
- d.
We have at least a couple of 12 y/o admins, self-identified as such, right now. For that matter, I nominated a candidate that age last month (he was supported 27/0/0 at one point, although ultimately consensus wasn't reached). The age issue came up in a few of the oppose comments but it was pretty clear from the context that those editors would have opposed anyway. I've never seen chronological age actually change the outcome of an RfA and, despite the occasional "ageist" comment, Wiki projects are pretty much more egalitarian age-wise than almost any other part of society I can think of.
Newyorkbrad