[WikiEN-l] RFA is embarrassing

[Michael Turley]

On 11/3/05, Martin Richards <Martin at velocitymanager.com> wrote:
> I was going to post this on the RFA talk page, but quite frankly I don't
> even want to go near it;
>
> I am astonished at how bad this rfa process has become, it seems to be
> constant arguing and point scoring contests. The present example being
> Silsor's non-RFA, why can't people just let common sense guide them, and
> then in the event this fails or they disagree just step back and bite their
> tongue? We actually seem to have a mini revert war between admins (how
> ironic) at the moment regarding the non-RFA! (removed or replaced 7 times).
>
> Then of course there is the reasoning for opposing candidates, ecitcountitis
> is bad, but we seem to be on the recovery from this ailment. Now some think
> that below good use of edit summaries is actually reason to *oppose*! my
> god! I thought it was "no big deal". Then there are the recent cases (that I
> couldnt be bothered to follow properly) where people were left very
> distressed after their ordeal (and I think "ordeal" is the correct term for
> the rfa now). There is more but I can't be bothered to read long rants so
> don't expect you to either.

As far as edit summaries go, they're often the only indicator of how
thorough and considerate of others a user is.  Many users are still on
dialup.  Many users have watchlists with hundreds or even thousands of
entries.  Edit summaries are a basic courtesy.

I will freely state that if I see an admin candidate who can't be
bothered to use an edit summary most of the time, I will oppose them,
and explain why, so that when they're nominated again a month later, I
can support them.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused