Molu,
On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:45:04 +1000 Mark Gallagher
wrote:
Nonsense. Admins make calls all the time that are
recognised by the
community as necessary, but still make one unpopular with certain
subsections nonetheless. RfAs are extraordinarily easy to stack,
as opposers count for more than supporters and the wider community
does not generally take an interest in them. Requests for adminship
tend to involve only a very small subset of the community, who,
fortunately, are usually considered sane (editcountitis
notwithstanding); requests for confirmation will have all the
problems of RfA, with the added drawback of being inhabited by
trolls and idiots who are too concerned with advancing their own
agendas to bother learning what admins do and why.
Why are you bringing vote stacking into this? That's a completely
different issue. This is not about vote stacking.
Surprisingly, it is. Vote stacking is the difference between the
theoretical brilliance that re-confirmation RfAs claim and the practical
awfulness they cause.
I am not the
only person who has noticed that, in your brief time
on this list, you have rarely posted anything that could not be
considered "nonsense". I would like to suggest you spend more time
on Wikipedia, attempting to learn what we're about and how we work,
before you try to instruct the Wikipedia Grannies in advanced
egg-sucking procedures. The views of someone ignorant of Wikipedia
procedures can be useful, at times; fresh eyes, etc., but at others
it's damned annoying to see someone who doesn't know what he's
talking about attempt to lecture us. Please, give it a rest, and
fill your head instead of this list.
Thank you for your kind suggestions. You'll have to excuse me as I
ignore them.
Well, fair enough, considering the way I phrased them.
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse