G'day Matt,
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
One editor opposes adminship on the grounds that Herostratus has some nicely executed fake "categories" on his user page:
We need to enforce sane rationales for votes on RfA ... somehow. Particularly for oppose votes, since they carry much more weight. Failing that, perhaps we should start a Wiki society that, for every oppose vote judged to be idiotic, automatically mass votes in favour of the candidate.
And I'm only half-joking ;-)
RfA is like AfD: its major problems are social --- that is to say, a culture that "oppose, too few portal edits" is acceptable has appeared. The solution isn't to hang around on the list complaining that "oppose, bites newbies left right and centre" is an inappropriate view, but to get onto RfA and:
a) Set a good example!
b) Point out stupid comments.
If every time someone said "oppose, has only been here three years with 20 000 edits and beloved by nearly everyone, rather than four years, 30 000 edits and everyone", someone *else* posted a reply pointing out just how silly such a view is, it might die out. And the good thing about it is it's self-correcting: if you say "$x is silly", and $x is in fact a Very Good Point, then you will look silly and the practice of $x will continue.
Either way, getting involved as a general rule is a Good Thing.