I've been lurking until now (just when you thought you were safe) ;)
My opinion: I agree. Opposing because of the categories is crazy.
I don't use standard warnings either (and I think if that was held against me, it would be really silly and an unproductive use of time); I use Ilyanep's templates but corrected for UK spelling.
- Nathan (nathanrdotcom)
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Guy Chapman aka JzG 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:
Categories: Wikipedians who have a crowbar embedded in their skull | Wikipedians who insist that the word "lobster" be included in every article | Carbon-based life forms | Wikipedians who are Floyd Alvis Cooper | Delightfully insouciant Wikipedians | Animated cartoon squirrels
Others think that his use of non-standard warnings means he doesn't take vandalism seriously enough (does every admin have to be at the forefront of the fight against vandalism?)
I can understand people choosing not to vote for admins they don't admire, but opposing on these weird grounds is... well, weird.
Guy (JzG)