On 6/15/06, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@octa4.net.au wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 12:56:46PM +1000, Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Guy,
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
<snip/> >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.
Heck, using non-standard warnings (albeit perhaps not as flowery as the one cited) is something to be admired, not complained about.
We use the {{testN}} series far too often, and in cases where it's inappropriate. Admins being willing to think for themselves and treat the people they speak to as human beings is a Good Thing.
Entirely agree. I took a look at that RfA and thought "Why the hell do people apply to be admins. Nobody needs to put up with that much crap". i The process needs improving.
It's been getting gradually worse and worse. Actually some of the oppose votes are really getting my goat. To oppose someone because they have a sense of humour? To oppose someone because they are personable to vandals and newbies? Who the fuck to these people think they are , and why are they not banned from WP:RFA for disruption?
(I know I'm ranting a bit but grrrr!!! it really annoyes me)
Theresa