On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 12:56:46PM +1000, Mark
Gallagher wrote:
G'day Guy,
<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