Dan, your client is breaking the threads in gmail.
On 1/16/07, dmehkeri(a)swi.com <dmehkeri(a)swi.com> wrote:
> There are just too many uninformed drive-by
votes for me to continue in
AfD,
> though, it's too contentious, the
guidelines are ignored, editors make
up
> reasons for deletion, and well-sourced
articles on major topics are
liable
> to be deletely simply because a small group
of editors have never heard
of
some
obscure world-leader Nobel laureate.
Don't forget the human factor involved here. When a person finds they
actually have a voice in a crowd, they may use it simply to be heard; and
to
call attention to the fact that they are there.
I remember voting[1] for someone to become an administrator. It failed, with
almost all opposers citing lack of project-space edits, some specifically
mentioning XfDs (various deletion debates). As in, they advised him to go
vote[1] on a bunch of XfDs and come back in three months.
This thread reminds me of this, because essentially he was being told to do
the
very thing we are complaining about now.
I am pleased to see he has so far ignored this advice. But I wonder what
happens
in other cases, and even whether other "aspiring administrators" see this
and
take it to heart before putting themselves up for RfA.
Dan
[1] Yeah, yeah. Technically they're not votes.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l