QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 1st July 2009, 8:43pm)
Peter, I am glad to see you supporting the Arbiteroftruth RfA :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA#ArbiteroftruthPeter, you get a horsey kiss for standing up for that guy. I cannot believe how utterly stupid the Opposes are. But, then again, when look at the admins who don't want him in their company: Tan, Juliancolton, Cirt, Dank (what an appropriate name!), Jclemens, Sandstein, Stifle...is there a brain cell among any of them? And admin wannabe Wisdom89 is the sour cherry on that rancid cake -- when do you think Wisdom89 is going to go for RfA #5?
The oppose that always kills me is the "badgering" oppose for candidates that reply to comments. That's so far beyond fucktarded. Someone should clue these people in to what "badgering" means.
Actually, allow me...
to harass or urge persistently; pester; nag Simply responding to concerns, which may be misinformed or out of context, is not badgering. It
is a discussion, and whatever dimwits started the trend that candidates cannot participate in the discussion should be beaten with a cluestick. This has been the trend for quite a while now, though. I was labeled as "thin-skinned" (haahahahaha (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) ) because I responded to opposers in my RFA (November 2007) to make clarifications. It's just stupid.
And this guy actually got opposes based on lack of experience... five years and 10k edits isn't enough in 2009. I would have thought we'd get a few more years before breaking five-digit edit requirements.
As for your last question, horsey, I'd say some time before RFA #6.