Dumb RFA oppose, FAIL Options Rating

[Shalom]

RFA never fails to produce FAILs. Here's the latest specimen of idiocy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...CenturyDriver_2

"Also, in the past 27 months, candidate has averaged a little over 84 edits a month, and not the 100 they stated. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)"

For this you're opposing? The fellow (BuickCenturyDriver, famous for the password hacking incident which he references in Q3) has been editing 3 years now, and you're nitpicking how many edits per month? Actually, I might have noted it myself, but I would have clarified that I wasn't opposing on the basis of 1/6 fewer edits per month than stated. 100 is approximately right. Seriously, folks, lighten up. Or find something more useful to do.

[Sxeptomaniac]

I used to occasionally check in on RFAs and sometimes comment. People like that are a major reason why I stopped. The other main reason is that I got sick of what adminship is on WP: an achievement and status symbol.

I never planned on even trying for adminship, but participating in RFAs for a while only made it clearer why that was a good choice. It's not really even the process, IMO. It's the mind-numbingly bureaucratic participants, the popularity-contest nature of the thing, and the blatantly myopic denials of the obvious: "It's not a vote" and "Adminship is no big deal" were frequently cited whenever it became too apparent that everyone believes the opposite.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac: Thu 14th April 2011, 8:07pm

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

It's not really even the process, IMO. It's the mind-numbingly bureaucratic participants, the popularity-contest nature of the thing, and the blatantly myopic denials of the obvious: "It's not a vote" and "Adminship is no big deal" were frequently cited whenever it became too apparent that everyone believes the opposite.

Yeah. A user might say that "adminship is no big deal" to support a candidate who's getting some opposition for inexperience. But that same user might turn around and oppose another candidate for not having enough experience to be trusted with adminship. As you say, it's a popularity contest.

As for "it's not a vote," the only thing that separates RfA from a straight vote is the fact that all the other voters can see your vote and try to harass you into changing it. On many occasions, I've seen supporters try to suppress opposing opinions by calling for them to be removed from the count.