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.

[SirFozzie]

You know, Horsey, I think you've taken over my role as WR's preminent punster

[Detective]

You know, Horsey, I think you've taken over my role as WR's preminent punster

Never mind, Fozzie. You can be the person with the oddest spelling errors.

Jimbo says he'll "recommend to the Committee that Rodhullandemu be allowed back provisionally" "upon presentation to him of real-world evidence that professional/medical help has been sought and followed for six months, and upon the recommendation of those professionals".

That's no good; it clearly violates WP:V. We need a statement in a Reliable Source, which of course excludes foreign newspapers.

[powercorrupts]

You know, Horsey, I think you've taken over my role as WR's preminent punster

Never mind, Fozzie. You can be the person with the oddest spelling errors.

Jimbo says he'll "recommend to the Committee that Rodhullandemu be allowed back provisionally" "upon presentation to him of real-world evidence that professional/medical help has been sought and followed for six months, and upon the recommendation of those professionals".

That's no good; it clearly violates WP:V. We need a statement in a Reliable Source, which of course excludes foreign newspapers.

Perhaps they are finally realising that it is time to take adminship seriously, as in Real World seriously. It's more than just a 'mop and a bucket' when someone puts the bucket on their head and waves around the mop handle-outwards at people, occasionally actually charging. Maybe they will start thinking about making their Admin Army less of a privileged award to all pathologically-loyal and suitably courruptable volunteers, and perhaps something more like a optional stint of National Service to people who are really into building a fair and honest encyclopedia. And of course pigs will fly - no change is always the 'wisest' route at Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: Wed 20th April 2011, 1:53pm

[A Horse With No Name]

Perhaps they are finally realising that it is time to take adminship seriously, as in Real World seriously. It's more than just a 'mop and a bucket' when someone puts the bucket on their head and waves around the mop handle-outwards at people, occasionally actually charging. Maybe they will start thinking about making their Admin Army less of a privileged award to all pathologically-loyal and suitably courruptable volunteers, and perhaps something more like a optional stint of National Service to people who are really into building a fair and honest encyclopedia. And of course pigs will fly - no change is always the 'wisest' route at Wikipedia.

The answer to Wikipedia’s dilemma is simple: put good-looking people in charge.

I think the Wikipedia mob community is moving in the right direction: In the last Arbcom election, the new arbitrators included the blonde muscular Viking Xeno, the swashbuckling Royal Navy officer Chase Me, and the shapely pasties-shaking sexpot Shell Kinney. After years of flab and drab on Arbcom, people can now look at that committee with unapologetic carnal pleasure.

Granted, the emphasis on exterior appearance over basic competence may not actually solve the problem. But at least the view to the wreckage is much more entertaining…especially during warmer weather, when people wear much less clothing.

[Gruntled]

The answer to Wikipedia’s dilemma is simple: put good-looking people in charge.

Very good of you to think of me, Horse. But I'm rather busy on one or two other WMF sites at present.

[CharlotteWebb]

Wow, connecting WP with the real world??? Shocking. Before having sex, should I ask my doctor to tell her that my penis is long enough?

For enough money they'll lie to anyone.

Very good of you to think of me, Horse. But I'm rather busy on one or two other WMF sites at present.

Yeah, we know.

As for RfA opposes, nothing tops DougTech's "too many admins" spam, but carping about % of edit summary usage is certainly in the top 5.

I doubt it. I've seen many worse reasons. Ask Kurt.

Self-nomination is actually a pretty good reason to oppose.

[Malleus]

Self-nomination is actually a pretty good reason to oppose.

In fact one of the best I think.

[radek]

Self-nomination is actually a pretty good reason to oppose.

In fact one of the best I think.

"Too many admins" is in fact also under appreciated. It may not be true, but that's an empirical question. Logically, it's perfectly valid.

[Detective]

"Too many admins" is in fact also under appreciated. It may not be true, but that's an empirical question. Logically, it's perfectly valid.

I suppose a better point would be "too many poor admins". I don't think there is an overabundance of good ones, and I hope that few people would object if there were. Wouldn't it be nice if the closing bureaucrat could say "Yes, I think this is a good admin candidate and to make room for him I've arranged a desysop of a rubbish admin".