Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane

From: Martin Richards <Martin-mO0wGsvBftU0+kNbVdao/kEOCMrvLtNR <at> public.gmane.org>
Subject: RFA is embarrassing
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english
Date: Thursday 3rd November 2005 17:05:10 UTC (over 13 years ago)
I was going to post this on the RFA talk page, but quite frankly I don't 
even want to go near it;

I am astonished at how bad this rfa process has become, it seems to be 
constant arguing and point scoring contests. The present example being 
Silsor's non-RFA, why can't people just let common sense guide them, and 
then in the event this fails or they disagree just step back and bite their

tongue? We actually seem to have a mini revert war between admins (how 
ironic) at the moment regarding the non-RFA! (removed or replaced 7 times).

Then of course there is the reasoning for opposing candidates,
ecitcountitis 
is bad, but we seem to be on the recovery from this ailment. Now some think

that below good use of edit summaries is actually reason to *oppose*! my 
god! I thought it was "no big deal". Then there are the recent cases (that
I 
couldnt be bothered to follow properly) where people were left very 
distressed after their ordeal (and I think "ordeal" is the correct term for

the rfa now). There is more but I can't be bothered to read long rants so 
don't expect you to either.

regards

Martin (Bluemoose) 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
 
CD: 37ms