On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
One editor opposes adminship on the grounds that Herostratus has some
nicely executed fake "categories" on his user page:
Finally got around to reading this. What rot. Complaints included:
* The aforementioned fake categories
* Using a "fake signature" (actually he forgot to sign), unretracted
* Not "conveying an image of seriousness" (???)
* Not using standard warning templates (he wrote WTF on a vandal's
talk page with a link to the offending edit)
* "Casually mentioning that he might undelete some articles" - the
question asked was what he would do with his admin tools. He said he
might undelete some speedied articles. Um, yes? He might block some
users, too. Both legitimate activities.
* "Conduct unbecoming an admin" - I think this refers to having a
sense of humour
* Finding vandalism funny...
In other words, he doesn't take Wikipedia that seriously, and is able
to make valuable contributions anyway. Eep.
Steve
There's a difference between treating WP like a playground, and treating
it like a workplace where whistling while you work is acceptable. If
there was ever evidence that RfA just fails on occasion, this is one of
those cases.
John