On 4/5/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/04/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The comments of the opposers make me cry. *Oppose, I can't help thinking that someone who resigned his adminship last month when he didn't need to does not have the best interest of the project at heart. *Oppose appears to brush off criticism, I tended to disagree with his decision processes on WP:OFFICE, his answers to the first few questions above reads to me sorta like "I'm danny I dont really need to go through this process". Sorry but I must oppose.
(that one is awful - opposing because he doesn't respect RFA?)
*Oppose Relinquished positions of trust along with his resignation from WMF. This is in itself a good thing. But he does not explain his reasons for departure. I would be happy to support if this was explained. Danny linked his departure with those positions of trust, including the admin position. Of course he did not need to explain why he resigned, but once the linkage is forged I can't evaluate his fitness without understanding the full reasons for his giving them up. *Oppose Sorry - unsatisfactory answers to questions. *Oppose per nom. (this is classy - he's opposing based on the fact that Cyde Weys supported him)
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
People will dig out the most ridiculous reasons to oppose that they can think of at RfA. Sometimes I think that people just like being obtuse.
As with most things we "not-vote" on, you get both some well-thought-out, insightful opposes, and some cranks.
There are some legit concerns on Danny's RFA, and a lot of "OFFICE bit me he sucks", sometimes written slightly more coherently.