On 4/6/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/6/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/D...
"
- *Strong oppose* per many of the above,
WP:OFFICEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OFFICEis the antithesis of consensus building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CON, which is the heart of Wikipedia. Danny was the tool that implimented this vicious and unfeeling policy. He's made his decisions, and those decisions are inconsistent with adminship.
??? I think I just lost what little faith I had in the RfA system. How dare Danny stop us from getting sued!
Also, what's with the trend of writing 'strong', 'firm', etc before
votes?
Does it actually add more weight to your opinion?
While we're complaining about illogical votes, I found it incredibly odd for someone supporting to write "Danny = WP. WP = Danny." Perhaps it was just an ill-phrased comment, but I think it's dangerous to equate the project with any one person. Let's not go overboard, shall we?
Johnleemk
One of the reasons for a nay vote on a recent RFA was that the editor at issue is a teenager (16 I think). Now that was a shameful no vote--can't think of a reason to vote against them, so knock them for their age. Meanwhile, she really is a teenager and works in areas where few admins walk. I didn't see the no vote, so don't know if there was more attached to it, but age alone? Since when did Wikipedia show that age in either direction should be at a premium? KP