There are various reasons for people to oppose WMC's nom for adminship. Some of them are perfectly valid - I feel differently, but they are still rational and valid. Some I disagree with on principle - I don't think that the ArbComm should impose sanctions without there being any finding of fact against William, so if people vote oppose on the basis of the ArbComm injunction then I disagree with the basis of their opposition. But it's still a perfectly logical reason to oppose.
And then there are the people who oppose because (a) he knows too much about the subjects about which he edits, and now (b) because...
"Being an 'active' contributor I would see possible conflicts of interest if he would be an admin too"
When did being an "active contributor" make you ineligible to be an admin? Here I was thinking this project was about writing an encyclopaedia. Am I going crazy, or has the world gone nuts?
Ian (Guettarda)