On 21/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/21/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
[paper admins]
Is that somehow harmful to the project?
yes because it means that we have 500 people who can cause rather a lot of chaos who are not really part of the admin community.
Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?
Comments are aimed at other editors. Neutral votes are aimed at bureaucrats.
And what exactly are the bureaucrats going to do with them? If they influence the success or failure of an RfA, then they should be positive or negative votes. Anything else is a comment.
Sorry, but making oblique references to events I did not witness involving a person I've never spoken to is a remarkably useless way to answer a point.
It is however an excellent demonstration. Unless you know about the events behind that comment people will appear to be acting irrationally where in fact they are not doing so.
No, it's far from that. I can't click on anything in your post that links to some page full of discussion and diff links and who knows what and explains whatever you were talking about - which you *still* haven't done.
The "I promise not to go batshit" is meaningless unless you know what people consider to be going ah "batshit".
Common sense specifies what batshit means. Anything else should be supported with expository links.