[WikiEN-l] Running the asylum?

[Pat Carr]

--- Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

That is a strange statement. One possible
interpretation is that the user is concerned with
possible conflicts of interest if/when WMC uses admin
powers on articles he's actively involved in editing.
Maybe I'm way off though...

Carbonite


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs