On 06/04/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I think the overall comments on that RFA (troll festival if you ask me which you don't) is quite annoying. The allegedly "legit concerns" about the office in my opinion has no bearing on weather or not he would abuse admin tools.
I sincerely hope Danny continues to serve us despite us.
- Cool Cat
On 4/6/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There are some legit concerns on Danny's RFA, and a lot of "OFFICE bit me he sucks", sometimes written slightly more coherently.
WP:IDONTLIKEHIM(HER)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/D...
"
1. *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?