On 4/6/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/6/07, Vee <vee.be.me(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/…
"
1. *Strong oppose* per many of the above,
WP:OFFICE<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OFFICE>is 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