--- Guettarda <guettarda(a)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