This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raul654 (talk | contribs) at 01:31, 10 April 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:31, 10 April 2007 by Raul654 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- This page is for bureaucrat discussion of Danny's RFA. Any comments on this page by a non-bureaucrat will be removed
- This is of couse not your normal nomination. Danny has served in a position that required the utmost of trust and that has led to substantial support and recognition of his service from many in opposition. There is a significant amount of opposition. Some comments in both the support and opposition sections are certainly not helpful. So far as I see it discounting those positions still leads to a nomination below the traditional promotion threshhold. However, I haven't had time to analyze thoroughly for sockpuppets of which I am confident there are some. Failing finding a substantially greater number of sockpuppets among the opposition I believe the correct decision would be to declare no consensus to promote for this nomination. Analyzing will take some time and I request that everyone be patient and polite. I can't stress enough that writing an encyclopedia is the most important thing. I'd prefer if some other bureaucrats offered their opinions on the closing, but if no one has after I've finished my analysis, I'll make the call. Thanks everyone. - Taxman 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've voted so ethically I shouldn't have any part to play in this. However I don't see how we can count opposition to WP:OFFICE and other employee related activity as valid opposition. Secretlondon 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)