Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Zappaz

Why were the comments moved to the talk page?
I believe they were moved here to hide dissent. --Alterego 15:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Assuming badfaith is a harsh mistress. El_C 20:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I call a fish a fish. They should be put back on the front page for everyone to read. Everyone has a right to make whatever statements they wish about the person being voted on in the comments section. Meta-discussion such as the conversation we are having right now belongs on the talk page - not points directly relevant to the vote. --Alterego 20:34, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fascinating, do go on. But also note WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:WQT, and WP:AGF. El_C 20:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll take your WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:WQT, and WP:AGF and raise you a WP:IAR. I am not a fan of meta-argumentation, and when I propose that something has been done incorrectly, citing policy guidelines without addressing the point shows me that you are either a) not willing to have a discussion or b) feel that my points are correct. In either case you have given me no reason to allow them to remain on the talk page. The discussion is directly relevant to Zappaz' candidacy. --Alterego 21:08, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow. El_C 22:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it totally inapropriate to disrupt the voting process with scattered comments and personal attacks. EL C move to this page is a good compromise. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 21:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not have a problem either way. Let it fester .... my opponents do not see that they are shooting themselves in the foot with the uncivil display of animosity they are demonstrating against me. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 21:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The comments are not scattered, they are in the relevant comments section which I have seen in many rfa before this one. Calling them "personal attacks", as opposed to facts, is your own point of view. I find Andries has done an excellent job of citing his sources, and it can only be considered as evidence which each person who visits the main page to this vote has a right to read. --Alterego 21:22, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, you see your opponents as a whole of a bunch, don't you? You almost left no opposig voice without a comment. You are so full of ambition. Yet you run around begging editors to show to you how to be a better writer; on the other hand when the mess you produced slaps you back in the face, it is all the other's fault. In the moment i don't see any way that you will ever change. This has nothing to do with liberty, that you will never give up as proclaimed on your user page, but with dignity that you seem to lack so much.Thomas h 21:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And what would you call that comment, Thomas about my lack of dignity, if not a personal attack? Keep it coming, Thomas, it only demonstrates further the extent of it. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 21:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * seem to lack, Zappaz. I didn't say you have not. Learn! Commenting every opposing voice doesn't look good. Thomas h 21:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)