Board Thread:Internal management/@comment-7091122-20170617134530/@comment-5143323-20170617141256

Camwood777 wrote: Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote: Camwood777 wrote: Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:


 * 1) I did read the whole thing, I even placed a summary of its points at the first paragraph.
 * 2) You're gonna need more evidence to prove as bold of a bold claim as "(regular) users can't run the wiki".
 * 3) I did re-add it, and it will remain that way until this vote ends. And I don't mean, if you close it.
 * 4) How the heck is me voting on something an equivalent action to allowing someone to vandalize a page?
 * 1) Are you sure? It doesn't look like it.
 * 2) I have an entire sodding blog on it.
 * 3) Then why do we have this thread?
 * 4) If it is opposed, according to your logic, they are allowing me to get away with breaking the rules.
 * 1) "His argument is that the staff is currently "puppets", that nepotism is rampant, and that we need to prevent the wiki from going into anarchy." While obviously very concise, there is a short summary, and it does go over the various points you go over, and even bring up in this thread.
 * 2) We saw. I know we saw, because I linked it in the first sentence. If you read this thread, you would probably know.
 * 3) In order to finalize it.
 * 4) Which is absurd of you to say, honestly. If they're okay with it, fine, whatever. The thread doubles as an "should we keep this or not?" blog, so if they oppose, they basically voted to get rid of it.
 * 1) That's one part of it. You did not read the last part of my blog about making threads.
 * 2) I said it because of the reasons I was giving. Commenting like that as if I was saying it for another reason is really making you look ignorant.
 * 3) Nothing to say here.
 * 4) How is it absurd when you did this BEFORE I told you you can remove it?