Talk:Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists/Archives/2010

Election needed?

"An election for General Secretary was closed on 5 Dec 2005. The result was Everyone shall remain Secretary. This position will last for five years." We are in severe danger of falling into a constitutional crisis if we don't organise another election before 10 days are up... Fences and windows 02:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I nominate myself to fill the all-important position of Secretary of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists. I think that I have the necessary skills to carry out all of the many jobs that I would need to perform. Hi878 03:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I nominate Everyone for another term. If there is anyone who is skilled at keeping track of the many demands of making individual decisions, it is Everyone, and I think Everyone has done a fine job so far. If anyone can do it, Everyone can, and Everyone should have the chance to serve the Association in whichever manner Everyone comes to after thoughtful decision. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

For the upcoming five year term, I nominate No One. No One could do a better job of advancing the association's goals than Everyone has done. While No One thanks Everyone for their service to the association over the past five years, No One is much better suited to the job than Everyone. Everyone should work to make this a smooth transitions, as it should be clear that No One can succeed unless Everyone works together. Cander0000 23:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But if No One takes over, Everyone will no doubt be forced into submission, which would make No One extremely happy, but would make Everyone rather upset. If Everyone stayed in office, No One would be upset, but Everyone would be overjoyed. Who do we really want to please? No One, or Everyone? Hi878 23:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who is not a member of the august brother- and sisterhood of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists, I nominate Some One, as Some One will always do a better job than No One, and yet will act more efficiently than Every One. Of course, Any One can be that Some One, although Every One cannot, and certainly No One can Be Some One. -- Avi 00:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

However, I have just recieved word that No One supports Some One. If No One supports Some One, do we really want Some One in office? We have already established that No One is not sufficient, and No One supports Some One, which is also bad, so what choice do we have but to elect Every One? No One would be happy if Some One or No One won, yet Every One would be happy if Every One won. Hi878 21:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)