On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Depends on what you mean by consensus, of course.
By any realistic meaning of consensus, none has been established. Point me to a discussion that you believe established a consensus for the change in policy you are suggesting.
I've heard consensus defined as a majority, and a majority of the people who commented on AB's RfA, knowing that AB edited through Tor, suggested that AB should be an admin.
I said "realistic meaning". "consensus==majority" is not realistic.
I actually think it's one of two realistic meanings, with the other (that I actually prefer) being unanimity.
I've seen "rough consensus" defined as "supermajority" (which is, for the most part, the definition used on RfA), but that's as close to your definition as I've seen.
Fine, you define consensus then. What supermajority constitutes consensus.
And why should we block people who most people don't want to block?