On 10/04/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
If you wish to justify this decision you can use one of two arguments: either A) consensus to promote was reached this time, or B) RfA shouldn't work on consensus, but on the opinion of the bureaucrats.
Here you state a false dichotomy. It was counted on relevant opposes, as noted in the bureaucrats' discussion - it's an RFA on Danny, not a referendum on the powers of a Foundation staffer on en:wp.
Does it count as "consensus" when you get opposes like: "# Oppose - As a Johnny come lately member of the community I have many (as yet to be expressed) opinions about many wikipedia policies. I thank Danny for his overall contributions and participation and consider him a valuable member of the community. Since I am allowed to express a vote and an opinion, I choose to express opposition as a vote in opposition of many of the things Danny stands for as a representative of Wikipedia (which isn't personal - it's more structural). I'd rather see things go in a lot of different directions, and this is one humble mechanism for expressing myself about wikipedia. If that's not kosher for RfA's, lemme know."
i.e., "Oh, there's a Power? I'd better Fight it, then."
Note that the above-linked page with the bureaucrats' decision has a talk page attached. I'm not a 'crat and can't speak for them. They do appear to be answering questions there.
Note also that all 'crats that weren't recused supported promotion. You need to consider the possibility that you are in fact completely wrong, rather than them being completely wrong..
- d.