I'm not sure if it could be termed a "sucessful RfA". The vote tally was *17/29/7/49, *which corresponds to (Support/Oppose/Neutral/Remit to ArbCom). The "remit" votes were explicitly marked as no vote, but an encouragement to ArbCom to retake the case. Therefore, there were a total of 46 countable votes. 17/46 = 36.96%, which doesn't show a consensus for adminship in my or in any bureaucrat's book, I suppose.
-[[:en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]
On 11/2/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
I sympathize with this POV for two reasons:
- Because Steve was recently taken down a peg (he
lost his sysop rights) but he STILL is contributing to the encyclopedia and trying to find ways to improve the community.
I have not "lost [my] sysop rights." Anthere (properly) acted to remove my sysop rights on a request (a premature and perhaps partisan one) after the "vote was closed." I had my "RFA" reopened because I thought it should benefit from my input. Hence Anthere's decision to desysop was neutral, and the decision to not immediately resysop was nominal one, and one that I did not object to while the RFA continued.
The RFA failed to find consensus to desysop, and more correctly it rejected the Arbcom's use of the RFA (and its 70% threshold) to render a decision which it (admittedly) could not come to --"deadlocked" case, etc. Though I could have waited, I have asked Anthere to restore my sysop status per the "unsuccessful de-RFA aka my "successful RFA", aka the "remand decision."
Sincerely, SV
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Bratsche-It means "viola!"