On 4/11/07, Sue Reed <sreed1234(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com>
>Well, once you consider that many people
opposed Danny for enforcing
policy,
not explaining why he resigned his adminship, etc., and take them out of
the
equation, it's pretty apparent that the numbers are in the room to promote
for 'crats - and that's assuming we want the 'crats to behave as cold,
calculating machines and adhere to those silly strict numbers rules we've
come up with.<<
If someone can oppose because a user is too young, doesn't have 10,000
edits, hasn't written an article that has been promoted to FA, why aren't
these valid reasons to oppose.
o_0
I was under the impression that those were indeed invalid reasons to oppose,
although in many cases, there's no need to actively discount such opinions
since if those are the only reasons people can come up with to oppose, odds
are the guy will pass RfA with or without their inclusion in the tally. I'm
sure that if the 'crats were to handle every RfA like they handled Danny's,
you'd see such reasons publicly being thrown out.
Of course, I'm a bit of an old fart, seeing as how when I was promoted to
admin, I barely had over a thousand edits, wasn't even old enough to drink
or drive (still am), and yet none of my opposes had anything to do with
these things (and to top it off, I think I was promoted with something like
20 supports). Maybe the RfA procedure for handling such patently invalid
reasoning has changed since my time.
Johnleemk