[WikiEN-l] Bureaucrats decide!

[David Gerard]

On 10/04/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at 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.