[WikiEN-l] Bureaucrats decide!

[Ray Saintonge]

Sue Reed wrote:

>From: John Lee <johnleemk at 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. It seems as if the oppose votes weren't plagued by sockpuppets and they were valid users voting to oppose. I agree with someone's comments on one of the discussions that there is an obvious sign of favoritism when Danny gets promoted at 68% but other people don't. There seems to be a strong agreement by the community and by the bureaucrats in previous discussions that 70% is the number. But, here is someone that gets promoted under that number. How is that not favoritism? 
>
People can have whatever silly reason they want for opposing anything.  
Saying that there is strong community consensus for a 70% vote for 
appointment as an admin is your own fabrication, and has absolutely no 
basis in fact.  Just because the community has chosen to stand up to the 
RfA club does not imply favoritism.

Ec