| Revision as of 09:30, 10 April 2007 editDavid Gerard (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators213,122 edits Thank you← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:23, 10 April 2007 edit undoEnsRedShirt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,519 edits a few thoughtsNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| for doing your part to break the culture of "one moron one vote" - ] 09:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | for doing your part to break the culture of "one moron one vote" - ] 09:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == It quite honestly pisses me off == | |||
| That my vote was made to be some how less valid then any other of a number votes made for less. I have no personal vendetta against Danny and I made a valid point that would have been acceptable in any other RfA. This page shows that there was a bias towards promoting from the begining and it didn't matter what came up in the opposition, Danny was going to be re-promoted. Thanks for not listening to the concerns of quite a few people, and giving back someone a mop that has proven in the past to abuse it because he feels like it. Now I just wonder how many of us on the oppose side will find ourselves mysteriously banned, or if we ever go to RfA denied, because of this RfA. | |||
Revision as of 11:23, 10 April 2007
Request to the bureaucrats
As you are aware, this is a delicate situation, and a firestorm will result regardless of what you do (although I suspect it will be worse if you promote).
I'd like to note that I am very uneasy with the idea of discounting votes. That is a bad precedent, and it will be interpreted as the bureaucrats formed a cabal to pick and choose the numbers and promote against community consensus.
If you do so discount votes, I would suggest you carefully make a list of which votes you discount and why, rather than by simply stating as Redux that it will result "probably closer to somewhere between 74% and 76%."
Sorry for the possible implication that I am telling you what to do. I just hope that you will follow the text at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Bureaucrats which says that
- Bureaucrats are bound by policy and current consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship.....They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions upon request and in a civil manner.,
Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind. This was closed too much in a hurry I think, but the general agreement of the bureaucrats was towards promotion, that was clear enough. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I, too, would be curious as to the actual percentage of "sockpuppets" among each camp. If canvassing the population for an opposed vote is to be frowned upon, then canvassing the population for a support vote should be equally frowned upon. I did not notice sockpuppetry being notated for those who supported after a long inactivity in edits of Misplaced Pages. (Personally I opted to abstain from the vote despite daily usage of Misplaced Pages, as my edits are relatively few and far between.) --AndyFinkenstadt 04:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Talking
Thanks for coming together and talking about the issue. Everything else aside, I think it is a lot better for Bureaucrats to approach controversial issues that way than for a single 'crat to simply decide. Dragons flight 04:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to thank you as well, and encourage such a model for any/all future such promotions of a dicey/questionable "consensus". -- nae'blis 04:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
for doing your part to break the culture of "one moron one vote" - David Gerard 09:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It quite honestly pisses me off
That my vote was made to be some how less valid then any other of a number votes made for less. I have no personal vendetta against Danny and I made a valid point that would have been acceptable in any other RfA. This page shows that there was a bias towards promoting from the begining and it didn't matter what came up in the opposition, Danny was going to be re-promoted. Thanks for not listening to the concerns of quite a few people, and giving back someone a mop that has proven in the past to abuse it because he feels like it. Now I just wonder how many of us on the oppose side will find ourselves mysteriously banned, or if we ever go to RfA denied, because of this RfA.