| Revision as of 04:50, 10 April 2007 editNae'blis (talk | contribs)10,494 edits →Talking: I thank you as well← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:30, 10 April 2007 edit undoDavid Gerard (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators213,122 edits Thank youNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| 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. ] 04:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | 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. ] 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". -- '']']'' 04:50, 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". -- '']']'' 04:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Thank you == | |||
| for doing your part to break the culture of "one moron one vote" - ] 09:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:30, 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)