On 7/14/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
I'm thinking of deciding this one myself.
Dr. William M. Connolley can be trusted not to abuse admin powers, and
it's not supposed to be a big deal. He got 70% to 30%, but a lot of the
objections were irrelevant in my opinion.
I had objected vociferously at first (go ahead, look it up ;-) but Erik
(user:Eloquence) convinced me to change my vote to neutral. I have been
reading the comment stream, and now I feel I should take matters into my
own hands.
Any objections?
Ed Poor
Bureaucrat
Ed, please don't do this. Think of the message it will send. Not only
will it look like the ArbCom is toothless, but all those people who
think that Wikipedia is run by a cabal of administrators who do
whatever they want without reprecussion (a completly ridiculus idea),
what will it say to them? Here is a user who is under arbcom-parole,
who has no clear consensus on his RfA (70% is not consensus) who is
being promoted by a bureocrat that don't do that many promotions
anymore, and just happens to be a good friend of him. They might quote
the bureocrats talk-page where it says in response to this very user
"...I always watch out for my friends". It would look really, really
bad.
My opinion is that admins and bureocrats should stay out of making
decisions on cases where they are involved. If you are a friend of a
user on RfA, and the outcome isn't clear, you cannot possibly judge
objectively, however you are.
The arbcom ruling says that WMC can apply to the arbcom for lifting of
his band in one month, was it? If he gets it lifted (something quite
probable) he would almost certainly pass.
Can't this wait a few weeks?
- gkhan