Nathan J. Yoder (njyoder(a)energon.org) [050704 06:09]:
> Obviously there was no consensus that these
editors were trustworthy;
> someone is not "trustworthy" simply because you believe them to be so.
And
> consensus is still an important part of the Wikipedia process.
How is a majority vote NOT consensus?
The idea is that an overwhelming majority may *indicate* consensus. For
RFA, that's taken to mean >80%; 75-80% is at bureaucrat discretion.
- d.