Meta talk:Administrators/confirm/bureaucrat chat/January 2009

Please bear in mind this is not another vote... this is evaluation of the discussion that already happened. I'm seeing too many vote like opinions here. Majorly ^talk 20:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this remind you of something?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I specifically evaluated the votes and decided to give less weight to the votes that said that user was inactive, because he clearly wasn't. I didn't go through voting "Keep, is trusted" or whatever. I referenced the actual discussion. This "post mortem" RFA-like discussion is probably one of the worst bits of this whole procedure, which is why I am glad this will be the last one. Majorly ^talk 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat "keeps"

My vote (or opinion) there is just my opinion. Counts as one, amongst the other bureaucrats' own opinions. When consensus is clear, it is easy to decide, but when it is not, or the argoments are fallacious, you can only decide debating. I'm convinced that none of my "keep" is improper. If it is, well, don't take that in the count and... remove my own rights as bureaucrat. Thank you. --M7 (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with you that with so many bureaucrats it is very much a debate, but it needs to be less of a vote in this case, and evaluation of the discussion. Better to say "Consensus says to keep" rather than "keep - trusted", you know? And of course, I do not want you resigning, far from it. Majorly ^talk 20:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your words. In any case, may I suggest that the "interpretation" of the current situation, where there's been a previous vote that remains quite unclear, can also involve some degrees of personal participation? Having been some years seeing other's people work here and in other wikies, has some importance and sometimes shows up through my words and expressions. I'm sorry if someone felt offended by my personal considerations, but it would have been difficult to me not to say a "good word" regarding those people under confirmation. --M/ 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)