User talk:Equerer
Hi. Please don't take offence, but the fact that your account is brand new, and has suddenly started editing an obscure page on Wikipedia Policy seems a bit... well.... odd. Whatever your feelings are on whether or not it's a !vote I sugest you use the articles talk page to discuss your changes. I'm going to revert your edits this time. Thanks! Pedro | Chat 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- The page is not Wikipedia policy. It's instructions on how to set up a request for bureaucratship, and happens to include what the criteria for RFBs to pass is. The criteria, like adminship, is not a number. It's a consensus. Currently, it is up to the Bureaucrat of what is considered consensus. Some may use 75% support as a rough guide, but it is never, ever used strictly, especially when the consensus is not clear. RFBs generally have a clearer consensus one way or the other. There's little room for discretion. It's either a clear pass or not. Essjay's was closest to the magic 90% you love so much. However, his was known for a long time as having the most support in an RFB ever. It's clear that at the time the general consensus was that he was wanted as a bureaucrat. It was, however, NOTHING to do with numbers, and I can't understand this obsession with them. Equerer 15:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- You mis-understand. I don't "love" the numbers. I am reverting edits that have not been discussed on the
usertalk page as requested, furthermore edits by an editor who only created this account today and yet has in depth knowledge of Wikipedia. I am going to report you to WP:ANI. Best. Pedro | Chat 15:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- You mis-understand. I don't "love" the numbers. I am reverting edits that have not been discussed on the