QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 14th July 2008, 10:44am)
QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 14th July 2008, 3:40pm)
The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?
There is no rule, "Foundation" or otherwise, that requires that Wikimedia projects be run by "consensus". The English Wikipedia continues to utilize its bizarre facsimile of consensus because it serves its ruling classes for that state of affairs to persist, and for no other reason.
Concur, Wikipedia is not governed by consensus. Whenever there is a notice of something coming up for a "vote" a set of self appointed "guardians" show up to give their opinion about subjects in which they have no knowledge and in subject areas in which they have never written an article. The real editors don't express an opinion because they are too busy writing articles and don't want to get involved in protracted battles.
"votes" on articles should be limited to persons who have worked on an article in the subject area. And, comments for an ANI should be limited to those involved in the controversy and uninvolved administrations who will be giving a decision. Such a proposal would have the approval of the vast majority of Wikipedians but would never pass "consensus"... for obvious reasons.