That's not my premise, and not my conclusion. This is a summary of what the admins talk on that discussion page. So I'm just a messenger summarizing things.

Moreover, Wikipedia is not a democracy [0]. It's a consensus based system. So, as they say, votes coming from outside doesn't count, and that's fine by me.

Last but not the least, this is a kind of decision on the level of law-making for the Wikipedia. People elect politicians, but don't write the laws themselves. Criticizing Wikipedia for not allowing "ordinary citizens" to write the laws is a bit stretch while giving democracy as an example to aspire to doesn't make sense, because even a democracy doesn't work the way you want to portray here.

Anyway, Wikipedia is not a democracy to begin with, so that's moot in a sense.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no...

It clearly cannot be consensus based?

As several users mentioned, “The Unblockables” are notorious, as only one admin willing to unblock them is sufficienf. Even against the wishes of another admin and many users.