Bipartite ranking is a fundamental supervised learning problem, with the goal of learning a ranking over instances with maximal Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) against a single binary target label. However, one may often observe multiple binary target labels, e.g., from distinct human annotators. How can one synthesize such labels into a single coherent ranking? In this work, we formally analyze two approaches to this problem -- loss aggregation and label aggregation -- by characterizing their Bayes-optimal solutions. We show that while both approaches can yield Pareto-optimal solutions, loss aggregation can exhibit label dictatorship: one can inadvertently (and undesirably) favor one label over others. This suggests that label aggregation can be preferable to loss aggregation, which we empirically verify.