Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Closing comments from bureaucrats

While there is definitely useful commentary below that will guide bureaucrats in closing requests for bureaucratship, it is my opinion that there is no firm consensus one way or the other about the appropriate threshold. While "80%" would appear to be the front runner at a glance and by the numbers, one still has to account for those who support a higher threshold but did not specifically oppose 80%. It is also important to point out that this RFC itself was trafficked by substantially fewer editors than a typical RfB; and even without making adjustments, 80% was still only supported by 75% of those choosing to signing next to a # mark beneath it.

Given that requests are so few and far between, further discussion on this in the near term would probably not be a worthwhile use of time. And really - if the community really wants to make it easier for folks to make it through RfB, they should just go easier on the candidates... Other bureaucrats should feel free to make further closing comments beneath mine. –xenotalk 02:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with xeno on this closing. There is no clear consensus for an appropriate threshold. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This RFC seeks to clarify the requests for bureaucratship process. Editors are granted bureaucratship based on consensus of the community. Users are encouraged to voice their support or opposition of candidates, but the process is not a vote and is based more on the strength of arguments rather than raw numbers. Although it is not a vote, percentages in support or opposition are used to help determine consensus. This RfC seeks to clarify the percentages used in the requests for bureaucratship process.

A recent RfC gained consensus for lowering the threshold for requests for bureaucratship. Per the closing bureaucrat, a new RfC is being held to determine what that new threshold should be. Please add your support or oppose to the percentage thresholds below.

Other threshold percentages (based on policy or recent practice) are listed below for comparison.

Recent Thresholds
Bureaucrats 85–90%[1][2]
Stewards 80%[3]
Administrators 70–80%[4]
Checkusers 70%[5] (secure poll)
Oversighters 70%[5] (secure poll)
ArbCom 2008 63.9%[6]
ArbCom 2009 59.9%[7] (secure poll)
ArbCom 2010 56.7%[8](secure poll)

Timestamp: 01:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]


90%[edit]

A ratio of 9 to 1 in support.

Users who support this threshold[edit]

  1. Second Choice to below.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. don't mind it but supporting lower too. --Cerejota (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'd be fie with this, prefer it in fact. To the sky is blue folks, over half of the successful nominations since 2009 finished at over 90%. If I'm reading the stats right RxS (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, per my comments at 85% and RxS. Hobit (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice to 6:1. It is quite high, and I speak from experience. On the other hand, I would we rather be more than less careful. If we had an option of 7:1 (87.5%) or 8:1 (88.9%) I'd prefer both of those to 9:1, but after 6:1 below. -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this threshold[edit]

  1. Too high. causa sui (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I doubt that you get 90% of Wikipedians to agree the sky is blue. Herostratus (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too high, per Herostratus. — Kudu ~I/O~ 13:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too high. (The sky is blue? Citation needed.) --Tryptofish (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per above. T. Canens (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Several users with a chip on their shoulders could tank any RFB. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Unrealistic. 90% or over would, for practical purposes, require unanimous support for the RfB. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Far too high. -- Atama頭 17:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FASTILY (TALK) 18:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Far too high, anyone who has enough history to really qualify to be an crat will have an almost impossible time avoiding 10% of voters objecting. Monty845 19:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 19:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Way Too high  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. AD 21:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Discouragingly high. Majoreditor (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Way too high. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The sky is not blue, it is cyan. Maybe at large angles to the sun it is blue. More than half the time it is black. Is it assumed that we are standing on cloud tops? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. As high as the U.S. debt ceiling, if I may. Needs to be lowered. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Too high. Consensus isn't unanimity. Dzlife (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. This is too high. In my opinion, 90% support should not be a requirement for a candidate to be considered trusted with the bureaucrat tools. HeyMid (contribs) 18:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Far too high, in comparison to ArbCom, stewards, and any other process. Admins will get haters, and this will prevent a (potentially) successful RfB if the threshold was lower. —mc10 (t/c) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Far too high. Crats do next to nothing, there is no reason for this to be set to near-unanimous standards. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Not useful. – Quadell (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Too high. James500 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Far too high. --Taelus (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Simply too high. CT Cooper · talk 11:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Per Herostratus. Also: Simply doing routine admin work (even if performed flawlessly) is likely to generate a few enemies anyway; I'm wary of a good candidate getting turned down because of a handful of oppose votes from people they've previously disagreed with on a drama page. bobrayner (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Way too high. That would make it far too easy for malcontents to derail a candidate -- for example, for the sole purpose of disrupting the smooth operation of Wikipedia or because they resent the candidate for something perfectly valid that the candidate did in the past. --Orlady (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing bureaucrat has discretion to ignore those comments. I see no reason why we should use a quantitative method to resolve a qualitative problem.--Cerejota (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Too high. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Way too high. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Absurdly high for a group of users that have only a few specialized duties. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Too high — frankie (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Juliancolton (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Too high. Buggie111 (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Absurdly too high. I don't really see the mega damage a 'crat can do beyond what an admin can do. Thus, I see no need to raise the bar so high. We're not electing a new Commander in Chief, just a bureacrat. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Far too high. With this threshold almost any objection, however weak, can sink an RfB. Hut 8.5 19:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Too high. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • I've put this here because despite the previous RfC, not giving the status quo any space at all seems like undo steering of the outcome. If it stays empty, it stays empty. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 'crat is not admin, and we have no crisis, so near unanimous support is not a bad idea. I can live with iffy janitors admins, but a 'crat has too much power, in particular as we gave them the power to desysop. There are number of notable cases in our past of people who became 'crats only to betray that trust - in fact am pretty sure that in proportion there has been more removal of permissions for misdeeds by 'crats than by admins. Still, am willing to compromise lower. --Cerejota (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There are number of notable cases in our past of people who became 'crats only to betray that trust"... like who? Looking over Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Former bureaucrats, the ones that pop out at me are Essjay, Ed Poor, and Nichalp, but the situations involving their removal had absolutely nothing to do with their being a bureaucrat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But they betrayed the trust. Its not about tool use at this level, its about politics - lets be frank, being a 'crat is *not* about having a mop, it means generally that you are trusted by the community. We have more or less ~7,500 active editors yet elections are generally participated only by a few hundred people, so becoming a 'crat is a signal to thousands about judgement (not to mention millions of much less active editors). I think we owe to ourselves and the community not to make any mistakes in this regard.--Cerejota (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The way your original statement was worded, it seemed to me like you were saying they betrayed trust as a bureaucrat (as in, abusively using bureaucrat-specific rights), while you're actually discussing a larger concept of the trustworthiness of the individual. You're likely correct that, proportionally, more 'crats have been removed than admins, but that's more because there's only ever been 48 of us ever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

85%[edit]

A ratio of approximately 5.667 to 1 in support.

Users who support this threshold[edit]

  1. If we have leave to be choosy; be choosy. jorgenev 02:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. I see value in a smaller group and we can be picky. RxS (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is as far as I'm comfortable lowering it. I actually think all permissions except for adminship that are listed in the above box should have this level of support. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I was opposed to lowering the threshold when this discussion came up a few months ago, for several reasons. That view has been further strengthened in light of the fact that crats now have the technical ability desysop, and may soon have the authority to do so in circumstances other than self requests (if they do not already?). In practise, crats regularly act as consensus-based arbitrators – individual crats or the crat usergroup in general get regular requests to judge difficult and contentious consensus outside of RfA. In recent months there has been a tendency for individuals to set slightly more relaxed standards on whether or not to support RfB candidates. Before lowering the threshold, I think there is an onus to prove that the community has not been correcting itself with RfB standards, and/or that we are at breaking point. —WFC— 04:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I feel like 75-80% is a decent admin threshold, and I'd want to be a little more rigorous for bureaucrats, so 85% makes sense; it also leaves, say, a discretion of maybe 5% without looking vastly too low. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. OK with this, too. Second choice. T. Canens (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I can support this and allow for some discression slightly below.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Subject to discretion, of course. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Just right.PumpkinSky talk 20:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Probably the best compromise, but a tad too low. Lower and it becomes a democratic process, not a community consensus.--Cerejota (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Just about right. But remember that RfBs are consensus-based decisions and not elections. This is fine as the center of the "gray area", but shouldn't be used as an automatic cutoff point. ThemFromSpace 04:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Top of the discretionary zone. 85% - 100% is an obvious succeed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Especially after bureaucrats were given new powers. Ruslik_Zero 10:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. A little high but supportable. Dzlife (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Seems to have resulted in enough people and good people. I see no need to change. Hobit (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I don't feel strongly, but this seems to be working fine as the de facto status quo. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Third choice, which I would prefer to be at the top of the discretion range. CT Cooper · talk 11:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. First choice. Actually 6:1 would be my first choice, which translates to an ugly 85.71% -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. First choice. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. This is effectively the existing level, per Atama's research into past practice, if the closing person is allowed to sometimes advance a candidate who is a couple of points lower than 85%. I think the existing level is okay. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. A tad to high (maybe 83-84 ish), but I feel fine with 85. Buggie111 (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Good compromise (though I do agree with Avraham’s slightly higher ratio of 6:1). Only 80% support is simply too low for me to feel comfortable with. — Satori Son 19:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I think 85% with discretionary allowance for slightly lower is perfect. I don't know of many admins who have not ruffled a few feathers so their support might not be at RfA levels but anything below an 83 is still too low in my book, so 85 is a good litmus. Valley2city‽ 06:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this threshold[edit]

  1. A little on the high side, but I don't feel strongly. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Also too high. Impossibly high standards like this prevent many worthy candidates from even trying. causa sui (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A bit too high, like Tryptofish I don't think this is outrageous but I'd prefer it a bit lower. -- Atama頭 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FASTILY (TALK) 18:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Still too high, RfB gets a lot of attention, if there is a real problem with a candidate that should stop them from getting the extra tools, more then 15% of !voters will agree. Monty845 19:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 19:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A bit high, I wouldn't complain too much, but I'd like a few% lower  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Far too high still. AD 21:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too high. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't see 85% working. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Definitely too high. I don't accept that a user who gets, say, 83% support is not trusted to be a bureaucrat. Robofish (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This suggestion is not too unreasonable, but I think this would make it too hard passing an RFB; we cannot expect users to be perfect (although they are expected to have good amount of policy and guideline knowledge, etc). HeyMid (contribs) 18:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Still too high; lower it to steward level. —mc10 (t/c) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Also too high, given how drama-filled RfX is of late. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Not useful. – Quadell (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Don't see any reason to raise the bar 2% higher than the current statistical pass level. This would be my second choice however, 75% is too low. --Taelus (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per my !vote in the next section. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Too high. James500 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Too high still. If there's a big enough problem (genuine problem), it's going to be obvious at a lower threshold than this. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Too high. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Ridiculously high for a group of users that have only a few specialized duties. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Per BB. Juliancolton (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. To make it clear that I prefer 80% and to counter the support for this one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Better than 90%, but still too high. Hut 8.5 19:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. A little too high. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Personally, I would rather re-cast this as a 6:1 ratio, which does translate to a somewhat ugly 85.714% ratio. This requires about twice as much support as administrators now (75% = 3:1; 70% ~2.3333:1; 80% = 4:1), for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

80%[edit]

A ratio of 4 to 1 in support, which is the same for Stewards.

Users who support this threshold[edit]

  1. My76Strat (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 02:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Majoreditor (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is my favorite choice. — Kudu ~I/O~ 13:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With the caveat that there should be a discretionary range, perhaps 75%–80%, not a magic threshold. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As guidance to the 'crat closing the RfB, but not as a hard and fast line (although RfBs succeeding at below 80% should be really, really, really, really, really, rare). T. Canens (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. People vote with tougher criteria anyway, so why make the "consensus" harder to achieve? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ϫ 15:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This is about right, if someone asked me what seems fair for RfB I would have picked 80% myself. -- Atama頭 17:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. FASTILY (TALK) 18:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 19:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Just about right to me. Maybe have a band as Tryptofish suggests for 75-80% Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I don't know where the middle of the discretionary zone should be, but IMO it should be closer to 80% than 90%. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. But it's not like we're accomplishing anything here. If people don't like you, you still won't pass, 80% threshold or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 80% is a fair amount of support for the toolset. First choice. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Ironholds (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Seems fair. Consistent with stewards. Dzlife (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 85% feels too much, while 75% feels too little, so I support 80%. HeyMid (contribs) 16:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. This is about right. Steward pass = bureaucrat pass feels right to me. —mc10 (t/c) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Second choice. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. A good ratio. – Quadell (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Similar levels of responsibility, so similar thresholds. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --v/r - TP 22:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. The threshold for 'crats should not be higher than for stewards. James500 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Sounds about right, knocks 3% off the current norm based on Atama's statistics in the discussion below. --Taelus (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. First choice. Allows the community to be a little bit more selective on the selection of bureaucrats compared to admins since the demand for the former is less than the latter, but will also apply a more reasonable threshold which matches that of stewards. CT Cooper · talk 11:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. It makes no sense for Stewards (which have more "power") to have a lower threshold than local crats. And we could always use for more help. Steven Walling • talk 06:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Stewards are reconfirmed every year, while bureaucrats are not. So, this makes a perfect sense actually. Ruslik_Zero 08:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. This is more sensible, bringing it into line with Stewards. I'd like it to have a discretionary feel to it, so that it's not an absolute threshold though. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Second choice to 75%. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Baseball Watcher 14:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Makes the most sense. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Third choice. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Second choice. ThemFromSpace 00:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Agree that it shouldn't be any higher than for stewards, plus it's a reasonable level anyway. Swarm u | t 15:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. A good ratio for normal cases considering that RfB participants are more picky already, and 75% (3 to 1) seems reasonable as the minimum for discretionary calls — frankie (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Seems reasonable, if a tad high still. Juliancolton (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Rschen7754 20:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Tony (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I think this is fair. Given the powers available to bureaucrats they need to be held to a higher standard than admins. Hut 8.5 19:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I would go for this. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this threshold[edit]

  1. Also too high, especially as a hard-and-fast rule. causa sui (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too low, I don't mean this as sarcasm, but primarily per Tryptofish up in the support. If 80% is set as the threshold we're inviting RFB closures in the 75+% range as 'discretionary calls'.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Cube lurker and my point below. A threshold is the upper limit from which crats work down from, depending on how many of the opposes they consider to carry little or no weight. A threshold of 85% would in practise mean that a majority (but by no means all) of RfBs in the 80-84% range would pass. —WFC— 18:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too low. PumpkinSky talk 20:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No, still too high. Shouldn't be the same as stewards. AD 21:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No, with the discretionary range, it'd reach down close to 75% which is way too low. RxS (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Only way I would support is by closing the loophole and making this a hard limit, no discretion allowed even if its 79.9999% If not, this is effectively 75%, which might as well then throw open the doors open into 'crat because basically all admins already got 75%.--Cerejota (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I picked 85% since I know that means selections will be made in the 80-87 range. With this, it'll go down to 75%, which is too low. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Current threshold (85%) is just fine. Taking into account that new powers were given to bureaucrats recently, lowering the threshold would do no good. Ruslik_Zero 10:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Still too high, IMO, but I could accept it as a second preference to the below. Robofish (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose this (and all below) as too low, per Cube Lurker. Hobit (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose this as too low. This is the upper end of the administrator judgment range. Bureaucrats should have a stronger consensus. As for stewards, we are reconfirmed yearly, and whilst the reconfirmation decision may not be held to the same standard as the initial election, it still allows a clear mechanism for steward removal which is not instituted for EnWikiP bureaucrats at this time. -- Avi (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, too low, per Avi. --Dweller (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Still too high. B-cratship is ludicrously over-rated. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • I'd just like to note that I agree with T. Canens' rationale, just not his support for 80%. In practise discretion is regularly used for those who are a few percentage points below an RfA or RfB threshold (quite rightly, as it is common for one or two opposes in an RfB to be dismissed as completely frivilous). Conversely, discretion is almost never used to deny the tools to someone who has met or exceeded the threshold. I would therefore recommend that those in this section who do not want to see people with less than 80% support obtaining the tools consider whether 80% or 85% best reflects their position. —WFC— 15:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeha th eonly way to support this is to close the discretionary loophole.--Cerejota (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

75%[edit]

A ratio of 3 to 1 in support.

Users who support this threshold[edit]

  1. Not at all too low (still higher than ArbCom, for goodness sake.) But there should be a discretionary range of, perhaps, 75%–80%, instead of a fixed number. In fact it's a bit silly to argue that we need to have high standards for Crat-ship, because they have to make wise decisions, and then to say that we need a single-number cut-off, to prevent discretion. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Given the pickyness of the RfB voters, I could trust anyone who gets 3-to-1 support. We accept that level of consensus for actual article content changes that have tremendous concrete impact in the real world, whereas bureaucrat actions are janitorial and easily reversed. There is no practical need for the double standard. causa sui (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would support a discretionary range that reached at least as low as 75%. RfB voters are extremely picky, and a 75% vote in favor with regards to any candidate that has been an active admin means they can most likely be trusted with the additional tools. Monty845 19:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolute minimum for a discretionary band  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As per other consensus-based discussions on Wikipedia. 75% is usually considered rough consensus everywhere else, so why not for bureaucrats? If anything, adminship should be higher standard than bureaucratship because candidates are already treated too harshly. AD 21:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Suitable level for beginning of the discretionary zone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seems fine. Consistent with RfA. Dzlife (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'd be fine with this. Bearing in mind that all RFB candidates have already passed RFA and are already proven trustworthy, we don't need to adopt such high standards as we do at RFA. Robofish (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. Cratship should be equal to adminship in terms of the threshold required; the most controversial thing a crat is able to do is close a borderline RfA, and really borderline cases are generally discussed amongst crats first. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. A good ratio. – Quadell (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Second choice, as inevitably users will apply higher standards to RfBs than RfAs even if the threshold was the same. CT Cooper · talk 11:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I don't feel that this is too high; we shouldn't lift !vote thresholds to improve quality because !voters are already turning up at the !vote with higher expectations. In other words, it's already harder for a candidate to earn each "support". (The numerical thresholds on my postgraduate qualifications have been lower than the ones I had to pass in school tests at age 11 - but nowadays I have to work far harder to earn each point). bobrayner (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I'd support this as an absolute minimum unless the candidate already holds positions of equal trust on other wikis - in which case I'd leave room for discretion. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Three-to-one is plenty for the marginal increase in responsibility that 'cratship entails. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. B-crats are already admins by definition, this is just a few not-all-that-potent extra tools. This threshold would bring at least a semblance of sanity back to RFB. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. First choice. Protonk (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Second choice. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Because really, the tools someone gains as a bureaucrat are far less likely to cause serious damage than anything else; if anything, it's easier to stop rogue bureaucrats, because there are so few of them that if one suddenly goes batshit crazy it's immediately obvious. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this threshold[edit]

  1. Far too low, especially if my proposal below dosen't get support. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A bit too low. T. Canens (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too Low --Cube lurker (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too low. -- Atama頭 17:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FASTILY (TALK) 18:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 19:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WAAY too low. PumpkinSky talk 20:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. You are joking, right?--Cerejota (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. A bit on the low side. ThemFromSpace 04:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Current threshold (85%) is just fine. Taking into account that new powers were given to bureaucrats recently, lowering the threshold would do no good. Ruslik_Zero 10:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This is too low; I do not consider a user who gets 75 supports out of 100 !votes (excluding the neutral ones) well enough trusted by the community for the bureaucrat tools. HeyMid (contribs) 18:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Too low; 'crat pass ratio should be higher than that of admins, as they have tools that could cause more damage to the Wikipedia community if exploited (e.g. mass desysopping). —mc10 (t/c) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Too low. --Taelus (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Too low. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose this as too low. -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Seems a bit low really. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Too low; a significant and unnecessary jump lower than past practice, per Atama's research showing 82.5% to be the usual line. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Too low. The ratio for bureaucrats should be higher than that of admins, and in the period 2008-present no non-withdrawn RfA with more than 75% support has been closed as unsuccessful. Hut 8.5 19:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strongly oppose as far too low. — Satori Son 19:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Probably too kow. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

70%[edit]

A ratio of approximately 2.333 to 1 in support.

Users who support this threshold[edit]

  1. First choice. Should be the same as admin IMO. Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I prefer consensus over overwhelming consensus. I fail to see what irreparable damage a bureaucrat can do to the project that an administrator cannot do, therefore I support a lower threshold of support. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this threshold[edit]

  1. You got to be kidding me.--Cerejota (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Too low. -- Avi (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If 75% is too low, this is way too low. -- Atama頭 04:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose. --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. But only mildly, just to indicate where it gets slightly too low for my tastes. It's still a lot higher than what is required for ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my previous votes.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bureaucrats should have stronger community support than administrators. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 10:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Definitely too low. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General discussion[edit]

I'll be the first - what use is deciding on a percentage when the closing bureaucrats decide case-by-case? — Joseph Fox 02:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression that bureaucrats only exercise their "case-by-case" prerogative when the community opinion runs very close to the threshold. If there are zero oppose !votes, as was the case in the recent Fluffernutter RfA, community consensus would clearly preclude bureaucrat prerogative. The same could be said of any of the recent WP:SNOW closes at RfA, which would appear on the opposite side of the ledger. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Range of discretion discussion[edit]

I'd like to float the idea of a maximum range in which 'crats are free to exercise discretion. After an admin was reconfirmed with 68% support, it became clear, to me at least, that some sort of line was needed. How about this: "Bureaucrats may exercise discretion only within ±5% of the threshold selected above." This would mean that if, say, 80% were selected, 'crats would be able to, at their discretion, promote someone with 76% but not 72%. If something like a sockfarm or plagarism came to light on day seven, they could always extend the RfA due to the circumstances, but this proposal would limit their ability to bypass the community, as has been done before. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For all of the positions from admin up, I would rather the named number serve as the line in the sand: "this level and everything above". It is more straightforward that way and less prone to personal interpretation by the closing person. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd question having a numerical definition of discretion. Discretion is there for crats to make allowances in individual cases for weak/spurious opposes, or comments from neutral people that might be a good barometer of community opinion in particularly tough cases. If a crat feels strongly enough that one particular case warrants wider discretion than 5%, so be it. But in standard cases being 3 or 4% below a community supported theshold would generally result in the request being closed as unsuccessful, regardless of whether that threshold is 90%, 85%, 80% or 75%. —WFC— 04:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Belated follow-up, I missed two very salient words in that post. I meant to say "being more than 3 or 4% below a community supported threshold would generally result..." —WFC— 15:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that the chart at the very top of the page can be misleading percentage-wise. That is, admins (on en.wiki), bureaucrats (on en.wiki), and stewards (WMF level) are elected using an open voting system, while CUs, OSs, and ArbCom members are elected using a closed voting system (with the exception of last year's CU/OS). The results are going to differ amongst the two voting methods, with a closed system generally yielding lower supporting percentages because they are free to oppose without herd mentality, groupthink, etc. –MuZemike 19:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. But why use context, if you can and probably will get away with leading people in your direction? —WFC— 04:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 80% seems about right. ±5% seems a good discretionary zone. If < 15% can't persuade the > 85%, the reasons for opposition are probably pretty weak. If 25% can cite decent reasons to oppose, that's pretty bad for a highly trusted position. However, no numbers, even ±5% should be rock solid. 74% might pass if many of the opposes were very weak, or dubious accounts. 90% might fail if some few came up late with a very good reason to oppose, a reason that for whatever reason caused the early voters to not want to return. Ultimately, while a guideline is good for the spectators, judging success require human intellect with experience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why I think a hard threshold number with no stated range is best. The closing person can make whatever adjustments he or she feels are necessary. Stating a range invites even more adjustment. Leave the range unsaid. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. If we want to allow the closer to exercise some element of discretion to deal with conditions in individual requests which cannot possibly be anticipated here and now, then a preset numerical range for their discretion is unhelpful. Either the threshold is strict (closer has no discretion), or it's blurry. I would prefer blurry. bobrayner (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current standard[edit]

I looked at this table which helpfully lists all of the RfB results for the past couple of years. Basically, it looks like the current success threshold, if it can be said there is one, is at exactly 83%. The lowest percentage to pass was 83%, and the highest to fail was 82%. Every RfB with an 83% or higher result has passed, and every RfB with an 82% or lower result has failed. I doubt that an intentional line was drawn, but that's a very clear, bright line. So keep in mind that supporting a 90% or 85% threshold will raise the bar for RfB. 80% or 75% will lower the bar. It's best that people know if they are supporting a change to RfB standards that makes it easier or more difficult for us to promote new bureaucrats. -- Atama頭 22:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with raising the bar?--Cerejota (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be a problem as long as the community supports it, however it does contradict the previous RfC where a fairly strong consensus (75%) supported lowering the bar. -- Atama頭 00:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One quibble, I'd call supporting 85% voting for the status quo unless we're planning on strictly enforcing the percentages.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the previous RFC was held prior to the initiation of the RFCs that lead to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions. –xenotalk 13:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. And if there is an inconsistency of any kind between this RfC and the last one, then that could be a reason for it. Or it could be due to different people getting involved in the discussion. Who knows? -- Atama頭 16:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, it may be worthwhile to deliver a short message to the participants of the immediately preceding discussion on this topic. –xenotalk 16:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2 (closed May 2008) was a 'crat chat that closed with no consensus to promote at 102/22/14 or 82.258%, which is about as fine as you can cut it if you make an 83% brightline 8-) -- Avi (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Atama presents good evidence supporting 82.5% ± 0.5%. Are the bureacrats really secretly formulaic? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crap, we've been discovered! Quick, someone get an oversighter in here to wipe this out... ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The status quo would be for a ratio, supports to opposes, of 5:1 (83.33%), if we took Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nihonjoe_4 to be a bureaucrat discretionary intervention, a deviation of < 0.641%. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it outrageous, bordering on insane, to suggest that three-to-one support is too low of a bar to be allowed to change usernames and perform the other rather mundane tasks of cratship. (Not a reply to any particular comment above, just a general observation on the whole tone of the voting above) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We also get the keys to the executive washroom. –xenotalk 18:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So do admins. Of course, we only get them to clean the executive washroom, not use it :-/ Regards SoWhy 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats a fiction. Admins are janitors, which is why I advocate making admin tools be more like rollbacker or reviewer, and RfA's reserved for re-admin those who had their tools removed for misdeeds. Crats play a political role too, for example, in Arbcom elections the matter of being a Crat is often raised, as is reversion in matters of policy (usually, a revert by a crat is sufficient to shutdown a policy edit war cold, not so with admins). I other words, crats much more than admins are evaluated by their behavior outside of using tools. In addition, the tools crats have are indeed much more potentially disruptive and harder to revert in the case of misdeeds, which is in part why most of the actions crats can take are not unilateral (for example, crats cannot +sysop on a whim, even if they have the technical ability - while an admin can protect an article on his or her initiative alone). What really is going on is that certain admins want to be crats for these political reasons, but know they can't get the support for whatever reason and are trying to lower to bar to get in. Lets not claim otherwise. Its not about mops, its about merit badges and orders of the arrow. --Cerejota (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation[edit]

Are we to assume that anyone who supports threshold x+1 is by definition opposing x (unless they supported x as well)? –xenotalk 00:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which way round you mean, but I'd stick to what people say "too high" for example; given discretionary measures, it's possible to have any range of support. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone supports 90% but does not support any of the others, then it stands to reason that they feel the threshold should not be below 90% (and, therefore, oppose 85%,80%,75%, etc.)... –xenotalk 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree. Whilst 90/75 is definitely unlikely, I'd personally not oppose 80% when I voted for 85%, as my accompanying comment makes clear. They may have an similarly relevant opinion of lower measures. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, if there are accompanying comments they should be taken into account. E.g. #1 @ 85%: "If we have leave to be choosy; be choosy" - this to me, serves as an oppositional statement to lower thresholds even though they have not specifically opposed them. –xenotalk 13:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I agree if they've left a comment like that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy there, apples compared with oranges![edit]

Sorry to be alarmist, but now I have your attention, the Securepoll ArbCom results in 2010 and 2009 are not at all comparable with other votes, since people were able to easily vote Oppose with a quick click to make their Support votes more powerful. And all three cited ArbCom votes were competitive, not single-candidate like RfAs and RfBs, which significantly alters the threshold. I note that the support-rank for the weakest successful ArbCom candidate is used in each case, without noting this, whereas the average support-rank (S / (S + O)) was considerably higher, of course, in each of the past three elections. Tony (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfB
  2. ^ For the history of the RfB percentage, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion#History of "90%"
  3. ^ See meta:Stewards/elections 2011/Statistics
  4. ^ See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA and its process.
  5. ^ a b Although 70% was used as a threshold, the results were considered unsatisfactory as only one candidate reached that level. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Discussion.
  6. ^ See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Results#Vote tallies
  7. ^ See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009#Results.
  8. ^ See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010#Results
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Requests_for_bureaucratship_threshold&oldid=1146596732"