Wikipedia:Adminship poll/D

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you think of the RfB Bar?[edit]

Is it previously said that the RfB standards were too high for candidates to pass. After a long dry spell last year, there are few but successful candidates who passed Requests for Bureaucratship (RFB). Now considering this fact, what do you think of the promotion standards of RfB?

(Still) too high, should be lowered[edit]

  1. Way too high for such a little thing. Majorly (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Far too high, its higher than we require for stewards and many arbcom candidates. Considering that the vast majority of bureaucrat actions require minimal judgment, the current level makes no sense. Mr.Z-man
  3. I can't understand why everyone thinks it such a big deal. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. bibliomaniac15 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It has to be recognised that the sheer diversity (and its pressures) apparent now within the encyclopedia means that candidates are less likely to present themselves as unblemished in their interactions with other users, and the expectations of the existing 'crats on the perceived standard is too high. Perhaps with the influx of new 'crats there will be a different perspective, but lowering the bar in the meanwhile will allow the infusion of new blood which will address this seemingly archaic standard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is Riana a bureaucrat? No? Well, then, I guess the level is too high. Seriously, though, I do not understand how consensus changes with the perceived importance of an action. SorryGuy  Talk  23:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. High standards mean it will be gamed, lower standards mean it will be gamed in a slightly different way. I prefer the latter. Dorftrottel (complain) 03:30, April 21, 2008
  8. As per Z-Man, most 'crat actions don't require that much judgement, why make a fuss over it? ><RichardΩ612 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too high. - Philippe 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The ridiculously high bar is not necessary: many people have high standards for bureaucratship anyway, plus, there are other factors to consider: admins make enemies, and an RfB would be a good place for some people to "settle scores"; the "one year as an admin" criteria that some people use; and finally, "no need for more bureaucrats" votes. The high bar, plus these factors, make RfB nearly impossible to pass. Acalamari 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. You need to be an admin for 1 year, have no arguments whatsoever, be a good writer and vandal-fighter and deletion closer, and still get 90% of people to support your bid. Too high. Malinaccier (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Shouldn't be that much a big of a deal. Singularity 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. When people oppose for nonsensical reasons (I'm thinking anything involving article namespace contributions here) then this is too high. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. About the only thing a bureaucrat could do to disrupt things that an admin couldn't do would be to make a known vandal into an admin. And I don't know why they would do that anyways. It's not like no one will know who made the vandal an admin, so why wouldn't they just vandalize themselves? They're going to get blocked either way, so they might as well have the enjoyment (if you can call it that) of destroying Wikipedia themselves and then getting blocked rather than letting someone else have all the fun. J.delanoygabsadds 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Flawed just like RfA with nonsense opposes. Bar is incredibly too high, even if it's been pushed down from 90%, which was beyond absurd in the first place. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. If adminship isn't a big deal then why is it a big deal to promote admins? But really there is no need for the standards to be so high. It's not like performing crat duties is ridiculously hard and there's bureaucrat chat if they're unsure. James086Talk | Email 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Riana should be a bureaucrat. Quadell should be a bureaucrat. It looks like I'll be saying a week from now that Avraham should be a bureaucrat. Why do we tie our hands behind our back by rejecting candidates with more than 80 percent support? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. per everyone else... - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per above which is per everyone else :/ ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 08:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable[edit]

  1. It's fine where it is now. 90% was ridiculous, but it was fixed. Wizardman 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Assuming that the bar has been moved to around 85%. EJF (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. People who are saying it should be lower and simultaneously complaining about promotions and RFA are not holding a coherent position. Introducing even more bureaucrats into the procedure will make RFA less predictable, not more so. We have the option to have a bureaucrat corps that is universally trusted. There's never been a good reason to promote bureaucrats who are not universally trusted. Yes, "factions" can sink an RFA and factions are definitely bad, but promoting bureaucrats without trust does absolutely nothing to address the problem of factions. --JayHenry (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 85% is fine, if we're there. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As per previous. I'd be happy with either 85 or 90%. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 85% is smack-on. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 85% and above for teh win.--Father Goose (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Comfortable with the 85-90% range, but not below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Acceptable, because the result is that enough people do pass to provide the necessary number of Bureaucrats. It does the job it needs to do. DGG (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Andre (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It's probably fine, but noone yet has any evidence to back up the claim that it is anywhere in particular, nor that a change has fixed a claimed problem. Splash - tk 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Until the 'crats start complaining about there not being enough of them, then the bar should be plenty high. (1 == 2)Until 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 15% shouldn't override 85%, not in any debate (or discussion). Unless of course valid queries are brought up, in which case, there wouldn't be 85% support anyway. Rudget 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 90% is too high, but 85% is more reasonable. Useight (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I would not object to lowering it further, but I think 85% is reasonable and should now produce the bureaucrats that are needed. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too low, should be raised[edit]

  1. If it has been lowered to 85%. I think it was, but we have yet to test that. Bureaucrats should have near universal trust. I do not believe 85% is. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how they should have near universal trust. Stewards are the ones that should have that, and they pass with 80%. All bureaucrats do is see if a vote is <75 or <75% and close the RfA appropriately. A bot could do it. Majorly (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that sometimes they don't do that. For example, they promoted you. -- Naerii 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea what you mean. Majorly (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably referring to WP:Requests for adminship/Majorly (withdrawn (thus no consensus), yet you gained the tools shortly after). No comment personally. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was still above 75%, so I still have no idea what Naerii is talking about. Probably just itching for a chance to have a snipe at me. Majorly (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, s/he was pointing out that you technically received your tools without an RfA that had resulted in a pass. Therefore, if we merely had a bot and a bright-line rule, you would not have been promoted. The bureaucrats used their discretion in that instance, and that discretion needs to have universal trust. Hence, I support an very high RfB bar, which only people whose judgment has been thoroughly approved by the community, (and therefore representative of the community's thoughts) can pass. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We need univeral trust of a couple dozen people for such controversial situations that arise maybe twice a year, at most? Mr.Z-man 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At least 90%, although even that probably wouldn't protect us. -- Naerii 20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Protect us? You mean from the 10% minority who effectively get to decide? Dorftrottel (canvass) 03:33, April 21, 2008
  3. Bureaucrats should have virtually unanimous support. We don't need more of them—we may have too many as it is—so there's no reason not to be extremely demanding of RfB candidates. Everyking (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This has worked pretty well in the past. Splash - tk 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 90% works well. It shows strong consensus without allowing a rogue to veto all RFBs. There is no need for lots of bureaucrats, so we can afford to be picky on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 90% Dlohcierekim 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RfB criteria, just like RfA criteria, are too low. 90% sounds like a good call for RfB IMO. If not, 95%.--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 'crats have a lot of power. They really need to be of the highest quality editor and they need to be trusted significantly. We cannot just lower the bar so more people can slip through. What is the advantage of that? — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 90% was fine. Even if it prevented a couple of good candidates from passing, there is no reason why the projects needs more 'crats at all while it always needs more admins. So, if there is not so much work but the position requires a lot of trust, avoiding bitter accidents takes priority. --Irpen 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 90% has always worked for me; similar view as Irpen. I like the idea that 'crats have a significantly higher bar than admins, and comparatively few get through (but those that do have a 'very high level of trust established). As a rule, the quality of crats has been uniformly high, and they play a quiet but solid role in the community. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I like it at 90% Captain panda 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other[edit]

  1. I have no idea who the 'crats are, or what they do, or what the difference i between 'crats and admins. That's maybe a good thing; I don't want people to see levels of editors - anon IP < registered account < twinkle rights < rollback rights < admin < crat < whatever else goes here. But you can see some editors thinking about a WP "career path". Dan Beale-Cocks 20:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They essentially deal with userrights like granting sysop, or semi-related tasks, such as changing usernames. - jc37 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, well, I changed my name and it was a quick and painless process. Much easier than a bunch of other stuff I've got involved in. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As I see from the above comments, no-one is now "sure" what the bar is : ) - I think the result from last time was that 80-90% was now roughly discretional. (80-85? 85-90? Not sure.) And that a closer was to be more concerned about the concerns raised than the arbitrary percentage. - jc37 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's not a bloody vote in the first place. So why are we arguing about the pass mark? It's not an exam :D Happy‑melon 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Refactored to here to avoid creation of endless arbitrarily-long section headings, one for each editor. Splash - tk 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not sure whether the guideline level has been moved down from 90% or not - could not see a clear decision being reached when it was discussed. If it has not been lowered then I am fine with the level. If it has been lowered to 80% then I strongly believe it should be increased as the previous level was fine in producing enough Crats. Some discretion in the 85 to 90 range, as has previously been given is fine. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 'Crats should not allow be admins they should be one or the other. THis way One group does not hold to much power. If you wish to be a 'crat you give up adminship. Simple as that. Zginder 2008-06-03T15:07Z (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminship_poll/D&oldid=1145850880"