Wikipedia:Adminship survey/J

(17/14/00/10) RFA promotion standards[edit]

The standards as currently employed on RFA by the bureaucrats (not the voters!) are...

Acceptable[edit]

But they need to be consistently enforced --Mcginnly | Natter 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bureaucrats are where they are because the community trusts them to Do What's Right. If the community finds the trust misplaced, the tools exist (RfC, Rfar, etc) to fix the problem. If the community wants to change the standards the 'crats use, then the tools exist to do that as well (policy proposals, etc) - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About right. Given the pre-nomination campaigning and grooming which goes on, requiring ¾ to show community trust is about right - much higher would make it too easy for a few malcontents to derail a nomination; ¾ requires enough malcontents to show a real lack of trust. Αργυριου (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be a wild card and support this one. I definitely disagree that mere participation at dispute resolution works against a candidate. Some of the people who supported me pointed to my activity at WP:RFC. Any editor who can't answer dispute-related objections persuasively is someone I might not trust with the tools. Durova^Charge! 01:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, generally acceptable. Was tempted to put myself under "Too low, it's too easy to pass", because if there's a problem, it's on the too easy side, but only mildly so. I also agree with the view of being too rigid—people need to consider the individual nomination before deciding whether their usual standards apply. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases. Daniel.Bryant 04:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost always. A couple of incorrect calls in genuine tough cases but the standard of support should not be far moved. I think voters, on the other hand, are quite often too strict. Eluchil404 05:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The standards are roughly where they should be. I would like to see people take a more comprehensive view of a candidate, though. ChazBeckett 14:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never agreed with this 75-80% thing that seemed to crop up a while ago, it is way too restrictive and only serves to cause upset when someone gets promoted at 74.9%. This said, I have never had too much issue with the decisions made by our bureaucrats, therefore I feel that I can only declare their standards to be acceptable. Rje 00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are fine 99% of the time. Of course there are exceptions, but overall the standards applied by bureaucrats are pretty good. James086 ^Talk 23:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The voters are the problem, not the process. Grand master ka 08:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is fine. I think there have been times when it hasn't been consistently applied, but that is a separate issue. Bucketsofg 00:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I often disagree with many voters, but my opinion on the bureaucrats' decisions are just fine. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see too much of a problem with it actually. 75% is 3/4 of the users who !voted, you have to be accepted generally by the commuity to be an admin that functions well.--Wizardman 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a standard, formulated in percentages, and it needs to be enforced. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole they seem to be spot on. I see a few candidates promoted that make me gasp, and a few surprising failures, but on the whole I think the crats are getting it right. --kingboyk 17:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're doing a good job. I disagree with the idea that we should promote more even if it means more desysops. Any desysop is a bad thing, far worse than promoting someone who was .0001 below the "discretionary range". -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per McGinnly. J-stan ^Talk 02:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too high, it's too hard to pass[edit]

Pissing people off is a byproduct of solving problems. Thus, attempting to solve problems makes one unworthy to be an adminstrator. Only very few adminstrators deal with the hard stuff, and the number of those that do is steadily diminishing as people who are pissed off go around collecting heads. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As candidates have to fit into incompatible standards of too many people, many won't fit all of them and we'll be denied capable admins. Kusma (討論) 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current standard is entirely arbitrary, and favors those with low dispute-resolution experience. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "somewhere around 70-80%" standard is fine to me, though I think vote rationales make it too hard to pass. Ral315 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too many people fail; agree with Ral315 that the problem is less in the level of support required than in the standards applied by some participants. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Far too many people have caught editcountitis, for a start :(. I also agree with Kusma. Yuser31415 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't have put it better than Christopher Parham. Really, just because of edit counts, or some inane criteria a user has, entirely acceptable users are being denied. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too much worth is given to the !votes instead of the arguments. --Edokter (Talk) 23:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my history at RFA and you will see why I am placing my !vote here. — Moe 00:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ral. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happier with more admins promoted even if the result was a few more being demoted. Hopefully the drama could be kept under control. *shrug* ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^demon, Ral315 and Hipocrite all hit the nail on the head. I will again reiterate my deep concern for the dominance of editcountitis in RfAs. I also agree that very often RfAs pass/fail on how good of a "politician" someone is, or rather how many disparate standards they can satisfy. Vassyana 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To much editcountis, edit-summary-countis, (if that is a term) and "they don't have enough experience in [namespace] to be a good admin". Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Sidaway 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Perhaps a little too high[reply]
I strongly agree with this. It doesn't take 10000 edits to figure out Wikipedia. It could take 500 edits. T_{Talk to me} 21:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too low, it's too easy to pass[edit]

Other[edit]

They're acceptable, but too rigid. Witness the controversy when someone dared to promote at .6 percent under the "discretion range". People really need to understand that variations of up to about two percentage points are matters of who happened to get their comments in, not whether or not the community would trust the candidate. -Amarkov moo! 15:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're fine, but are often too rigid. If the "rules" are there to be broken, there's no need for rules. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have basically the same opinion as Amarkov. Numbers alone won't indicate community trust. With the current system 75% is about right, as otherwise there'd be too much risk with drive-by voters not understanding what's happening and nobody giving their reasons (it's pretty difficult to distinguish a drive-by support vote from a well-thought-out one, as often they'll say much the same thing.) --ais523 17:29, 16 February 2007 (U T C)
The community has to be convinced to change its standards. The problem is not how RFA itself is handled. Chick Bowen 18:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the buetocrats were more proactive in close cases to really develop a consensus the standards wouldn't matter.--BirgitteSB 20:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a uniform standard before we say it's too hard or too easy. Just H 23:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I lose faith when candidates who "know the 'crats" slide in with low margins. If the reasoning behind the promotion of Carnildo's and Ryulong's RFAs was extended to every other RFA, I'd be fine with it, but it's a selective kind of "you're in and you're out" spiel with some successful and failed RFAs. Hbdragon88 00:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with the appearance of cherry-picking pointed out by Hbdragon. It's important that every candidate gets a fair shake - and that the 'voting' community believes that. In general, there's entirely too much emphasis (by "watchers", not bureaucrats) on beancounting - people seemed to think it mattered that Kafziel's second nomination changed by a percentage point after the official ending time passed. Opabinia regalis 06:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm cherry picking - it's just been my experience with RFA. I seldom participate - I can count the number of times I've actually voted on one hand (Splash, Newyorkbrad, Ryulong, Carnildo). I dislike supporitng because it tends to be pile-on, and I think that my opposes have more merit than my supports. I opposed on Ryulong 3 and Carnildo 3, and in both instances the 'crat decided to promote. During the discussion after Ryulong's promotion, when I discovered other candidates who had gotten 75% or so and did not succeed, and Ryulong/Carnildo passing with far lower margins, I don't feel like my opinion mattered, only the relationship. Hbdragon88 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess that wasn't clear - I was referring to the cherry-picking of which users (known, high-profile) get the appearance of special dispensation, and which others (less visible) just get quietly closed as no consensus despite better numbers. Opabinia regalis 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear enough, particularly to newbies. --Dweller 13:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appear to be nonexistent, as noted by Hbdragon88. Grace Note 09:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]