Wikipedia:Bureaucrat consensus poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should ask for broader input, for instance at the village pump.

This is an ongoing poll to gauge what percentage users feel should be required for a promotion to bureaucrat. Older polls were found to be flawed and/or out of date. There is no reason to have start and end dates for this poll; ideally, it should consistently provide the community's opinion of bureaucrat consensus.

All registered users should vote on this poll.

Question: should the standard for promotion to bureaucrat be different than for sysop, based on the added responsibility or other factors? What should that standard be?

1 Poll
2 Comments
3 See also

[edit] Poll

[edit] Option 1 (~80-85%)

Bureaucrats should have the same requirement as admins for promotion.

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
Phroziac ^(talk)
Physchim62 20:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC) (but I feel that the requirement for admins is already too high; I would vote 70% for both levels of responsability)
Let's not overcomplicate things. ~~ N (t/c) 21:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
There's always going to be dissent, and 80-85% should be fine. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The same criteria as for adminship is OK. — JIP | Talk 09:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Complete consensus is not necessary (although, of course, it is desirable). Warofdreams 10:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Stop making crap so complicated, jeez. --Merovingian (t) (c) 19:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
If your an admin long enough to be a bureaucrat you've likely ruffled a few feathers (inadvertantly of course), 80-85% is probably the best most people will do- Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 20:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Bcat ^{(talk • email)} 03:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The requirements are ALREADY HIGHER WITHOUT THE PERCENT DIFFERENCE - people practically require no controversy, insane editcountage, and a lot of time as an admin. With that in mind they are extremely lucky if they get this amount Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Per RyanNorton. Marskell 10:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Option 2 (~85-90%)

Bureaucrats should have a standard five percent higher.

Andre (talk) 19:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Guettarda 19:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC) (see also comment below)
Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Comic 19:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
BlankVerse ∅ 14:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ 02:39, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Acetic '^Acid 16:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Option 3 (~90-95%)

Bureaucrats should have a standard ten percent higher.

jguk 19:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
90% at least. Everyking 01:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
90% minimum. Unanimity is, practically, impossible, and what constitutes near-unanimity? --Calton | Talk 10:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Option 4 (~100%)

Bureaucrats should have a unanimous or near-unanimous standard of support.

[edit] Option 5 (different standard)

A different standard should be applied, but the criteria for bureaucratship should be stricter than adminship. Please explain your reasoning and your alternate proposal here, or do so elsewhere and provide a reference to it here.

I think there should be a minimum quorum (30-50 votes?); in order to reach this level, perhaps the length of time open for voting should be longer than for adminship. Guettarda 19:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Whatever is determined to be the standard for promotion should be strictly enforced, and must be reached exactly by the end of the vote. People failing to reach this can always apply again later. Extensions of the deadline to "gain consensus" are uncomfortably close to a ballot-stuffing measure. See: [1], [2], [3] -- Norvy (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- My RfB wasn't actually extended, though. It was just considered. Andre (talk) 19:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm not trying to make anyone uncomfortable here, I just don't think that an extension should be considered an option. -- Norvy (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh God. RFAs and RFBs are not votes. Period. It is consensus. We don't just add up the votes calculate a percentage and award bureaucratship on that basis. What we need to do is simply look at the merit of the opposers and supporters and their comments. And then determine where consensus lies. Or if it doesn't. Polls are evil and and RFBs (and RFAs) should not be polls. In fact, this poll is evil. I'll have to agree with what Raul said below. Dmcdevit·t 19:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't that basically how it works now? But, supporters should not have to give reasons. For some reason i'm doubting bureaucrats pay much attention to votes like Boothy443's, from when he opposed everyone with no reason, or anyone with reasons like "Less then 10 zillion edits", etc. And I have no idea why people oppose because we "don't need more bureaucrats". --Phroziac ^(talk) 20:39, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - Not if we assign some arbitrary catch-all percentage figure to it, that's not how it would work. Sure, Boothy may get thrown out of the vote count, but I'm saying there should be no vote count. Dmcdevit·t 20:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't see an arbitrary catch-all percentage. They are approximately, note the ~s. They aren't votes, it's just a straw poll. Kinda like this one. Note my other comments --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:10, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
    - Percentages seem to be the de facto way to arrive at promotion decisions at RFA. Are you saying that's not how it should be, or that's not how it is? -- Norvy (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    - I understand what you're getting at, but when you have dozens of voters, it's virtually impossible to determine where consensus lies without somehow counting the votes. Would really strong opposition from one respected editor mean there isn't consensus? Is there consensus to promote if 10 long-time editors support and 10 newbies oppose? Although sometimes clumsy, I think we have to count votes. Otherwise, we'd have to decide whose opinion counts and how much weight their opinion has. Carbonite | Talk 20:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    - They aren't votes, but agree. --Phroziac ^(talk)
      - Hm. Even if we do count, I'm mostly opposed to setting any kind of arbitrary number on it. We have bureaucrats because of their judgment, otherwise we can just get a bot to count votes. If that is how they're currently decided, it is a shame. There is little legitimate diffierence between a 79% and an 81%, and in most cases they should be treated the same. We should look at the actual claims people make in their statements though, and how well they back them up, not merely the amount of opposes. That's not to say that one opposition should throw the whole thing, but just that we shouldn't tell a trusted bureaucrat whether it can or can't. It's just not a vote. Dmcdevit·t 21:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
My personal opinion is 50%+1 as a valid vote. But there should also be some sort of seperate criterion that at least X number of admins be voting support, like 5. Zoe 21:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Weather or not a user is promoted should be up to the bureaucrats judgement. Yes, it should be higher than the standards for admins, but there should not be a set-in-stone standard. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Option 6, polls are evil, and perhaps we could discuss and try for consensus instead

(see also: Wikipedia:Does Wikipedia have too_many polls? poll) Kim Bruning 01:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
The options above severely misunderstand (or actively twist) the definition of the word "consensus". -- Cyrius|✎ 01:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
meatball:VotingIsEvil, and Community consensus is extremely important here. Plus candidates should pass objective criteria; failure to do so should disqualify, regardless of the sentiment of the mob. An extremely high degree of participation on any RfB must be required; no 30 or 40 members out of a Community of perhaps 20,000 active editors should control anything -- certainly not this. For a mere RfAdmin, I would want to see at least 100 editors in support, with the objections of all dissenters addressed directly. For RfB, perhaps triple that number -- and if 300 editors cannot be found who demand another Bureaucrat, then we don't need one. — Xiong 熊 talk * 01:24, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
I am partly in agreement with the idea of criteria, although I prefer to think of the wiki community as being open-ended and welcoming to new blood. The number of supporting editors doesn't bother me; what does is that RfA and RfB are now popularity contests, where users vote based on others' voting patterns. We even place votes above questions to candidates, which is absolutely absurd; it encourages people to vote mindlessly, without getting a feel for the person in question through their answers to those questions. Straight polls are no good. I want to see people arguing and discussing, not typing ~~~~ and hitting Save. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 08:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this summary and with many comments below, particularly those by The Uninvited that this poll is premature. Jonathunder 00:19, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
Agree. From what I understand, straw polls are there to guage opinion after a discussion, not before it. --Celestianpower ^hab 21:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

This poll is a pointless waste of time that could have been better spent editing articles. -→Raul654 19:33, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Why'd you waste the time commenting on it? Andre (talk) 19:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Because the proliferation of these damned polls needs to be stopped, and unless someone speak up, they never will. →Raul654 19:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thirded. Dmcdevit·t 20:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

First person to start Wikipedia:Does Wikipedia have too many polls? poll gets a 6 month block. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 22:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you propose to resolve these questions, then? Shall you and the folks at the top just decide everything for us? Everyking 01:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this comment:

--cesarb 19:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, despite abominations like vote bar being kept. —Cryptic (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
In fact, I'm going to go back to working on an article now. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand your irritation, but straw polls like this are important for gauging consensus, not generating it. Nobody is claiming Wikipedia is a democracy. Besides, nobody objected when Cecropia held a similar poll in October! Andre (talk) 20:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I second Andre's comment. These extremists should stop setting up us the POV. :P heheh. --Phroziac ^(talk) 20:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

And yet, the very top of this page says This is an ongoing poll to determine what percentage should be required for a promotion to bureaucrat. That doesn't sound like "guaging" to me. →Raul654 21:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

How isn't it gauging? Determine and gauge are approximately synonyms. Andre (talk) 21:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

This poll is out of order:

It was not preceded by discussion.
It mischaracterizes the decision to promote bureaucrat candidates as being driven by mathematics rather than sociology.
It presents a false dichotomy with leading questions.
It appears to be an attempt to hold a referendum on User:Andrevan's recent bureaucrat nomination, which was turned down. If the matter at hand is the question of whether Andrevan should have been promoted, that should be addressed directly rather than through an effort to define standards.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not that, and I thought I explained what it was on your talk page. If you think the questions are leading, please fix them. It was intended to be a re-poll of Cecropia's poll from October. Andre (talk) 21:10, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

And to clarify, the question and the poll text are lifted more or less directly from Cecropia's version. Andre (talk) 21:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I have pointed out to you before that I found that poll to be flawed in a number of important regards. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the poll's going to be any more helpful than just having a discussion. But at least giving rough figures of what 'consensus' would look like in the majority of cases (as is done for adminship) helps propagate consistency in promoting. Doing the same thing for RfB, even if we know the numbers aren't binding, would assist in this. Guidelines don't bite. -- Soir (say hi) 22:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too keen on notcasting a notvote here, but if I were to do so, I'd be musing in the near-100% region. Looking at past promotions, and taking those as a guide to the future, successful promotions to Bureaucrat have had truly overwhelming support — so overwhelming that the percentage is irrelevant. I know that's a very high standard, and much higher than anything else we have round here, but it has thus far given us a good set of Bureaucrats and there's no particular reason to doubt its effectiveness. As an aside, we are currently conducting an experiment where it is likely that the opposition to successful candidates will again be almost non-existent compared to the support. -Splash 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

My view is: if there's any reasonable opposition (as in, there's a decent reason for it), the promotion should probably not go ahead. Truth is, we can afford to be much pickier about bureaucrats, so my usual test of balancing potential good against potential harm is not good enough. We should aim for proper consensus. That doesn't have to be 100%, nor does it have to be any particular number. If there is an argument with reason why the promotion should not go ahead, then it shouldn't. I'd leave the decision to "what is reasonable" to the bureaucrats themselves. [[smoddy]] 22:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think all admins should be "upgraded" to bureaucrats, and more effort should be expended into managing administrative abuse. If someone can be trusted to delete articles and ban users, I fail to see why they are not trusted to change user names or give operator status to others. Any administrators found in corruption of their power would be detected immediately. The "bureaucrat" position is being given out not based on the compotence, history, or trustworthiness of users, but on their overall status within the Wikipedia community. I do not see it as a necessary or productive distinguishment to make, but rather as an unhealthy addition to the Wikipedian food chain. Sarge Baldy 23:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think if we can get unanimous support for a bureaucrat nom, that's great. Dissent will happen, though, as has been noted and as can be seen; this is kept in mind. Before we go seeking consensus on consensus, we should probably discover what the opinions of the bureaucrats are for RfB (if different to RfA), noting many of the answers given to the bureaucrat nomination questions do give some numeric response when answering the question on 'when to promote'. If the result doesn't cause deep anguish in anybody, we already have consensus and it's just been unspoken all this time. Failing that, discussion should probably occur. :) -- Soir (say hi) 23:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe this was a bad idea. However, I think SOMETHING needs to be done to clarify what is expected for bureaucrat consensus, and Cecropia did something much like this earlier, so I figured that meant it was OK. Please, feel free to co-opt this page and make it something more discussion- and consensus-oriented. Andre (talk) 02:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, voting is a bad idea, but it would be useful to see what people think, and use that as a starting point for further discussion. Guettarda 03:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

All right, let's discuss. Here's my view. Voters should take an RFB seriously and be willing to justify their oppose votes and be willing change them if they become convinced that their opposition is unwarranted. Now, if there's opposition from a bunch of noncontributors, or people who have a habit of opposing every nomination, or editors not in good standing in the community, I don't care. If there's opposition based on weak reasoning, like "doesn't participate in IRC" or "has fewer than 20,000 edits" I would tend to look at the percentages, because sometimes that sort of reasoning is a red herring for an overall sense of discomfort with a candidate. Now, if there's well-reasoned opposition (whether I agree with it or not) from several highly respected Wikipedians, I would be unlikely to promote. I also look at the neutral votes, and read the comments. There have been a few cases where Wikipedians are reluctant to formally oppose a nomination yet there is clearly a sense of community discomfort with it.

Looking at the case of Andrevan, there were some respected Wikipedians who opposed his manner of vote solicitation. There were also some highly respected Wikipedians who felt that he has shown that he is unable to articulate, clearly and in a tactful manner, the reasoning behind adverse actions he has taken against other users (in this case, oppose votes on an RFA). Both of these criticisms are matters at the heart of the "bureaucrat" job, because it requires a highly developed sense of propriety and transparency in RFA voting, and because it requires an ability to articulate reasoning in an inoffensive way. Now, I don't have to decide whether the people who opposed his promotion were right. That's their job, and it's up to the community and the candidate to try to get them to change their mind if they're wrong. That's what consensus is about. My job is to determine whether the objections are serious, relevant, and held by respected Wikipedians. They were. And I don't find an 84% support ratio to be sufficient to overcome that. It wasn't even close in my mind. If it had been 91% or something I probably would have asked the other bureaucrats what they thought or just left it for someone else to handle.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly how I want a bureaucrat to do it. Glad we've got you at least. Dmcdevit·t 04:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Might the FAC model be worth considering? Only actionable opposition should be considered, but they should all be addressed? A discussion, rather than a vote? I still think that some lower ceiling of support should be set, and that the time for discussion should be fairly long. Guettarda 05:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thing is, these votes often hinge on objections to individuals' personality traits, which is a perfectly valid reason, in my opinion, but also effectively not an actionable one. Everyking 07:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I just want to add my voice briefly to the discussion here...I voted back in October in Cecropia's poll (about which I share at least some of UC's concerns), and my position remains essentially the same, but I thought I would explain it a bit more clearly here. A bureaucrat (or whatever we're calling them these days) is someone whose primary role (as a b-crat) is to judge consensus and promote. What is needed is someone of clear mind, sound decision-making, and most of all someone whose sense of the community's goals, concerns, and currents is as near to impeccable as can be. Yes, I know, I can't figure out how I was voted one either (the "clear mind" gets me every time). :-) The point is, someone who is going to do this job well needs to be a user who has as close to unanimous support and trust as we can make it. In my opinion, if more than one or two experienced contributors are making anything like a well-reasoned case against promotion, it would be unwise to promote someone to bureaucrat status. I know, this standard is an extremely high one. But I think setting a lower standard (a strict numerical one, say 90% or 85%) will cause far too much grief in the long run. Given the numbers at RFA these days, 85% support might mean a dozen oppose votes. Imagine if a dozen non-troll, experienced, well-meaning contributors had substantial arguments that a particular user was a bad judge of consensus...even if they're all wrong, how much stink would they raise every time that bureaucrat made a controversial decision on a close vote? It's tough enough to be an active b-crat without having a built-in set of critics. That's my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 07:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. My summarisation of the views I agree with is that bureaucratship is a serious position requiring the trust of the whole community. Concensus in this case ought to require a large number of reasoned supports from the community, and almost no evidence of abusing admin powers. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 09:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)