Wikipedia:Adminship survey/C

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] (02/25/00/09) Requests for Bureaucratship (RFB) promotion standards

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

[edit] Acceptable

  1. The standards here seem to be working fine. There are enough bureaucrats that the work is getting done, no problems with rogue bureaucrats. Where's the evidence of a problem? —Doug Bell talk 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. I do not really have an issue with the bar being too high. Whenever there has been an apparently pressing need, we have promoted a qualified candidate. If there are no pressing backlogs and the bureaucrat corps do not ask for an additional pair of hands to help, I see no real urgency to promote just because someone feels it would be cool to be a bureaucrat. Fundamentally, I do not feel it is meritorious to have a large pool of bureaucrats with nothing to do, it just smells of ego-massaging to me. Rje 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

  1. Too high, especially with the mass of "no need for any more" opposes. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Far too high (although at the moment the 'crats are holding up fine; we don't need any more, but that isn't a reason to prevent extra 'crattings), because numbers as high as 90% fail to have anything much to do with consensus. Think about it; an oppose vote (which might be for a spurious reason) cancels out 9 support votes, so whether someone is cratted or not in a moderately close case will depend not on arguments, but whether the size of a support pileon is smaller or larger than an effectively random number (9 times the oppose count; I consider this to be a random number because there's often a few oddball opposes in any RfA/RfB). This effect doesn't happen so much in RfA because 3 is a sufficiently smaller number than 9 that the spurious opposes mostly don't make a difference. --ais523 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Way too high. It turns into a straight pileon contest. Considering the limited ability a 'crat has to actually do harm, the 9/1 strength ratio of an oppose to a suppose is ridiculous. Also, in response to the perenial "we don't need any more beaurocrats" argument, keep in mind that this is a volunteer project. None of the 'crats are paid, they are here because they want to. Each time a valid 'crat candidate is rejected on this basis, the opposers are essentially saying "I have no interest in reducing your workload" to the remaining crats. Since the folks who have gotten to that position love the project (as evidenced by their hard work), this creates extra stress that's simply unneeded and shows a lack of empathy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Not a perfect question to place this thought, but opposes based solely on "We don't need any more" should be disregarded completely. GRBerry 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. GRBerry said it all. Far too much of this goes on :(. Yuser31415 22:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. <aol>me, too!</aol> Αργυριου (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. GRBerry is right. Ok, so we don't need anymore. The current workload is fine for each of them. But would it HURT to have any more? What's the downside to adding another Bcrat? ^demon[omg plz] 23:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. If we ever do need 'crats, it's nearly impossible for one to pass. — Moe 00:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. 90% support means that you have to have annoyed almost nobody, which is reealy hard for an admin to do. And even if you manage that, you have to pray that everyone agrees with your definitions of policy, and that you're such an overly exemplary candidate that you don't get "we don't need more" opposes, because only 10 of those will kill your chance of passing. -Amarkov moo! 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. It's becoming impossible without being a Wikipedia politician, as Amarkov says above. Daniel.Bryant 04:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Quite so. I don't anyone has a reasonable chance of passing, even clearly qualified candidates with excellent records. When we do need more 'crats, will we be able to get them? Eluchil404 05:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. I really don't know where we're going to get another bureaucrat if we do need one. Opabinia regalis 06:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    Completely agree. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 09:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. MAiler diablo failed, and he is quite respected.Bakaman 18:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    I think he didn't pass due to his use of 1FA in RfAs. I personally believe, had he not used it, he would be a bureaucrat right now... --Majorly (o rly?) 20:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Way too high expectations, we'll never get another bureaucrat if we keep this up. Also, so many users say just because we "don't have a shortage of bureaucrats, we don't need anymore". What crap. Just because we don't have a shortage, doesn't mean we couldn't use them. I think you should look at these, as RfAs, from the standpoint of "Is this user going to abuse the tools?" If the answer is no, then give it to them. They deserve it, after hard-work on Wikipedia, especially if thats what the user was eventually expecting to get when they joined (say, a few years ago), but now that policies (unofficial) have changed, they think they'll never achieve it. I think something really needs to be done here. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 09:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. I think that "we have enough already" opposes should be discounted, but they obviously aren't. Though I should hope that these opposes disappear when the time comes that we do need more bureaucrats. James086Talk 09:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Way too hard, and we could always do with more. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)11:16, Friday, 23 February '07
  17. If either Essjay, Taxman or Redux decreases his level of activity, things get delayed. The "We don't need more bureaucrats" argument is a bit pointless, as there's definitely things to do for bureaucrats (and if VoiceOfAll ever finishes Bitfields for rev deleted, there'll be more). The average RFB has less users commenting than RFAs, so the 10/1 cancel ratio is much more damaging than the RFA 3/1 ratio. In Wikipedia nowadays, obtaining quasi-unanimity is almost impossible nowadays. Titoxd(?!?) 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. A bit too high... but the power and responsibility crats have demands excellence and it should be a tough vetting possess. The argument that "we have enough" is a flawed argument to start with and should be entirely discounted much as a "ILIKEIT" would be discounted from an AFD. The choice in a RFB is if we trust this person enough to use the tools. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. It seems to me that it's almost impossible. Bucketsofg 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. The requirements drive potential bureaucrats off. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Those competent for bureaucratship are not willing to go through the process. Those who go through the process rarely, if ever, get 90% support. Those who will get 90% support at this point in time (disregard current b'crats; they are capable and passed RfB a long time ago, when RfB was better) are usually not competent for bureaucratship. Anyone see some problems? --210physicq (c) 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. When the "we don't need more" voted are factored in, a candidate generally needs near-unanimous support to become a bureaucrat, or may not be able to be a bureaucrat at all. You only need a few bureaucrats, but with bureaucrats leaving and none coming in, RfB shouldn't be gettign even stricter.--Wizardman 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Tony Sidaway This is the area where abuse is highest. I find the treatment of candidates for bureaucratship absolutely disgusting.
  24. Agree with Tony Sidaway. We definitely could have more bureaucrats, but for some reason every time someone tries to run they're flooded with "we don't need more" votes. —METS501 (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Agree with Tony. It was proposed to me recently that I stand for cratship; I declined. Seems an editor has to the reincarnation of Jesus to pass at RFB these days, and all that for a pretty thankless task?! I don't buy the "we don't need more" arguments either, because Wikipedia is growing at an enormous rate and it's best to be prepared. --kingboyk 17:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. I don't see any harm more crats will do the project. I am of the opinion that we dole out user rights to anyone who has desire to excercise those rights and has demonstrated that they won't abuse them. Whether or not we need more people with those rights is an entirely tangential matter. Borisblue 01:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Other

  1. We don't have a shortage of bureaucrats, so this doesn't really matter. Kusma (討論) 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Acceptable, with the caveat that I think bureaucrats should be able to judge consensus based on less than a strict 90%; obviously, if a few votes are obvious trolling, I think they can be discounted or be considered less. This is particularly important here, where 2 oppose votes can be the difference between a pass and a fail. Ral315 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Of the three bureaucrat tasks, renaming users, flagging bots and promoting admins. The first seem fairly trivial, the second is determined by the bot approvals group (though I guess a crat could refuse to do so in extreme cases). This mainly leaves the latter which is to most people quite significant and has caused much unrest in some cases. If RFB as it stands is the way to do it, then I think it's only right that a high standard is demanded, but I'm not convinced it's the best way to select them at all (Don't ask I haven't come up with a good and practical alternative yet.) --pgk 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. It is hard to say they happen so rarely. I just haven't observed enough RfB's--BirgitteSB 21:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. The sample size is pretty small, but I don't see a huge problem with bureaucrat promotions. If/when there is a need for more bureaucrats, the community will lower its standards. ChazBeckett 14:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. I think users would have more realistic standards for approving 'crats if there were a standardized definition of what makes consensus. That's the issue for me, not promoting 'crats. Just H 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. I'm not sure. There isn't exactly a large body of evidence to go on... Grandmasterka 08:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. I have not heard anyone complain about a backlog in crat tasks. The constant backlog in admin tasks is why you never hear the "don't need more" argument. One benefit of a smaller number of crats is that it reduces the incentive to pass the buck due to collective responsibility, which may be an issue with the large number of admins. (If it's everyone's responsibility to close AFDs, it's nobody's responsibility.) While potentially hurt feelings are a downside, someone who is experienced enough to go for crathood should know enough about how these things work that it wouldn't be an issue. - BanyanTree 17:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. I haven't seen enough RFB's to say, but I do think that any "we don't need any more" opinion should be ignored. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)