Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

This poll is an extension of Avruch's Proposal to make passing rate of RfB < 90% (which can be found at WT:RFA). We hope to better understand the community's desire regarding Requests for Bureaucratships. The poll ended at 23:59, 15 March 2008.

If you've already voiced yourself in the Proposal to make passing rate of RfB < 90%, your opinion has been copied here into the lowest % you'd be willing to accept. Please feel free to move your opinion into a different percentage.

Place your name under the percentage you think should be the bar for determining successful RfBs.

Final totals:

• Minimum of 90% - 40 editors
• Minimum of 85% - 22 editors
• Minimum of 83.33% - 1 editor
• Minimum of 80% - 71 editors
• Minimum of 75% - 15 editors
• No fixed figure (but <90%) - 1 editor
• Trust the bureaucrats - 13 editors
• ...to apply consensus - 1 editors

Contents 1 90% (9:1) (seen as the current guideline) 2 85% (~6:1) 3 83.3333% (5:1) 4 80% (4:1) 5 75% (3:1) (Avruch's suggestion at hand) 6 No fixed figure in mind, but <90% 7 Trust the bureaucrats 7.1 . . . to apply consensus 8 Comments

90% (9:1) (seen as the current guideline)

1. We need far fewer bureaucrats than admins. As such, we don't need the same standard for bureaucrats as we do for admins. Captain panda 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2. No one has identified the problem this is supposed to solve. Low promotion rate isn't a problem, no one is owed the position, and there aren't ongoing backlogs. There's an advantage to a smallish group of bureaucrats for the reasons I outlined above. 90% (roughly) has worked fine. RxS (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

   I also think that trying to change promotion standards should wait until until there aren't a bunch of active RFB's in progress. RxS (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

3. in general - I don't think it would be effective [to change the %]. If you lower the percentage, the standards of individual editors are likely to go up. If you want to promote more bureaucrats, work on changing the culture here instead of the guidance. That applies no less to RfB than to RfA. Dekimasuよ! 04:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Strenuously object to changing the guidelines in the middle of the process, even though this means candidates that I personally support will possibly fail. Also strenuously disagree that more bureaucrats would be a good thing. Admin actions can be done. 'Crat actions can't. I don't want WP:BN to become the permanent bloodbath that WP:AN has become. Having a small number of bureaucrats has been an undeniably good thing which has protected the project from dissolving into absolute mayhem. --JayHenry (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

   Um, close, but not quite. Bureaucrat actions can be undone by stewards if the need arises. There's ~40 stewards listed on Special:Listusers/steward, which is a number actually larger than the number of bureaucrats in this project. Emergency desysoppings have been done in a matter of minutes, so that is not really a vector for abuse; if the concern is that a new bureaucrat will disagree with the rest and perform promotions unilaterally or something similar, well, let's say that that is not backed by historical evidence, and that that reasoning would effectively prevent bureaucrats to be replaced in case of attrition. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

5. if the standards were too high, then we wouldn't have enough bureaucrats. By nature of the position, someone could do more damage with a compromised bureaucrat account than an admin one, or if someone went rogue. Though there appear to be enough bureaucrats, I am not opposed to supporting more to provide a bigger 'cushion' of them for tasks around WP. I also think they have to be fairly exemplary people, and the 90% pass rate should exclude factionalismCasliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
6. The irony here is delicious. Let's vote to see how many votes we have to have to pass something that is not a vote. At any rate, I think RfBs should be very stringent, and should have no significant opposition, unless there is a huge amount of support to counter this. I still like 90%, but I would be, ableit grudgingly, fine with 85%. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

   [the previous] comment is spot on. If we can have a pool of bureaucrats to whom nobody objects and who can attend to the small number of pages for which they are responsible, why would we benefit by adding bureaucrats to whom more people object? It would allow more people to collect a bcrat trophy, but would do nothing whatsoever to help the project. --JayHenry (t) 04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

7. We should not be changing the threshold while so many RFB's are in progress. The standards are high as they should be. It should be more difficult,their actions are much more difficult to undo than an admins and a rogue or account-compromised crat could really do some damage.-- Ѕandahl 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment - That's a very sensible comment actually - Despite your opinion that the responsibility is higher, would you (or anyone else for that matter) feel it better to wait until the RfB's close? There are times when there is a huge abeyance at RfB. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

8. I think crats should continue to require a significantly higher level of community support than admins, have no objection though to having some discretion in the 85-90% range but strongly oppose making a change during current RFBs (even though) I am supporting 3 of them). Davewild (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Especially without a way for the community to recall bureaucrats who no longer have consensus, I favor playing it safe with 90%. Tim Smith (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Among the opinions supporting change, one finds a small assortment of AGF violations. Never a good reason to change behavior. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 23:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    And does this whole discussion about a certain change mean that we don't trust the people who ascertain the presence or absence of RfB consensus? I'd rather leave things as they are. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    It doesn't mean that, no. Avruch ^T 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    If your argument is that we should leave the definition of consensus to those closing, then you seem to have misunderstood the concept of consensus. In fact, the community gets to decide what consensus is. Otherwise, why do we even have RfX? - Revolving Bugbear 23:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    Come on, didn't say that. (re. Avruch's No: accepted. Note to self - No more rhetorical questions!) -- Iterator12n ^Talk 23:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    And another aspect… Some time ago I heard in some social science class (forgot the topic, have no citation, can’t find anything on Wikipedia referring to it) of a theory holding that in most cases the determination of the size of a sub-class with a better than 15% accuracy is the pursuit of accuracy where there isn't. (The theory may also be known as the rule of 1 in 7 – one in seven starts to matter.) With a 90% guideline we are nicely on the safe side of the 85% where there is a solid indication of opposition that matters. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 23:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

11. Why lower our standards unless there are a shortage of 'crats? We have had a few rouge admins with lower standards, I don't want to see a rouge 'crat. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
12. I don't see the benefit of promoting people to do work that would otherwise be done by people who are more trusted. If we already have a surplus of people who met a higher standard, why then lower the standard? Christopher Parham (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
13. I like the idea that RFB is a real hurdle and few (or at least not a high proportion) pass, and few feel ready to try. It has noticably kept the standard of 'crats extremely high in practice, with not many exceptions. We've had dud admins, dud mediators, dud arbitrators... I can't think of very many crats who have seriously gone off the rails though (not counting the few controversial decisions here and there). As a class crats tend to be reliable, respected, and do their job well. I like that, and want to keep whatever's keeping it that way. Cratship as a process produces a good output, and sets a high standard. If 70-75% is usually enough for a user to be considered for RFA, then I'm more than happy for 90% to be the formal hurdle for RFB. Its a Good Thing overall. (Disclaimer: - I don't track crat and RFA activity much; if my impressions are in error, then I withdraw the incorrect explanatory statement.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
14. per above. We need to keep this at 90%. This level of access requires a far greater level of community confidence and trust than does adminship. The upset that occurs when a crat makes a decision that results in a significant amount of unhappiness demands that the initial level of trust be extraordinarily high. The integrity of the whole system rests on this high level of trust. Dlohcierekim 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
15. 90% is high, but it should be high to keep the quality of the bureaucrats. Cowardly Lion (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Is there any evidence suggesting that the quality of the bureaucrats, or the administrators for that matter, correlates with percentage of vote? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Bureaucrats have only a few functions which administrators don't have, and they don't get used very often so we don't need that many bureaucrats. Since their actions are generally irreversible, not subject to any review, their elections ought to be as uncontroversial as possible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
17. We need a very high watermark for 'crats. I say 90% is fine but would take 85% if needed, not any less. -- Alexf⁴² 12:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
18. We don't have any need for a lot of bureaucrats; in fact, I maintain the job could be done perfectly well by only one person. Everyking (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Per Sjakkalle and Everyking. Also, strongly opposed to any changes to the process for RFBs that are in-flight. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    There are no RfB's in progress :) -- Avi (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

20. I wouldn't want to see the bar lowered. If the position of bureaucrat is to be meaningful, we need to maintain a strong distinction between RfAs and RfBs. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    A level of 80% is more than twice as hard to reach as the current ~70%. You can see the explanations and the math below. -- Avi (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    75 percent is the current RfA standard, and RfB needs to be much tougher. If you want to continue to discuss this, it's better on the talk page, rather than here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

21. I happen to agree with Cecropia here that the position requires nearly universal trust. Granted, the bar is high, but we so far don't have a shortage of people who've been able to meet the "nearly universal trust" standard. --MPerel 09:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Agree with above. We don't need a lot of crats, and the ones we have must be supported and trusted by nearly all. Any non-frivolous opposition should be viewed as a veto. Crum375 (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Keep the bar at 90 percent or even raise it if possible, as above. What purpose does it serve to lower the bar? Do we not want as many editors as possible to feel comfortable with the choice of crat? Doesn't a large majority mean that very few editors would have an objection to the choice? Do we not want to try to reduce the chances of scandal and airing of dirty laundry about past behavior, or current behavior, and a large majority of support votes might indicate that most editors feel the chances of scandal are minimal? Isn't that the point of these "votes" ?--Filll (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
24. While it'd be very difficult for anyone who has crossed anyone to pass this, it's not like we need lots of bureaucrats. Reducing the pass threshold could result in having dozens of bureaucrats elected every few months. Do not want that! It works fine atm, so I don't see a reason to fix it. As long as inactivization of bureaucrats + workload expansion is slower than the increase of bureaucrat numbers, this should never change. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
25. I don't see any reason to lower the bar - we don't need a whole lot of b'crats. As Cecropia said (per MPerel above), a b'crat needs nearly universal trust. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal - b'cratship is a big deal. Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
26. I agree with SV, Guettarda, et al: 90% support should be a non-negotiable level. Lowering the bar does nothing to benefit WP, especially given the nature of bureaucratship: as Guettarda sais, it is a big deal. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
27. I don't see why it should be lowered. Controversial candidates are usually the admins that hold strong opinions (shown in disputes etc elsewhere), and whilst there is nothing wrong with that I wouldn't want to see them become crats. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
28. The current 9:1 bar continues to work well. There is no need for us to rely on bureaucrats that are not trusted to perform the job by any significant portion of the community. ×Meegs 09:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    The idea that 90% is required because it represents a higher standard doesn't make sense to me. Here's a couple of analogies - do you use the same criteria to vote for a president as you do a mayor? Or do you know, when you're voting, that you are looking for a different level candidate? If the president should be held to a higher standard, does that mean that while mayors can be elected at 51% presidents ought to get 70%? Even though the voters know what they are voting for? I can see the rationales above holding if getting above 90% on an RfA made you a bureaucrat, but it doesn't. People get above 90% at RfA all the time, but they're still just administrators because that is what people are voting on. 90% isn't a higher standard - its a numerical measure of an already higher standard. Avruch ^T 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    I agree in theory but I think the problem is that not everyone votes strictly on higher rational standards, people vote for all different reasons not related to whether someone is fit for becoming a bureaucrat. RFB is a popularity contest, an opportunity for those with an axe to grind, an opportunity for editors to support someone that may share an agenda on some subject or they vote for no real reason at all. How often that happens is open to interpretation but I think it's clear that not all votes are solely based on the candidates ability to fill the role. So what that means is that the overall standards that (some) voters use aren't as high as you would think. So 90% (or 80% or whatever) isn't measuring a stable known quantity because we can't assume to know what standards (or how much thought) people are using in any particular RFB. All we do know is that some voting standards are not as high as we like to think. So 90%, while a numerical measure of a standard as you said, isn't necessarily a measure of a higher standard and I would argue that often times it isn't. And so we need to preserve a way to consistently keep standards high because being a bureaucrat is a big deal. RxS (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    I don't know that a high percentage addresses the problem you point to of individual voter standards that are not as high as they should be. The reason I say that is that the 90% isn't measuring standards, and it isn't itself a standard for the position of bureaucrat - it is a metric for measuring consensus. If you think standards should be high - fine, I agree. But can you address why the standard for determining consensus should be different? Consensus is sort of a magic word, and it can mean various things in various settings - but what we have here is an essentially identical setting, and two different understandings of what consensus is. The logical contradiction is what caused me to make this proposal, and I still don't really understand why it isn't more clear to more people. Avruch ^T 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    As you say, 90% is a measure of consensus, and consensus can mean different things in different situations. I think where we disagree is whether RFA/RFB are identical enough settings for us to use the same level/type/understanding of consensus. I don't think they are. On the surface they are both processes for giving editors more tools, but I think the similarity ends there. The bureaucrat role has a fundamentally greater amount of trust needed, and we measure that trust in different ways. There's also a nearly unlimited need for admins, whereas there's a limited need for bureaucrats. I'm not saying that we need to keep the numbers of bureaucrats to a bare minimum, but that there's value in keeping that number low. There are other differences but I think that the processes are dissimilar enough to justify different consensus levels. RxS (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    "There's a limited need for bureaucrats" Oh really? We always have unlimited need for bureaucrats to add bot flag, change username, changing users to admins. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Oh come on Ohana, it's not like there are Pi⁴² RfAs up. We don't need that many 'crats. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Limited number needed, I thought it was clear what I was saying, perhaps not. RxS (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

29. Current bar works well, and there are more than enough bureaucrats as it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
30. It works well now. dissatisfaction over one or two outcomes is no reason to change a policy that has been successful.DGG (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
31. If there is controversy there is no consensus. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    That all depends on the meaning of consensus. Consensus as it has been used on wikipedia never meant 100% (See any RfA and AfD) otherwise we would have stagnated in the first week. A strict reading of your sentence would have us reverse almost every XfD and XfA and DRV we have ever had. Looking at this particular situation there is currently a greater than 3:1 supermajority that the current 9:1 ratio is too restrictive, so if anything, the 9:1 ratio is the controversial figure. -- Avi (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Either that, or a supermajority of us is in the wrong. Which would be sorta paradoxical as a conclusion, seeing as we're the voters. Stirring the pot a little further, maybe the proposal to make it 90% should be amended, to also exclude those who are against it from voting in RfBs? Dorftrottel (warn) 17:30, March 13, 2008

32. Bureaucrats need to be chosen by universal consensus.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Is that so? Most of these crats were not 100% approved. See above comments to Zginder. -- Avi (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

33. Nothing wrong with demanding extraordinarily high support for a job which can do an extraordinary amount of damage if abused. Zocky | picture popups 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Well, there is at least one counterexample of a user whose RfA had unanimous support and who did in fact abuse the tools. But he was only an admin. What extra damage, other than subtle ideological manipulation, could iyo be done by a crat? Dorftrottel (bait) 17:08, March 13, 2008

    All the proves is that the community makes mistakes sometimes, which we knew already. I'm not sure how lowering the bar would decrease the number of mistakes made at RFA...RxS (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Imho, it succinctly illustrates that raising the bar doesn't help either. Dorftrottel (canvass) 17:35, March 13, 2008

    A single data point doesn't really mean anything. RxS (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    I wasn't aware that this page is a forum, but here goes: Nobody can guarantee that a person won't go crazy or whatever. As for the damage that can be done by a rogue bureaucrat - they can promote people who are their friends, they can promote their sockpuppets , they can do the bureaucrat version of deleting the main page, e.g. sysopping a bunch of vandals or worse, giving us all a wonderful opportunity to deadmin and revert en masse for a day, and then spend the next few months arguing about how it happened. However, if a person does go crazy, the fallout is much easier handled if that person got the job by such an overwhelming majority that there are few people who are in the position to blame everybody else for what happened. Zocky | picture popups 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

34. This most closely approximates my thinking. If all 'crats were automatically retired after a period of time - but eligible to run again - then I could support a lower bar. But that lower bar would still be higher than the RFA bar, because the 'crat rights to flag bots and promote admins are tools that if misused could be very dangerous. A high bar makes it more likely that the 'crat will still be trusted when they use their tools; as trust levels naturally erode over time. (One innocuous reason for such erosion is community turnover leading to a significant fraction of the community not knowing who a 'crat is. A more troubling reason for erosion is that some 'crats take actions displaying debatable judgment and thereby lose the trust of those who think their judgment is unsound.) The actual standard I prefer is "no significant opposition", which is higher than this. GRBerry 17:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
35. Keep it tough. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
36. I think the current standard is good because it sets the bar high to allow people to gain the power of a bureaucrat, but leaves it low enough so as not to make it impossible to attain. Also, the 90% level is close to the point where x:1 ratios really start to "crowd" together so it makes sense (maybe?) to make the support ratio be around that point. In any case, an admin's action are most likely going to be reversible where a lot of a bureaucrat's action may not be reversible. That's a lot of power and I don't think it is wise to make it too easy to gain it. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
37. We do not need many bureaucrats. In response to this, it would be much safer if we had as high a cutoff as possible to ensure some of the most powerful users on Wikipedia are not abusive of their powers. Remember that this is a serious process. Just because we want a couple more users to slip over the cutoff is not a reason to lower it. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 02:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
38. If it works, don't fix it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
39. I have yet to see any reasonable explanation of why we need more bureaucrats than we already have. None out of WP:RFA, WP:CHU, WP:RBA are regularly backlogged, which suggests that the number of bureaucrats we have is exactly right. And anyone who thinks 'crat actions are as reversible as admin actions hasn't exercised their imagination enough - I don't ever want a bureaucrat to click a link like this (don't worry, deliberate typo). Imagine what that will do to the servers.... Happy‑melon 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
40. In my opinion, dilution is not preferable. The position is significant, and stringent evaluation is certainly required. --Bhadani (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

85% (~6:1)

1. I would go more for 85%. 90% is definitely too harsh, but we need to keep in mind that cratship is not really an in-demand position. bibliomaniac15 02:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree with 85 as well. 75 is too low, but 90 is ridiculous. Acalamari 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I think 85% makes a lot of sense, too. 90% is unrealistic--we need more bureaucrats. Darkspots (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
4. 85% is fine, in my opinion, and even 80% (see steward elections, as MBisanz said). Considering Rx StrangeLove's point, though, that we shouldn't change this while RFBs are in progress: if we do (hypothetically) change the way it works while the RFBs are going, does that mean that the result of the RFBs (if decided using the 90% rule) are invalid, since bureaucrat judgment no longer reflects community opinion? That is: if the jobs of the bureaucrats is to determine community consensus, who are we to tell them exactly what to do when deciding to promote? The answer, of course, is historical precedent. And (for conspiracy theorists out there) because a numerical system is more easily gameable. Gracenotes^T § 03:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
5. 85% - alternatively, just do the right thing. The community doesn't oppose good candidates, last time I checked. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
   • I think you mean they *do* oppose bad candidates (or they don't oppose *good* ones) :) Majorly (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Support 85%. I am all for baby steps. Lets see how a little change mixes it up. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
7. 85% -- I'm uncomfortable with anything less. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Support 85-90% - on condition that this is not implemented for the current crop of RfBs. I ran knowing full well that I needed to aim for 90, and I don't want a free pass. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support 85-90% - Including this bunch of crops since god knows when we may ever get this influx again, 85% being the minimum with the crats making exception to those around 84.5% and above to also be included though the final decision lies on the hands of the closing crat, but it it is anywhere near the 85% by atleast 1% i.e 86%, more than 1 crat has to make the decision, since it won't really be fair on the part of the candidate if the closing crat think he/she has failed whereas another crat might see it as pass..--Cometstyles 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
10. I would support a move to 85%ish, which would be roughly a 6:1 support/oppose rate, give or take. Still stricter than an RfA by quite a bit, but not the 9:1 support/oppose rate that sounds kinda scary when you write it like that. Wizardman 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
11. 85% sounds about right to me. --Conti|✉ 22:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Given the way WP demographics have changed over the last few years, I believe this figure to be more realistic - Alison ^❤ 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
13. This is a reasonable figure. 90% is unrealistically high, and would have sunk the noms of several current bureaucrats, had they been held today. Horologium (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Everyone's pretty much covered the merits here. Joe 00:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
15. AGK (contact) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Agree with Joe that the merits are discussed here. Whilst I do think that the standards should be high for crat, I don't think 90% is a realistic figure given the current state of Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
17. I support an 85% rate; I've seen great users "fail" RfB's because one too many people opposed (just one or two less would have had them at a 90% rate), and often those opposes are spurious or weak. 85% with 'crat discretion makes those weak opposes a little less painful. ♠PMC♠ 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
18. 87.5% feels about right to me, but I won't quibble. Ronnotel (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
19. 85% with the discretionnary range above 80% seems in line with community expectations. As the community size increases, the probably of being around long enough with a mop (another, implicit requirement) without at least peeving off a couple of people is vanishingly minuscule; this sets the bar unrealistically high. — Coren ^(talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
20. This seems reasonable, I feel that 90% is currently way to high, but 70% is way to low. Crats should be help to a higher standard than other users/admins, but 90% is hard to come by here, especially with the ever growing number of editing styles, opinions and diverse users. Tiptoety ^talk 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
21. I agree with all the above comments; a bar of 90% is unnecessarily prohibitive. - Revolving Bugbear 22:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - though also supporting percentage results under 85% as a discretionary range for our hybridised vote/not vote system. (I believe that we should be able to trust our bureaucrats' discernment.) Weakly agree with the comments about stewards' % threshhold, noting though that they have an extra requirement in that they need to be multi-lingual, which may be a reason that, for them, the % is 80 and not 85. - jc37 18:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

83.3333% (5:1)

1. changing to somewhere around 83.333%, or possibly to require a certain number (like 50 or 100) of supports over opposes with an additional requirement of at least 2/3 support, or a maximum number of opposes, so one can't win by getting 1000 supports to 900 opposes. Argyriou (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

   This would follow a system similar to the election of Stewards, where successful candidates needed X net supports. There's precedent, then. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   This is also similar to CUs who are elected. A minimum of 75-80% support is required, with at least 25-30 support votes for that method (which doesn't exist on enwiki). – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

80% (4:1)

1. at least 80. And voting is evil. Prodego ^talk 02:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Why not make it the same as the stewards election on meta? 80%. R. Baley (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
   • In general I support lowering the threshold. I would prefer to see the minimum at any ratio between 4:1 (80%) and 6:1 (86%). This is slightly (but significantly) higher than that needed for an RfA. R. Baley (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
     • After more thought, and reading over this page, I support 86% or higher as clear promotion numbers/support, and bureaucrat discretion between 80-86%. R. Baley (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
3. in the 80%-85%. Stewards can do far more damage than crats and we trust them at 80. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
4. 80 percent.   jj137 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
5. 80-85%. нмŵוτнτ 03:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
6. 80% sounds reasonable for me - as others pointed out above, that's the threshold for stewardship. Either way, though, I think we should ask the current 'crats to weigh in, since it's really their call. krimpet✽ 03:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. 80-85%. 90 is pushing it. I also don't see this as affecting the way individuals cast their support or opposition. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
8. 80-85% should be the discretionary range, like 70-75% for RfAs. GlassCobra 05:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
9. I think 80% is fine. Useight (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
10. 80%-85% Anything above that will be ridiculous. —Dark ^(talk) 09:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Ah, voting, for shame! I would support a change to the 'numerical consensus' for RfB. I would say the vast majority of RfBs of 85%+ should be passed and that there should be discretion for those RfBs around the 80%+ mark. Of course, it's up to the existing 'crats to find the consensus and to use their judgement, rather than posting a new 'RfB consensus percentage' for them to follow. Regards, EJF (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
12. 80-85% (roughly 5:1), and I'll leave out the waxing rant on how this shouldn't be a numbers game, because unfortunately it obviously is. - Revolving Bugbear 12:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
13. 80-85% sounds good to me. --Tango (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
14. 80-85%. Rudget. 13:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Change both RfA and RfB to a strict 80% - the only leeway bcrats should have is with obvious sockpuppets and SPAs. Majorly (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    With respect my friend this is unworkable. 1) This discussion is about RfB not RfA so I'm unclear why you dropped that bit in. 2) Okay, we go with your plan and let's look at how it pans out. I create half a dozen sleeper socks, that crack in a few simple edits to look reasonably legit (80-100 will easily do). The first RfA that comes along where I want it to fail I oppose. As time goes on with a bit of luck (in my "Nasty Pedro" guise) the percentage hangs around 82%. I oppose, just before closure, via one of my socks, cutting it down to 79% with a "per the above" comment. The bureaucrats hands are now tied, as the account looks to be good faith, and they have no leeway under your proposal. One failed RfA. The problem is that "obvious sockpuppets and SPAs" are not by certainty obvious. We need some discretion. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

16. 80-85%. 75% is just too low for such a position of responsibility, but the current percentage of 90% is certainly higher than it needs to be. Lowering the percentage of support required to 80-85% would help alleviate a concern I've had about bureaucrats for a long time: that as Wikipedia grows in size, the number of bureaucrats will not, eventually leading to a small, elite group with little change in membership. Making it a little easier to become a bureaucrat should allow the number of bureaucrats to increase naturally as Wikipedia grows. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Laxer standards around 80%. Malinaccier (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Current level makes it far too easy for small teams of like-minded editors to kill off RfBs when 1 oppose is effectively worth 9 supports. A figure? 80 seems reasonable. Black Kite 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
19. 80-85%. I agree that 90% is making virtually impossible to appoint new bureaucrats, moreover IMHO very high acceptance numbers are indicators that a nominee has avoided controversial issues and this is not a good thing. On the other hand I saw a few RfAs succeeded at below 60% of support. It is absolutely unsuitable for the RfBs. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
20. 80-85. A range like that would be considered consensus for just about anything else on Wikipedia. I don't think 35 people arguing against 250 (~87%) would be able prevent a change to any article or policy, why should that amount be able to stop an RFB from passing? We elect arbitrators with less than 80%. The fact that the support ratio is higher than that needed for stewards is also a bit troubling, as stewards also get checkuser and oversight access, which is far more serious than the ability to give +sysop. Mr.Z-man 03:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
21. 80-85 - I also think 75% is too low but would agree with a minor relaxation of standards. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
22. reduce to 80% to match the hurdle for stewards. 90% is an unrealistic hurdle for anybody who has ever had a run-in with more than a couple of people who will settle scores later. Mayalld (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
23. 80% is better, and still within the bounds of the "it shouldn't be a walk in the park" concept. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
24. An 80% guideline, in line with stewardship, seems very appropriate. No one can really deny that there exists pretty firm support for a candidate at that level, and as others have stated, it provides some layer of protection for those candidates who have been willing to make the tough calls. --Ybbor^Talk 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
25. A new level of 80%. That would be just fine with me. Jmlk17 22:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Support 80+%. · AndonicO ^Hail! 10:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
27. 80-85% discretionary. I'm not a fan of the steward numbers, but they are what they are. 90% is too high though. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
28. 80% as a minimum rate of passing. This is still more than for RFA but not unreasonable. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
29. 80-85ish%. NO past consensus exists for the current standard, and i dont believe that 5-10 percent difference is that extreme. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
30. using 80% to 85% as b'crat discretion range. Oops... I thought I'd said this is this section already, but it appears I hadn't. --barneca (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
31. 80%-85% - I am not a huge fun of the numbers, but I think lowering to this level is a fair compromise and requires standards beyond a RFA, while not been so difficult that it prevents good candidates from passing. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
32. I've been griping all along in this section about "what is consensus?" and realize I never actually gave an opinion. I would support a change to 80%, with a huge caveat that bureaucrats can still do what they want (pass a 75 or fail an 85, for example) because of the additional trust/discretion that they have as editors to make those types of decisions. As soon as this becomes a strict numbers game (and I don't think anyone is advocating changing this to Bot-work per say), then we've lost the spirit of Wikipedia, drowned in our own rulecreep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Support lowering to 80% - with allowances for b-crat discretion, properly justified and explained - OK, I have heard the community speak loudly and clearly that they prefer their b-crats to be active participants in the RfA process, so I think I can safely say, y'all asked for this . Before I start, I would like to thank the 76 or so of you who took the time to comment on my candidacy, I appreciate each and every comment, although I disagree with some .

    

    

    I think that there are two, synergistic effects at work at RfB's that make a straight comparison's to RfA's overly simplistic and cause the bar to be much higher than normal. The first issue is that unquestionably people have a higher inherent standard for RfB's than RfA's. Taking my own situation for example, I would say that the results would likely have been 73/3/0 as opposed to 48/28/0. Which I believe is not surprising, as I think I have used the tools properly. What this suggests, as surprising as it may be, is that as it stands, the same statistical level of consensus for an RfA is harder to reach for an RfB.

    The second issue is that of what metric is used for determining consensus. The current de-facto metric is that of percentages. Percentages are good in that they are unitless, and are not subject to interpretation. However, as I, and others (sorry, barneca ) have pointed out elsewhere, they are subject to an asymptotic relationship with 1. As the chart shows, above around a 4:1 ratio, it tails off dramatically, and it will never truly hit 1. A 5% movement from 70% to 75% is a move from a 2.33:1 ratio to a 3:1 ratio, or not even a full person as it were. That same 5% move from 85% to 90% represents a move from 5.66:1 to 9:1 or a more than 3.33 person per oppose increase, or a five-times-as-severe increase (3.333 divided by .6666). So, applying a percentage jump or drop is not a linear move, but an exponential one.

    Putting the two of these together, I believe it is fair to say that passing an RfB is significantly harder than an RfA……As it should be!

    The question is how much more difficult should it be? In a utopian environment, I would think that everyone would approach each discussion with the seriousness it deserves and an understanding of what the candidacy entails, and would opine accordingly. In that situation, logic dictates (sorry, Leonard) that the same level of consensus be used for both, actually any such discussion. However, reality is rather different, so having a higher objective standard is critical where subjective standards would tend to break down.

    Another option, raised by Argyriou is to have a certain minimum excess of supports over opposes, with a minimum support percentage and a maximum oppose amount. While interesting, and it would be interesting to graph as well, there are three points that can be made immediately.

    1. Having an absolute ceiling of opposes raises the possibility that good candidates can be derailed by smaller interest groups pooling together. If the max oppose is 50, we would not want a candidate with 450 supports and 50 opposes promoted?
    2. Requiring a fixed amount of supports over opposes in conjunction with a minimum passing threshold basically breaks the distribution into two parts:
       1. When there are fewer respondents, the distance is dominant (If there are only 15 people responding, you cannot have a minimum of 20 more supports than opposes). Even in the case of 22 people supporting, having a minimum of 20 more supports than opposes requires a 20:2 ratio or a 91% requirement.
       2. On the other end of the spectrum, over a certain point (since we are dealing with ratios) any fixed amount over an increasing denominator invariably goes to zero, so the percentage dominates.

       The crossover point will always occur when . Which, in english, means that more than the required percentage is demanded for smaller responses, and the required percentage becomes demanded at higher responses.

    3. Lastly, with two variables, trying to crystallize a formula will be somewhat difficult.

    As for me personally, my enjoyment of numbers notwithstanding, I believe we need to keep it simple. I would think that most people approach RfB with more seriousness than RfA, but an increase in objective standards is necessary for the protection of the project. Regarding RfA's we currently feel that a 4:1 ratio is a no-brainer, and have promoted with as little as 2:1 (or thereabouts). Currently, the no-brainer for RfB's is 9:1, with judgment allowed down to around 6:1. Considering that a 2:1 ratio is considered a supermajority for just about any political process, and considering we think that 4:1 is a no brainer for RfA's, I would suggest that a 6:1 ratio be considered a no-brainer and that it can fall to as low as 4:1 if necessary, which basically dovetails nicely into the 80%–85 zone. -- Avi (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

    I'd like to clarify and perhaps modify my stance a bit, in that I still think it is important that crat's do not become the bots that they approve. I think that the 'crats need to be trusted that at times the nature of the supports or opposes on a qualitative basis can override the quantitative basis; of course this needs to be explained and discussed for the community to see, but in the end, we need to allow our crats to exercise the judgment with which we trust them. -- Avi (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    I'm pretty sure I agree. Then again, I only understood 50% of what you are saying (or, in your terms 1:1....or is that 2:1??). I'm not sure what else to say other than, as user-extraordinaire Dlohcierekim says, Gesundheit. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

    I agree with everything above written in English. The rest of it, I'm sure its accurate, but I wouldn't be able to prove it. Avruch ^T 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

    

    

    Natural logarithm of Support-to-Oppose ratio vs. Percentage

    Could you possibly get the support-to-oppose ratio on a log scale? Gracenotes^T § 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

    Just for you, GraceNotes. -- Avi (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

34. 80% works fine for me – sets the level low enough that more bureaucrats should apply and be promoted, but high enough that only the best still stand a chance of getting through. —αlεx•mullεr 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
35. 80-85% at the Bureaucrats' discretion, 85%+ pass (is this the right section for that, I wonder? :) ) ~Eliz81^(C) 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
36. 80% looks more reasonable, especially when admins perform a lot of actions that may anger editors. If they still receive 80% to become a crat, they're pretty darn good. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
37. 80 percent, I agree with MBisanz. Why have a high standard for Bcrats if people who are higher than them on the Wikimedia Foodchain are selected at a lower percentile. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
38. 80, per MBisanz (talk · contribs) and R. Baley (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
39. I like 80, however I would require a minimum number of supports, say 80 or even 100 or so in addition to the simple percentage. My reasoning is that the consensus that is determined should be based as closely as possible on the desires of the full body of users. While I recognize the patent impossibility of all editors participating, it seems to me that it is perfectly appropriate to expect a significant number of editors to support a particular candidate. If the consensus to promote comes from a larger sample size of users, it will tend to give a correlate more closely with what the consensus of the entire community would be. As the number of users on eng wiki continues to grow, I expect that this would not be overly problematic. Xymmax (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
40. Mike H. Fierce! 21:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
41. I like 80% personally. 75% is a bit low for me, and 90% is just ridiculous. For what it's worth, though, I would be content with 80-85% approximately. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
42. Everything higher is too easy to game for minority communities of interest. Dorftrottel (bait) 09:06, March 9, 2008
43. Frankly, bureaucratship has exactly one function that's "sensitive": promoting people to admins. On Enwiki, a rouge promotion would be nearly instantly reverted by the stewards and I suspect that bureaucrat would quickly lose his or her bureaucratship in the process. We're also not keeping in mind that those who may support someone for adminship might well oppose that same person for bureaucrat rights, so the skew keeping bureaucrats more selective is already taken care of. ~Kylu (u|t) 09:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
44. While I would prefer %75, IMO the bar needs to be lowered, and 80 is more likely to pass. I'd be fine with 90, if we were holding crats to the same voting criteria that we do admins, however, we do not, from what I've seen. SQL^{Query me!} 16:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
45. 80-83% is fine as consensus (rarely do we ask for a higher number in any process), or a net support/total oppose idea. Will ^(talk) 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
46. 80-85% would be fine. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
47. Ultimately I expect the bureaucrats to use their discretion, but in general I'd be happy with 4:1-6:1 range of support being seen as the approximate "passing" grade, so around 80-85%. As an aside, I would like to see some term of office set. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
48. 80-85% discretionary range seems more appropriate. Lara❤Love 05:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
49. 80-85% discretionary. Having an element of discretion is essential, as I outlined above in my reply to Majorly. Pedro :  Chat  10:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
50. I agree with 80-85% discretionary. Any higher is just getting ridiculous; people are already using higher standards when it comes to who to give their votes to than in RFA, increasing the required percentage by 15% is just pushing it.--Dycedarg ж 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
51. Neıl ☎ 11:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
52. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
53. Anywhere between 80 to 85% is resonable. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
54. Happy with this one. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
55. 90% is way too high, as not all admins are perfect, and 75% is too low increasing the chances of a compromise account (or lack of scrunity). 80-85% is a suitable range. PrestonH 03:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
56. Here is about right for me. We approve people for other key positions (stewards, for example) with support in this range, and anyone with an RfA of about 80% will pass. Bureaucrats do of course need to exercise some discretion. Hut 8.5 14:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
57. Nick (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
58. I think 80% is a good guideline, but ultimately the bureaucrats have the final say. — Edokter • Talk • 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
59. About right. Maybe 85% as a clear pass with 80-85 as a discretionary range. 90% weeds out anyone who has the guts to make tough calls, which ironically is what 'crats are supposed to do. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
60. 80-85% discretionary range, per all comments above but particularly Mr. Z-Man's. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
61. Sounds about right, not too high, but high enough. Polly (Parrot) 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
62. But trust the 'crats to promote under 80%, if need be. Maxim_(talk) 19:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
63. 80% sounds nice :) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    (Indenting because I am included in the 85% tally) I think 85% is better than 80%, but 80% is better than 90%. Horologium (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

64. The math on 80% makes it look like this is the way to go. Shell ^babelfish 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
65. Anything over 80% is too much. 80% is an overwhelming majority, I think we can feel confident that anyone who reaches 80% will not abuse Bureaucrat status. And I agree with Avi that standards are higher for RFB. Mangojuice^talk 21:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
66. Loosening up the requirements a bit and enlarging the pool of active bureaucrats will distribute responsibility and help diffuse controversy, and and Mangojuice says, 80% really is overwhelming majority.--ragesoss (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
67. There's no reason to keep the bar at 90%, as the Wikipedia community is much more polarised than it was when this rule was instituted. Graham87 02:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
68. Anyone who has been an admin long enough to be considered for RfB will have a appreciable following of disguntled editors. The bar must be low enough to allow experienced admins to become bureaucrats. The point I made before still is the most important: anyone not worthy of being a bureaucrat will not even be able to rise to the 50% mark - there is no danger in lowering the bar. Shenme (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
69. 80% with bureaucrat discretion (the poll confuses two separate dimensions). The recent situation around Riana's RfB has made it clear that the bcrats would appreciate community guidance as to a rough figure. For this purpose, I support 80%. Users participating in RfB discussions already invoke a higher standard than they would for RfA's. 80% in my mind already shows a pretty strong consensus. The increasing fractiousness of our community in recent months has shown that some level of opposition is likely to exist or develop towards any admin or other user who takes a stand in controversial situations. A guiding percentage of much higher than 80% would in my opinion only allow the promotion of bureaucrats who made a point (deliberate or accidental) of actively avoiding controversy, not those who have proven themselves by helping out in controversial situations in a way that a large part of the committee appreciates. That being said, I very much disagree with making any figure a firm cut-off. I would be very comfortable with bcrats promoting a bcrat candidate at less than 80% following a thoughtful consultation amongst themselves (ideally a publically visible bcrat chat as they have recently used) and also very comfortable in not promoting at over than 80% where the tenor and substance of the opposes makes it clear there is significant and broad-based lack of belief that this user would make a good bureaucrat at this time, rather than a backlash against recent meaningful contribution to resolving controversies. Martinp (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
70. 80, pure and simple. No reason to keep the bar at 90 per cent; I probably also think this should be a fixed bar rather than up to crat discretion, but whatever. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 08:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
71. 80% is decent enough. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

75% (3:1) (Avruch's suggestion at hand)

1. The 75% rate. Avruch ^T 02:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2. 75% ArcAngel (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
3. 75% would be acceptable in my mind, but I would be more comfortable with 80%. Either way, 90% is way too high for 'crat promotion. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
4. 75-80. I agree with Avruch's original point. To say that 75% is too low is to say that we promote administrators without having consensus, but we all agree that such promotions do have consensus. SorryGuy  Talk  03:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
5. a reduction to 75-80% (one or tother, not both!), alongside my comments elsewhere and on this page. AGK (contact) 11:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
6. We need to keep cliques of bad faith editors from being able to torpedo the RfBs of people they don't approve of. Cla68 (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Adminship, in my opinion, should be just made easier to "undo," thus dispelling the aura of power around the 'crat position. Recall looked to be promising, but a voluntary self-dictated process doesn't exactly work all the time. A similar process for 'crats wouldn't make much sense. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
8. If we're going to hold potential 'crats to higher !voting standards, then, I'd say the % should be the same as for adminship. SQL^{Query me!} 19:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
9. The community is essentially too fragmented to agree on most things (and that is not necessarily a bad thing, but that's a different issue that I won't go into here), so it is almost impossible to achieve the level of quasi-unanimity that the current guidelines provide. Historically, bureaucratship was reserved for candidates that received no significant opposition, but those days are gone, since there's a growing tendency for opposition based on issues, not on character. All in the meantime, the non-glorious bureaucratic tasks (such as renames and bot promotions) fall down to sometimes a couple of people, which generates a SPOF if something were to happen to them. While others have expressed a view that they don't find an issue with this, I do, so I'd prefer to see more bureaucrats promoted under a realistic support threshold, be it 75% or 80%. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
10. 90% is pretty high. --Kbdank71 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
11. 90% is too high. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
12. 75%-80% per WP:Consensus. Húsönd 10:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
13. I support basically adding 10 percentage points to the current RfA range (discretionary ranges, general pass/fail patters) for RfB's. 23:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
14. It's a bit ludicrous to think that one opposer with an axe to grind would require 9 supporters to counteract them. I support lowering the standard to 75% or 80%. (As an aside, I also support lowering the RfA standard to 2/3 support, but that's another discussion.) Bellwether ^B_C 00:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

    90% is just too high. Why would an oppose vote equivalent to nine support vote? As mentioned Riana's bureaucrat discussion, the original 90% mark was decided when the project was still young and not a lot of members participate in RfB discussion. Time has changed and so should the %. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

15. I think 75% would be OK, which I interpret as being the same unanimity needed currently for admins. It seems that, for whatever reason, people apply much stricter standards when voting in RfB anyway, so we don't need to have *both* the stricter standards *and* the astronomically high current percentage (90%), that few people ever achieve. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

    Fully agree. See also Kylu's similar comment in the section above. Dorftrottel (bait) 10:05, March 9, 2008

No fixed figure in mind, but <90%

1. don't have a fixed figure in mind, but it's too easy for a good candidate to be blown out of the water if they've been an active admin who's crossed swords with a couple of editors while mopping. An occasional controversial admin action does not mean that a candidate is bad at interpreting consensus, yet currently a few such opposes, added to the inevitable couple of "we don't need more bureaucrats" make passing by numbers too difficult. If we're going to use the current system and set a hurdle, then 90% is too high. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Trust the bureaucrats

1. Geez, I remember the old times when people didn't like icons for giving opinions. Now this looks like a Commons discussion :P I prefer trusting the closing bureaucrats: if they decide to promote at below 80%, it is fine with me. If they think 80% is not enough when closing a RfB, it is fine as well. I trust them enough to take decisions, just as I trust other admins when closing discussions, and I trust editors when adding information to articles. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

   My opinion is not modified by percentages. I want them to have the freedom to balance the percentage as needed. Otherwise, we would just use a bot to promote after certain percentage. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

2. We've lost a good few excellent candidate because of a wrongheaded numerical approach to fitness for bureaucratship. The bureaucrats themselves know what to look for in a good bureaucrat. If a candidate looks good to them and there is a normal consensus for promotion, then the candidate should be promoted. It doesn't matter what the numbers are, and this perverse pretense that it does is losing us lots of very good candidates. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
3. What Tony said. The numbers don't matter. Should the basis for opposes be more strongly considered for bureaucrats? Yes, absolutely. At similar numbers, there are oppose issues where an RfA should succeed and an RfB should not. Read the discussion. Consider the issues. Make a decision that stands up to ration. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
4. I want to start a new essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not arithmetic--Doc^g 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   The problem is the bureaucrats obey the 90% pretty strictly, so this section could be interpreted as a vote for the status quo. If you want the 'crats to ignore the % and close based on a general feeling of consensus, I think that would be ideal but unfortunately unworkable. Avruch ^T 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

5. I'd support this. To this point, even potentially contentious issues have been handled very calmly among the group. I think they could be trusted to decide how big a group they need and make the right choices. I'd really like them to consider some sort of recall process though. RxS (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I put some suggested wording on the talk page, I'll add it here also:

   The community expects that a request for bureaucratship will succeed when there is no significant opposition. The closing bureaucrat(s) will have discretion to assess the discussion and make appropriate decisions based on the strength of argument. The closing bureaucrat(s) will also assess the request and decide whether it meets the no significant opposition threshold. Bureaucrats are expected to confer when closing requests where the significance of the opposition is not readily apparent.

   If people are serious about this not being a vote, here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is. The bureaucrats are a highly trusted group who can make these calls without vote counting. RxS (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Except you are still giving the guidance of "no significant opposition" which is the guideline that is primarily being rejected here. Avruch ^T 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I am, because I don't think promotions should occur when there is significant opposition. And unless we're prepared to make it a straight vote, we're giving bureaucrats some discretion. Why not let them handle the analysis and promotions? RxS (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   In theory, my like for quantifiable numbers notwithstanding, I would prefer trusting the judgement of the b-crats; I have never wavered in my belief that RfA/B are community referendums on trust. However, now that the project has reached a point where it no longer is a "cozy community" of a few hundred people, there is a measure of safety in having some numerical guidelines, and not being a pure "understanding of choice". The recent RfB for Riana is somewhat of an example of this. On the one hand, she received almost 40 opposes, that could count as significant. On the other hand, she recieved over 220 supports, which is the highest support level received for any RfB, which itself is surely significant. Of the opposes, a significant number related to perceived maturity--significant indeed. Others related to a RfA she nominated, is that significant? Absolutly. However, a number of opposes seemed to be related to the nom'd admin, and not Riana, is that significant? The point is that one 'crat's significant opposemay be another's insignificant oppose, and while purely falling back on the numbers just leads us to bot-world, I think there still needs to be a metric with which the community is comfortable and is in agreement. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

6. Like most else in Wikipedia, consensus should matter more than the pure vote count. If the number of bureaucrats is appropriate for the amount of work they have, then a higher threshold is fine. If the need for more arises, then the threshold can be lowered. I would think that those doing the job would be best suited to make that decision when the need arises. A hard rule is unnecessary. Resolute 06:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
7. The crat's themselves should know what to do best, we (in theory) give them that power because they have good judgement. I belive in high standards, but those standards should not just be a numerical vote count. -Icewedge (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
8. User:Krator (t c) 13:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
   • Question. Is this category the same as keep at 90% or is it different? Kingturtle (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
     • I think its pretty different - as I understand it, those who have contributed above are rejecting the view that these things should be determined numerically. I'd be pretty tempted to add myself to this category if it wouldn't look like advocating "trusting myself"... WjBscribe 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
9. My opinion is that it should be lower, by some amount, than 90%. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

   Comment Does this edit dump me in this category? -- Avi (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

10. Per comments by ReyBrujo, Resolute, others, and my own comment below. I trust the bureaucrats' individual ability to determine unequivocal cases of consensus or non-consensus, and also their collective ability to discuss RfX's which aren't clear cut. Either way, I wouldn't mind seeing more reasoning and discussion among b'crats when evaluating consensus. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
11. I say bureaucrats should be given much more discretion in deciding who will join their ranks. Bureaucrats have proved themselves to be the most trusted members of the community, and I have absolute faith that they would act appropriately. My proposal: I would like to see every RfB close with a discussion between bureaucrats to determine whether consensus was reached. There could be, say, a seven-'crat panel, wherein five would be needed to close an RfB as successful. Of course they would only be deciding whether consensus was reached, not debating the merits of the candidate. faithless (^speak) 06:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Deliberate double !vote - my position is "80% with bureaucrat discretion" and the poll confuses two separate dimensions. See my wordy comments under my !vote on 80%. If someone feels strongly I should not be double!voting, please keep my primary !vote under 80% and indent this one so that it does not "count" in the total, but my opinion is preserved. Martinp (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Strong support - While I already commented under a numeric section above (I think 85 should be fine, and even 80 as discretionary), I think we should be able to trust our bureaucrats to decide. - jc37 17:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

. . . to apply consensus

1. Maybe they, and we, ought to re-read it though. Wikipedia:Consensus, in case anyone has forgotten. In other words, there is no magic number, not 90%, not 85%, not 95%, I suppose 100% and 0% are, but only because they are an unambiguous indication of consensus. This is not a vote and there should be nothing to count. This is no different in that respect from an RFA or even an XfD. The difference is in the importance of correctly reading consensus, not in how consensus is calculated, it can't be calculated. That's why we give this very important responsibility to only the most experienced and trusted members of our community - not because they are particularly good at math.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment - This is not a vote, It's not even a non binding poll. that said I'd urge the 'crats to consider lowering where they view the line to be. Somewhere around 5:1 or 6:1 seems right, 9:1 is too high. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that there's no pressing need for more Bureaucrats and that they have access to sensitive personal information via CheckUser, there's a very real need to maintain a much higher bar than the numbers you suggest. Particularly considering the recent leak of private arbcom/bureaucrat discussions at WR, only the most trusted members of the community should be granted access, not largely or mostly trusted. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Checkuser is a completely different right, which bureaucrats do not have by default. Bureaucrats on Wikimedia projects may: add and remove bot flags, promote users to admin or bureaucrat, and rename users. Any other permissions they have are granted by different usergroups. I'll also note that bureaucrats here can't give themselves checkuser or oversight, to clarify. It's actually a rather limited role. ~Kylu (u|t) 08:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Felonious, I'm surprised you are making the assertion that bureaucrats have rights to that information. They do not view private information any more than the average admin does. Did you oppose my candidacy because you believed this? If so, I confess myself disappointed that a little more research didn't take place. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The essential fact is that bureaucrats are far, far more likely to have access to the details of CU results than are admins, as they are to private discussions. I've already clearly stated the reason for my opposing your promotion to bureaucrat, I felt you lacked the necessary good judgement based on certain previous actions. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • No you are completely wrong. Hardly any of the bureaucrats have checkuser, and those that do got it long after they became bureaucrats for completely unrelated reasons. Majorly (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I am also surprised. Some users like User:Alison are checkuser but not bureaucrat. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
          • There are (assuming I didn't mis-count) twenty-seven bureaucrats on the English Wikipedia currently. Of those, six are checkusers. At least two of those with both checkuser access are developers (Brion VIBBER and Tim Starling), who I don't consider to "count" as they have the access to perform those functions regardless of what rights they hold on-wiki. Checkuser data is covered by the Foundation Privacy policy and those checkusers who either abuse their access or release checkuser data to non-checkusers (except as provided by the policy) are accountable to both the Ombudsman commission and the Board of Trustees, which has far more reaching consequences than mere removal of access. Frankly, if you're going to suggest that a non-checkuser bureaucrat has ever received private checkuser data from someone with that permission, you need to provide evidence of this to the ombudsman commission or board, not merely hint about it on this page. It's quite a violation of both ethics and policy and should be taken seriously. If you do not have any evidence that this has happened, I would actually advise you to retract the statement instead, though that is, of course, your decision. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm also rather concerned as to the allegations that certain checkusers are divulging information relating to the privacy of an individual to bureaucrats on here. If there is on-wiki evidence of this behaviour, I'd really like to see it. At the very least, this should be reported to the Ombudsman commission. Which ones are "far, far more likely to have access to the details of CU results"? That's a very serious allegation - Alison ^❤ 06:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It should also be pointed out that neither Bureaucrats nor Checkusers have access to the ArbCom sources where that information was leaked from. That was only available to ArbCom members and obviously, developers. So Bureaucrats are not by default, privy to additional s3kr1t information that other admins are not. The only exception to this I can think of is when people are renamed for privacy reasons eg., in the event they've been harassed in RL - Alison ^❤ 07:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - There is a real chance of having individuals effectively game the system by indicating in e-mail to their friends that they'd like a given candidate to be opposed. On that basis, I tend to agree that establishing any sort of binding numerical value is probably a bad idea. My personal preference would be in the vicinity of 80-85%, with allowances for cases where it seems just about every person the candidate has ever been critical of seems to be !voting against him, and few if any others are !voting against the candidate or !voting at all one way or another. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • reply to comment If there were any provable evidence of off-wiki canvassing, the b'crats could discount those votes before checking the totals, just as they are empowered to do so for on-wiki canvassing for RfA and RfB. Argyriou (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply - The key word being "provable". However, I have real doubts that it would ever be probable. Not all sockpuppets are "provable" either, but in some cases action is taken anyway. If there were more than reasonable cause to believe such collusion was taking place, I would think that should be enough, but problems of defining terms remain. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I want the emphasis to be placed on determining consensus by looking at the arguments and discussions, and I didn't even know the "90% threshold" was taken so seriously (which probably says more about me than the process). Before the recent bout of RfB's, the last bureaucrat I voted for was promoted with 86.7% support votes (78/12/2). I would favor less number crunching, and I most certainly don't want bureaucrats to be mere calculators of percentages. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I might be insane, but since when have RFAs/RFBs been a vote? Weigh the comments, not the votecounts. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Will you be adding your name to the "trust the Bureaucrats" section then? Leave the vote counting behind? RxS (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So we're voting on if RfA/RfB is voting or not? Or is it a discussion on if it's a discussion? What's worse, we're having a meta-discussion regarding a meta-discussion on methods to implement people with the ability to implement other people the ability to make changes to an encyclopedia that's completely virtual... and yet taking it deadly seriously. Above us is discussion which includes quotes regarding statistical deviation, plotted graphs entitled "Asymptotic Behavior of Percentages" and the natural logarithmic version of the same, some "votes" that are absolutely nothing more than assertions, and closer to this comment, complete misunderstandings of what it is we're actually arguing about. A warning to those who respond: Your point will be even more tangential to the purpose here than my own comment is, and will increase the delta between this discussion and actual encyclopedia development. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you were conflicted about whether you should pretend to add to this discussion or not. Avruch ^T 01:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that if folks are saying that RFA/B isn't a vote, we should eliminate promotion standards completely and let the Bureaucrats evaluate the discussion and promote based on that. That's not so crazy is it? RxS (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of reality, no. Otherwise, yes. The "not a vote" is an ideal that is sort of anachronistic, particularly as the community gets larger and it becomes more and more difficult to gauge support for something without a vote-style process. It isn't a straight vote, since people discuss and post comments and positions publicly and argue with eachother, but Wikipedia is not a completely vote-free world like some holdover idealists would like to believe. We had a recent discussion about this on WT:RFA with most of the RfA regulars, about whether to stop using !vote and other stuff, and the 'consensus' was that we should just recognize the fact that it is mostly a vote and get on with our lives. The fact that the 'crats put so much store by the 90% rule (which they quite obviously do) proves that the "Its purely a discussion" point of view holds no weight at this point. Avruch ^T 02:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, if you look at the selections of our longest serving crats, they are complete votes with 10-15 people participating. Wikipedia changes, just like that small sliver of the universe outside Wikipedia. Avruch ^T 02:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of that one. "Reality" ... Kinda like SecondLife, right? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word on it, I guess. Avruch ^T 02:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I (mostly) agree, I'm just pointing out the logical extension of the "not a vote" comments. Most of those comments don't have the nuance needed to express the thought that it's a hybrid process with a strong component of a vote. Truth be told I'm a little weary of reading that it's not a vote all the time, in the face of what's actually the process here. Having said that I think it'd be interesting to see RFA in a RFC format trial but that'd never fly. RxS (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Does anyone actually believe that lowering the percentage will improve the quality of our crats? The crats we already have that were voted in at higher percentages already cause enough drama. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Perhaps there is a minimum need for drama, no matter how well the available bureaucrats fit the cast. As indicated, I'm not really interested in percentages, but I can share the view that the higher the opposition was in a successful RfB, the more people will be critical of further bureaucratic actions (the newbie's and the collective's) and the more frequent the expected incidence of drama. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Do admins with marginally successful RfAs make the most contentious admins/bring the most future opposition? Avruch ^T 14:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but, ceteris paribus, the community's perception will be more critical toward bureaucrats who passed with stronger opposition. I meant bureaucrats, not administrators. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

80% is still a oomfortable majority. Better than potentially having the tail wag the dog. You see, with a superduper-majority like 90%, not the majority decides who gets promoted: the minority does, and that's a bad thing. Keeping in line with the "reality" talk above, the process must have some dick- & gamer-tolerance built into it. Dorftrottel (bait) 18:11, March 12, 2008

<kidding>Actually, I'd go you one further and say that I do not trust people who get unanimous support. Maybe we should prescribe a minimum opposition of 5-10% (with some crat discretion). That's the minimum opposition common sense always receives, by those who hate common sense. The absolute minimum. Dorftrottel (warn) 18:24, March 12, 2008</kidding>

You know Dorf, I actually agree with that, and I'm !kidding. I can think of one recent unanimous RfA that was in hindsight seriously bad judgment. Or has that particular drama-nest become the new wiki-godwin^TM that we are not to talk about by name but will inevitably come up in every discussion....Any troll can stay anonymous and non-controversial enough to build thousands of edits, even featured articles, sail through RfA, and then, well, you get it. Opposition, in that sense, means the editor might actually be involved in this place beyond handing out cookies and finding secret pages. (both of which I'm guilty of) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The majority and the minority are supposed to decide together. That's what consensus means. Zocky | picture popups 13:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. But tell that to the entrenched camps which more often than not form in any kind of (WP or RL) discussion. Dorftrottel (ask) 19:56, March 14, 2008

• Two level scale

Here is an idea, a user must receive 75% support from all users. After attaining this level of support the user can now be judged by the bureaucrats in which they can make their own guidelines.Thright (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Err, I think the community will reject this. The community ultimately decides who's fit for the job, while bureaucrats decide whether the community has found consensus to promote. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can't find a category that completely expresses my view, so I'll just leave it as a comment. Especially since voting is evil. :) First off, it concerns me that I don't see a clearly identified problem that this proposal is supposed to address. Are we concerned because of one individual instance? (I don't support major changes because of a single incident.) Or is there a more widespread problem, and if so, what exactly is that problem? Without knowing what problem we're supposed to be addressing here, I'm wavering between 90% and "trust the bureaucrats". I think the standards for promotion to b-ship should be very high. But I hate to set a strict number, because like all consensus here, the strength of arguments need to be weighed. If an editor has 50 supports who mention detailed, strong reasons why they support, and 20 opposes that say things like "don't have 3500 category talk edits" or "I don't like anyone named Joe", bureaucrats need to exercise their discretion to discount the trivial arguments. But I hate to just say "trust the bureaucrats" because I think there needs to be an expression of some ideal, which 90% does express.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  Imho, 9:1 to 6:1 for a mere 5% difference is a HUGE difference. (And, as noted above, I'd support bureaucratic discretion for anything below 85%.) - jc37 18:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)