Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Closing comments from bureaucrats

While there is definitely useful commentary below that will guide bureaucrats in closing requests for bureaucratship, it is my opinion that there is no firm consensus one way or the other about the appropriate threshold. While "80%" would appear to be the front runner at a glance and by the numbers, one still has to account for those who support a higher threshold but did not specifically oppose 80%. It is also important to point out that this RFC itself was trafficked by substantially fewer editors than a typical RfB; and even without making adjustments, 80% was still only supported by 75% of those choosing to signing next to a # mark beneath it.

Given that requests are so few and far between, further discussion on this in the near term would probably not be a worthwhile use of time. And really - if the community really wants to make it easier for folks to make it through RfB, they should just go easier on the candidates... Other bureaucrats should feel free to make further closing comments beneath mine. –xenotalk 02:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with xeno on this closing. There is no clear consensus for an appropriate threshold. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

[edit]

I'll be the first - what use is deciding on a percentage when the closing bureaucrats decide case-by-case? — Joseph Fox 02:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression that bureaucrats only exercise their "case-by-case" prerogative when the community opinion runs very close to the threshold. If there are zero oppose !votes, as was the case in the recent Fluffernutter RfA, community consensus would clearly preclude bureaucrat prerogative. The same could be said of any of the recent WP:SNOW closes at RfA, which would appear on the opposite side of the ledger. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Range of discretion discussion

[edit]

I'd like to float the idea of a maximum range in which 'crats are free to exercise discretion. After an admin was reconfirmed with 68% support, it became clear, to me at least, that some sort of line was needed. How about this: "Bureaucrats may exercise discretion only within ±5% of the threshold selected above." This would mean that if, say, 80% were selected, 'crats would be able to, at their discretion, promote someone with 76% but not 72%. If something like a sockfarm or plagarism came to light on day seven, they could always extend the RfA due to the circumstances, but this proposal would limit their ability to bypass the community, as has been done before. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For all of the positions from admin up, I would rather the named number serve as the line in the sand: "this level and everything above". It is more straightforward that way and less prone to personal interpretation by the closing person. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd question having a numerical definition of discretion. Discretion is there for crats to make allowances in individual cases for weak/spurious opposes, or comments from neutral people that might be a good barometer of community opinion in particularly tough cases. If a crat feels strongly enough that one particular case warrants wider discretion than 5%, so be it. But in standard cases being 3 or 4% below a community supported theshold would generally result in the request being closed as unsuccessful, regardless of whether that threshold is 90%, 85%, 80% or 75%. —WFC04:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Belated follow-up, I missed two very salient words in that post. I meant to say "being more than 3 or 4% below a community supported threshold would generally result..." —WFC15:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that the chart at the very top of the page can be misleading percentage-wise. That is, admins (on en.wiki), bureaucrats (on en.wiki), and stewards (WMF level) are elected using an open voting system, while CUs, OSs, and ArbCom members are elected using a closed voting system (with the exception of last year's CU/OS). The results are going to differ amongst the two voting methods, with a closed system generally yielding lower supporting percentages because they are free to oppose without herd mentality, groupthink, etc. –MuZemike 19:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. But why use context, if you can and probably will get away with leading people in your direction? —WFC04:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 80% seems about right. ±5% seems a good discretionary zone. If < 15% can't persuade the > 85%, the reasons for opposition are probably pretty weak. If 25% can cite decent reasons to oppose, that's pretty bad for a highly trusted position. However, no numbers, even ±5% should be rock solid. 74% might pass if many of the opposes were very weak, or dubious accounts. 90% might fail if some few came up late with a very good reason to oppose, a reason that for whatever reason caused the early voters to not want to return. Ultimately, while a guideline is good for the spectators, judging success require human intellect with experience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why I think a hard threshold number with no stated range is best. The closing person can make whatever adjustments he or she feels are necessary. Stating a range invites even more adjustment. Leave the range unsaid. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. If we want to allow the closer to exercise some element of discretion to deal with conditions in individual requests which cannot possibly be anticipated here and now, then a preset numerical range for their discretion is unhelpful. Either the threshold is strict (closer has no discretion), or it's blurry. I would prefer blurry. bobrayner (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current standard

[edit]

I looked at this table which helpfully lists all of the RfB results for the past couple of years. Basically, it looks like the current success threshold, if it can be said there is one, is at exactly 83%. The lowest percentage to pass was 83%, and the highest to fail was 82%. Every RfB with an 83% or higher result has passed, and every RfB with an 82% or lower result has failed. I doubt that an intentional line was drawn, but that's a very clear, bright line. So keep in mind that supporting a 90% or 85% threshold will raise the bar for RfB. 80% or 75% will lower the bar. It's best that people know if they are supporting a change to RfB standards that makes it easier or more difficult for us to promote new bureaucrats. -- Atama 22:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with raising the bar?--Cerejota (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be a problem as long as the community supports it, however it does contradict the previous RfC where a fairly strong consensus (75%) supported lowering the bar. -- Atama 00:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One quibble, I'd call supporting 85% voting for the status quo unless we're planning on strictly enforcing the percentages.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the previous RFC was held prior to the initiation of the RFCs that lead to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions. –xenotalk 13:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. And if there is an inconsistency of any kind between this RfC and the last one, then that could be a reason for it. Or it could be due to different people getting involved in the discussion. Who knows? -- Atama 16:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, it may be worthwhile to deliver a short message to the participants of the immediately preceding discussion on this topic. –xenotalk 16:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2 (closed May 2008) was a 'crat chat that closed with no consensus to promote at 102/22/14 or 82.258%, which is about as fine as you can cut it if you make an 83% brightline 8-) -- Avi (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it outrageous, bordering on insane, to suggest that three-to-one support is too low of a bar to be allowed to change usernames and perform the other rather mundane tasks of cratship. (Not a reply to any particular comment above, just a general observation on the whole tone of the voting above) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We also get the keys to the executive washroom. –xenotalk 18:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So do admins. Of course, we only get them to clean the executive washroom, not use it :-/ Regards SoWhy 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats a fiction. Admins are janitors, which is why I advocate making admin tools be more like rollbacker or reviewer, and RfA's reserved for re-admin those who had their tools removed for misdeeds. Crats play a political role too, for example, in Arbcom elections the matter of being a Crat is often raised, as is reversion in matters of policy (usually, a revert by a crat is sufficient to shutdown a policy edit war cold, not so with admins). I other words, crats much more than admins are evaluated by their behavior outside of using tools. In addition, the tools crats have are indeed much more potentially disruptive and harder to revert in the case of misdeeds, which is in part why most of the actions crats can take are not unilateral (for example, crats cannot +sysop on a whim, even if they have the technical ability - while an admin can protect an article on his or her initiative alone). What really is going on is that certain admins want to be crats for these political reasons, but know they can't get the support for whatever reason and are trying to lower to bar to get in. Lets not claim otherwise. Its not about mops, its about merit badges and orders of the arrow. --Cerejota (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation

[edit]

Are we to assume that anyone who supports threshold x+1 is by definition opposing x (unless they supported x as well)? –xenotalk 00:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which way round you mean, but I'd stick to what people say "too high" for example; given discretionary measures, it's possible to have any range of support. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone supports 90% but does not support any of the others, then it stands to reason that they feel the threshold should not be below 90% (and, therefore, oppose 85%,80%,75%, etc.)... –xenotalk 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree. Whilst 90/75 is definitely unlikely, I'd personally not oppose 80% when I voted for 85%, as my accompanying comment makes clear. They may have an similarly relevant opinion of lower measures. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, if there are accompanying comments they should be taken into account. E.g. #1 @ 85%: "If we have leave to be choosy; be choosy" - this to me, serves as an oppositional statement to lower thresholds even though they have not specifically opposed them. –xenotalk 13:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I agree if they've left a comment like that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy there, apples compared with oranges!

[edit]

Sorry to be alarmist, but now I have your attention, the Securepoll ArbCom results in 2010 and 2009 are not at all comparable with other votes, since people were able to easily vote Oppose with a quick click to make their Support votes more powerful. And all three cited ArbCom votes were competitive, not single-candidate like RfAs and RfBs, which significantly alters the threshold. I note that the support-rank for the weakest successful ArbCom candidate is used in each case, without noting this, whereas the average support-rank (S / (S + O)) was considerably higher, of course, in each of the past three elections. Tony (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]