This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The times, they are a-changin' -- Avi (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to mention that. Weird. Singularity 05:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You do know that the next step is to increase Arbcom to about 47 members -- Avi (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Just realized that too... thought I had a Twilight Zone moment or something... --TBC!?! 08:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Time for an RfA drive, then. Certainly we need admins more than we need crats! ~ Riana ⁂ 13:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh great. More cat drama on the internets. --TBC!?! 14:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, alright, I'll start looking for #37 then, since our admins at RfA count is low. Wizardman 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Two of the three I have approached have demurred, I wonder why? . Maybe something to do with the vivisection that occurs? The third hasn't gotten back to me yet. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to recruit my first admin candidate a few days ago, and they said there was no way they would ever be willing to go thru RfA. Woulda made a good one, too (IMHO). --barneca (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
People are becoming sane? Well, there's some hope for wikipedia. Maybe we can recruit some of them for the mediation cabal or some such? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
One good way to find good admin potentials that might otherwise escape notice is to help out at WP:ER, which is stupidly backlogged right now [hint hint]. delldottalk 17:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Where's the Promotion's Committee? A group of admins and long term users that evaluates potential candidates, coaches them, and then shepherds them through? What we need is candidates for candidacy. Dlohcierekim 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't we try and do that already, Dlohcierekim? I can't help it if everyone I approach is so much wiser than I and refuses posthaste :). Seriously, I have a few in the wings who say that when they are ready they will approach me (some from months ago, some of whom I have re-contacted today) but the process, or should I say gauntlet, is rather difficult and can be abrasive to the candidates wiki-self-image and it is eminently understandable as to why people do not want to undergo the microscopic treatment of their every action :/ -- Avi (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that you have to consider the effect on good editors of the whole RfA bear pit. Look at Epbr123's recent RfA, for instance. He's now semi-retired as a result. Was that good or bad for wikipedia? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's definitely bad. Ironically after 36 RfAs I've never had a problem with someone getting sick of wikipedia after a failed RfA, they just shrug it off and improve, and do very well on the next one. I wish RfA didn't cause people to leave though. Wizardman 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Malleus here. Losing great editors by sending them through a rough RfA that they really are not ready for is not good. On a number of levels. I've seen it happen before and it's very much a net loss to the project. Extreme care should be exercised when nominating. Pedro : Chat 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily disagreeing here, but if someone "retires" or "semi-retires" based on an RfA, doesn't it potentially also point to the fact that maybe (and just maybe) they weren't ready for adminship in the first place? Being an admin can be brutal. If every admin left, or retired, after someone "opposed" one of their moves (protects, blocks, deletions, whatever), we wouldn't have very many admins left. I think it's a good indicator of the maturity of the admin candidate if they "retire" after a close of an unsuccessful RfA. I'm pretty sure I'm an outside view of this, as I did not participate in Epbr's nomination. Just my thoughts. They are worth exactly ($0.02) what they cost you. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
100% agreement. If they can't withstand a failed RfA, they're not likely to withstand some of the other crap that comes with being an admin. We're better off with a semi-retired editor than a potentially unhinged admin. EVula// talk // ☯ // 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree somewhat with EVula and Keeper. Would it behoove nominators to make sure the candidate has has an Editor Review first? How effective has admin coaching been? Are nominators cognizant of the many pitfalls of RfA? Some otherwise very qualified candidates have fallen over civility. Most of the rest "aren't ready yet." Probably the best preparation is participating in RfA's. One becomes less of an unknown and can learn from the experiences of others. Dlohcierekim 22:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ah, but participating in RfA's is only half the battle. Really, what makes a good admin candidate is someone that consistently blocks/reports vandals, or consistently writes good articles, or consistently makes good judgments. What's the key? Meh. I don't know. Sometimes, the community gets it blatantly completely wrong. I think the important thing, really, is consistency and civility. If someone, anyone, is consistently civil, they are highly unlikely to abuse/misuse the admin tools. Why? Because the admin tools are no big deal. And they are easily reverted. And, if someone is highly civil, they won't unnecessarily block someone, or protect a page they edit, or delete something that has a hint of notability. You get the idea. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(un-dent) No EVula, I'm afraid you're totally wrong. In this kind of situation we're better off with a solid editor who never came near RfA in the first place. No "unhinged" admins and no retirements. Everyone's a winner. Pedro : Chat 22:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Pedro. RfAs can be hard. There's some great editors who simply don't have the intestinal fortitude to go through one. It doesn't help them to put them into the grinder. Majoreditor (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't consider the two to be mutually exclusive, thereby preserving the fact that I am always right. EVula// talk // ☯ // 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And, keeping the truth in mind, I'm right too. Everyone else (except EVula) is wrong. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
To respond to the Admin Coaching question. For individuals who want the Bit in addition to being an editor, it works quite well. For individuals who want the Bit, it doesn't work quite so well. One major issue I've seen is a person having a SNOW reject RfA cause they had 150 edits, going to admin coaching, not finding a free coach cause we have so few, and giving up on it. If !voters could direct people with very low edit counts to WP:ADOPTION it might make a better use of resources and also aclimate them to the major part of what we do. I've always wondered why we don't have hard floors that stop people from shooting themselves in the foot (like less than 1000 edits, blocked 2 weeks ago, or no mainspace contribs). MBisanztalk 22:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict with the last 6 or so messages) I tend to partly agree with what Evula, Keeper, and Malleus have written here. First there is the issue of when editors might be ready for an admin nomination, and this may well involve a more structured framework or process within which potential candidates for nomination might be invited to work through (though I don't think they should be compelled to do so.) Some editors are not suited to be administrators, and this leads onto the next point: There needs to be some guiidance for nominators on "How to detect a potentially good administrator". In the specific case Malleus mentioned, I thought from the start that the nomination was premature, and said so. It seemed to me that the nominators there might have had some greater role in a "duty of care" sense (though perhaps not as formally as that phrase may imply), and perhaps that they should have been slightly more thorough in their background checks on the candidate before "talking him up" into agreeing to go through a process which he was clearly (to others) not yet ready for. I don't squarely blame the nominators for not doing so, as such an issue doesn't seem to have arisen so clearly before as far as I know, but it may be an idea to point out some suggestions as to the responsibilities and duties that nominators might have in such circumstances. This might be assisted by a more clearly obvious statement, or re-statement about the desired features that an administrator might have, and, conversely, a more obvious statement , or re-statement, about the undesirable features that a nominator might have.
(As a more long-term aspect, doing that would allow for a more sensitive way of gauging opinions about candidates by asking for opinions on a range of desirable and undesirable features they might have, together with some indication of how a multi-featured assessment might be translated into a decision about whether to give the admin status to the candiddate or not, which brings us back to multi-attribute decision making, which I mentioned in another thread on this page. This would also allow procedures to be used that have been developed to emphasize uniformity of performance or consistency in the behaviour of the candidates. ) DDStretch (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I read the link provided. Don't get it. Care to elaborate? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I do get it and almost fell off of my chair laughing. MBisanztalk 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
So do I: wonderful Babylon 5 reference there, Kim Bruning. :) Acalamari 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm rather disappointed that what ought to have been a serious discussion about the duty of care that a nominator has at RfA has so degenerated. Disappointed, but not surprised. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
In an unrelated note, would anyone mind me editing the Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Front_matter#About_RfA to include Adoption? As in "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to undergo adoption or consult admin coaching first". MBisanztalk 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A useful list, but I note that it omits a common stumbling block: "Have you had a disagreement with anyone in the last three months?" --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one who claims to have the secret of how to go through an RfA without undergoing the risk of a complete collapse in self-confidence. That's not a problem that a new entry in a table can solve. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I used to be able to, but RFA has changed. What do you propose? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(e/c*3) Just like my favorite list, wikipedia is a Gravitas Free Zone*. Don't worry, that is actually a good sign that we're passionate about the project!
I think that people are taking adminship far too seriously, because the result of gaining an admin flag is merely to have some extra buttons. It still takes quite some time after that to gain more experience and actually understand wikipedia fully.
These days, a lot of people skip the admin flag entirely, and so we can have very experienced people sitting around, with inexperienced wikignomes doing the adminning. (There are also experienced wikignomes... but they know who they are, and won't be insulted.)
These days I no longer nominate new admins, because:
The criteria to pass RFA have drifted so far away from my criteria for what makes a good admin. So any nomination I make would lead to fairly random outcomes.
People are mistreated at RFA. I don't want to put anyone through that.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC) *Some members of the gravitas police disagree
Kim, what are your criteria? Dlohcierekim 01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
While I understand your Sigh, I'd say that was one of the better SNOW RfAs I've seen. The opposes for the most part gave clear indication of what they would want to see improved and supported it with diffs and what not. Candidate doesn't seem overly hurt and will hopefully continue editing and will try again. MBisanztalk 01:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
My single criterium is that someone must show, by whatever means they have at their disposal (the more creative the better ;-) ), that they will use the tools correctly. If they have several hundred edits (up to about 1000), with not much automated bot crap mixed in, you can often find out just by reading every single edit through systematically. This doesn't take too much time. Another way to know they know what they're doing is if they have an admin flag on another mediawiki wiki. Or if they have a responsible foundation position they'd be fired from if they screwed up wikipedia... etc. Note that I especially do not believe that x-thousand edits -in any namespace- is sufficient to show admin capability. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I talked one naïve and over-trusting, cough, cough, I mean excellent candidate into running the guantlet. -- Avi (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Something that might cheer up people currently going through RfB
From an e-mail I just received from a friend: "i didnt realise you were going through 'cratship!' (ooh the puns possible there)"
<3 anagrams! I laughed out loud. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This presumes a morpheme boundary: [kræt+ʃɪp] (and an implicit word-final morpheme boundary). Of course this representation rather misses the point of the metathesis, but I don't think SPE can explain it very well, and I don't really know how to do transformational rules. Maybe something like:
Somewhere out in wikiworld, some poor, unsuspecting (and probably teenaged) editor's head just exploded. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No, its Pi 41. Wanna 3RR about it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Is 23 the one where Transhumanist posted 20 questions alone? I thought that was the NascarFan RfA. (Was this thread prompted by me withdrawing my questions on a current RfA 'cause someone right after posted 10 more?) Avruch T 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like I was thinking of the Ibaranoff one after all. Avruch T 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Avruch, it's true. But only because I withdrew my questions under similar circumstances in a different RfA. Dlohcierekim 16:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the more questions, the better. Useight (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you only need to ask enough questions to ascertain the quality of the candidate. Asking questions like where did I leave my other sock does not add to the RfA/RfB. 8^}
The same goes for the when did you stop beating your wife/dog/pet alien opposes. Some examples of prior behaviour might be an indicator of future behaviour. The sheer onslaught we've seen recently can be a major disincentive for people to put themselves forward. Kbthompson (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, i disagree with useight's claim as well. You only need to ask a few questions to get an idea. One's contributions and demeanor will tell you more than questions ever will, at least in my opinion. Wizardman 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with Useight, but I disagree with Wiz's analysis too. Excessive questions are just mean, really. But I can't knock the power of good answers to questions, particularly as at least one person did the switch on my RfB based on answers. They can be important. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of questions are really stupid (e.g. Do you play the violin?), but some are really sensible especially if they are relevant to the candidate. If they aren't relevant, and just bulk copy and paste template questions, don't answer them. Majorly (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed (and smile at riana). Further questions are for one purpose. After a full review of a candidate's contributions one feels unable to form a definite opinion. Therefore one asks a question to help form that opinion. Asking for the sake of asking is pointless and IMHO disapointing. Asking questions to "trip a candidate up" (and I'm sorry but I do feel that happens) is also disapointing. If you need to know something - ask - if it takes 1 or 101 questions then that's the way it is. But if you're asking to "look involved" or for simple "edit count" please don't. In a nutshell; Add value don't just Add. Pedro : Chat 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the initial questions are really enough. I trust that glaring controversies will come up pretty fast, and the borderline stuff in contribs is usually not a major stumbling block for me. I ask my questions not for edit count or to look involved, but because the answers actually inform (and some times very strongly) my vote. The really nitpicky criteria questions can be irritating, but the "define ban vs. block" is sort of a trip-up question as well - and yet very useful. It tells me if the candidate understands something basic to an admin, and even if he or she doesn't know right away they ought to look it up and get it exactly right. The other questions tell me about the judgment and character of the candidate, even knowing that the answers are prepared before they are posted and don't necessarily reflect quick judgment. What bothers me is a lot of questions about specific hypotheticals in areas that interest a voter - it seems like they are trying to get the admin to decide cases that bother them in advance (like asking Riana about the ^demon RfA). Don't have enough time to finish this comment, I'll post and come back to it. Avruch T 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I assume that the record number for the least amount of questions in an RfA or RfB is not equal to ? ;-)zOMG I'm wrong! Up to and partly including April 2004, few potential sysops were ever even asked a question. See User:NoSeptember/RfA chronological. That is an interesting read. :-) --Iamunknown 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OMGWTFBBQ??!! We should ban them all, they didn't answer questions!!11!!eleven!1. (Additionally, people could answer the questions with one word and no one would care. Oh happy times (I wish I'd been there)). Majorly (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like I better clarify on my previous statement. I do think that more questions is usually better than less, but there's definitely a plateau. An infinite number of optional questions isn't infinitely better than no questions. But questions do give us greater insight into the way the candidate thinks. When I ran my RFAs, I wanted to see optional questions. Useight (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Too many questions is definitely an issue. In my second RfB, I had people complaining that I hadn't answered their questions, which I hadn't done because there were (a) several to answer, (b) most required fairly well-thought-out answers (I would have been opposed for crappy answers anyway), and (c) Wikipedia isn't the center of the universe (sorry, but if a cute girl wants to have dinner, I'll be damned if I'm going to give much thought to the subtle nuances of consensus gauging). This is probably a factor for other RfX candidates as well (though I'd be surprised if Riana gave as much priority to cute girls as I do). EVula// talk // ☯ // 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Imagine the drama if someone were to oppose Riana's RfB for that. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever looked at the early RFBs? Look here, and then the next day, here. The second one was closed by the candidate in the first one. The next day. I can't even imagine the acronymic drama that would unfold in a repeat of that. It was a different time, that's all. Ain't coming back. As a community grows quickly, it naturally and universally changes the way it governs itself and naturally and universally increases in formality v. informality. I'm sure there some sociology expert (or statistical expert) that could explain what I'm typing very well, and probably with blue links. My point is: meh? Ask all the questions you want. Be neutral till there answered. Or support until they're answered. Or oppose until their answered. And then switch back and forth. And then reply to Kurt. And then defend your right, I mean technical ability, to reply to Kurt. Meh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In an RfA about 2 years ago, I switched from support to oppose to neutral. I don't recall Kurt voting in that one. Dlohcierekim 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, y'all. Dlohcierekim 19:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I delisted this as it is withdrawn, but someone else will need to close. Dlohcierekim 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I was about to sort it out, but Rudget got there first. :) Acalamari 19:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I shouldn't have really because I actually opposed, but I felt since the candidate withdrew I could. Is that within closing guidelines? Rudget (?) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's a problem here: you were just properly closing a withdrawal. If you had opposed the candidate, and then closed it as a snowball, that would be different, as you would have participated in the RfA and closed it on your own decision. In this case, you were just fixing the candidate's wish to withdraw. Acalamari 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Thank you, once again Acalamari. :P Rudget (?) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Acalamari 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
RfB passing %
I'd like to open a discussion on the appropriate passing percentage for an RfB. I would be happy if any changes that find a consensus here end up applying to ongoing RfB's, but I understand that it may not be possible.
I don't understand why the same standard, consensus, has a different measure on RfB than RfA. The argument made is that being a bureaucrat is a more serious responsibility than an administrator, most particularly because of the difficulty in undoing a + sysop. I understand and agree. I think, however, that voters from the community have the ability to understand this difference and will vote accordingly. We expect voters in RfA's to understand what an administrator can do and what the level of responsibility we expect of an administrator is. We can and should expect the same of voters in RfBs, and demonstrate our expectation by using the same percentage to effectively demonstrate consensus. I don't see where the 90% rule is written other than the guide to requests for adminship. Based on the principle in WP:BRD I have changed that particular mention. I hope that the community can decide that while 90% has been the tradition, consensus is consensus and it is the question that changes, not the answer. Avruch T 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, any % other than 100% is not a consensus, strictly speaking. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It is according to my dictionary. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you are technically correct (consensus does not = unanimity) and, well, we have a local definition which as I'm sure you can imagine is what I'm writing about above. Avruch T 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a very good reason for the passing standard to be higher. RFA can be a contentious area. Bureaucrat's are a more trusted class of user that undergo more scrutiny during and after a RFB...and their actions can cause a large amount of drama if they are not in tune with community standards. That number has been in accepted use for a long time, and there have been no compelling reasons to change it, especially in the middle of numerous RFB's. I'm going to change it back until more debate can take place, and perhaps a time when there are not RFB's in progress. RxS (talk) 22:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think what you describe is a very good reason for the voting standard to be higher, and I think just about anyone would agree with you. If both totals are supposed to represent the consensus of the community, why should one be higher than the other? Are we dealing with "lesser consensus" and "greater consensus" in this case? I haven't seen that argued, nor have I seen an argument made that justifies, say, 90% versus 80% versus 78% or 82% (or even, for that matter, 70%-75%). If we are going to use an arbitrary number, it should be consistent. Avruch T 23:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem with saying voting standards should be higher is that there will be a wide range of standards among editors and standards are not something you can enforce on people. They'll have their own idea of what an appropriate standard should be. The result at RFB (since the bar is set so high now) is that overall standards will lower, which is not something there's any apparent need for. Given that, and along with lower percentage needed for promotion, a large group of bureaucrats would be created. The problem with that is that RFA is already be a contentious place, but the thing that keeps it more or less in check as that bureaucrats currently have a pretty focused agreement of what consensus at RFA means. As long as there's a smallish group, that focus is easier to maintain. Once a larger group of bureaucrats is created there won't be a common sense of consensus, and there won't be consistent promotion standards at RFA. That'd be a bad thing...much drama would result. There may be a need for a few more bureaucrats, but creation of a large group isn't needed, and would have harmful results. As far as consistent promotion requirements between RFA and RFBs, I don't see why they'd be needed, they are different roles with different expectations. We're measuring different things, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have different standards. RxS (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This is being discussed on the mailing list. Really, it isn't consensus at all. It's an arbitary set of numbers, 75% and 90%. How these were made up is a mystery to me, but that's all they are: arbitary. Nothing to do with consensus at all. I also believe we should lower the boundary to pass... 90 is stupidly high, and no one even comes close to it because voters are tougher on RfB as it is. I know of no other community that uses different % rates for bcrats and admins. Majorly (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That might be a good direction to take this discussion. What are the percentages used in other communities? Kingturtle (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
75% for both, on Meta and Simple English Wikipedia. Majorly (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
From [1]:
Merriam webster, Main Entry:con·sen·sus
Pronunciation:
\kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\
1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey>
--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC) O:-)
However, if you keep reading to the very next sentence, to 1.b, it says "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned". Our articleConsensus has a fairly good description (or it did the last time I looked, many months ago), which goes beyond a simple dictionary definiton. --barneca (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer to use English dictionaries ;-). From the OED: "Majority view, collective opinion." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You have a flawed dictionary Kim :p Although current consensus is around the 85-90% range, I'd rather it be 80%+. People judge RfBs by their standards for bureaucrats, which is much too extreme, so you won't pass unless your record is picture perfect. And I daresay everyone has a skeleton in their closet, it's the matter of finding it that makes RfBs fail. —Dark(talk) 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead of %, look at the required ratio of support.
75% = 3:1 (3 supports for every oppose)
80% = 4:1
83% = 5:1 (approx)
86% = 6:1 (approx)
88% = 7:1 (approx)
89% = 8:1 (approx)
90% = 9:1
It seems odd to say someone doesn't have pretty overwhelming support at 5:1. And it really seems odd to say that one oppose is worth ten supports. I can live with different percentages; it's a reasonable way to deal with differing levels of importance. i just think it's crazy for the crat support level to be 10:1 instead of something like 5:1. --barneca (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
So based on that, currently 'crat elections require three times the ratio of support to one oppose than we require for an RfA. Even assuming that a different level of support is required to provide the same outcome (consensus) that is an extraordinary requirement. Isn't 90% considerably higher than most Arbs have received? Have any, if you exclude the recent anomaly of NYB? Avruch T 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And let's look at the numbers too... If you get 25 opposes, you need a staggering 225 supports to compensate in a RfB, while you only need around 75 supports for an RfA. —Dark(talk) 23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
90% is way too high, still 75% for crat is a touch low for this site imo, considering the potential damage they can cause and the trustworthiness needed. 80 to 85 is reasonable. I do not want to see too many crats which is another thing to consider. GDonato (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You also have to remember that people have higher individual standards for support. So not only does one need a higher support ratio, its harder to get supports, and easier to get opposes.One would need almost 30 supports just to make up for people who oppose every RFB. Mr.Z-man 00:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Still, consensus isn't numbers. Now's as good a time as any to go back and kill the silly numbers. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
*Hey everyone. check this outPedro : Chat 23:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record 85% is a more reasonable description of the historical threshold for passing RFB. For example Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3 passed at 86.7% last summer. Incidentally, the requirement for overwhelming support dates back to the days when a vote might have only 10 or 20 participants and any significant opposition at all was considered enough to block the promotion. Dragons flight (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I think it is high time the cut-offs for passing RfB (which, as Majorly states above, were pretty much plucked out of the air) were lowered. I suspect that matching RfB's pass mark with RfA's would be a little drastic—as also stated above, Bureaucrats do require trust. Then again, would it not be said that administrators require more? It could be argued that, if we are going by the possible extent of damage each tool requires (which, to all intents and purposes, should be the ruling factor in deciding the volume of trust required for a position), then RfB's cut-off should be lower than RfA... But I suspect the mentality we as a Community have developed—that Bureaucrats are some form of ultra-trustworthy administrator—would stand in such a proposal's way. Certainly, however, it is time RfB's pass mark is brought down from its snobbishly high perch. AGK (contact) 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Case in point - Riana's RfB is failing (Against 90%) despite the fact that out of 193 votes, she has 163 supports. That, to me, is a little Twilight Zone. Avruch T 02:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on the Bureaucrat notice board seeking opinions. I have to say again that changing the standard during active RFB's is inappropriate. RxS (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You've said so, a number of times, and I don't necessarily disagree. It seems likely that this discussion below will outlast the current RfBs, or some of them, and with the current crop and potential for more it seems unreasonable to wait for a time when there is no 'crat election or chance of one starting during the discussion. Even if this were to close as passed (which seems the likely outcome at this point) during the current RfBs, the decision on whether to implement this consensus lies where it always has - with the crats. Avruch T 04:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I have, you'll forgive me if I say it when I feel it's important. As you know, changes to Guide to requests for adminship lower/adjusting the threshold for RFB promotion have already occurred during this discussion. Now, the 'crats may or may not take that into account, but again, you'll forgive me for making that point while those changes continue to occur. Thanks. RxS (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to make passing rate of RfB < 90%
Modified to read less than 90 instead of = 75% Avruch T 02:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If you don't mind, it looks like lowering the rate has significant support (at least at this early juncture in the discussion). Perhaps those who agree that the % should be lowered can indicate a Support below with their preferred %, if other than 75%? Avruch T 02:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Support The 75% rate. Avruch T 02:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Support 75% ArcAngel (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose at least 80. And voting is evil. Prodegotalk 02:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Even so, this is support changing it but oppose 75? ;-) Avruch T 02:22, 1 March 2008 (UC)
Oppose 75%'s too low. Wizardman 02:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
As for what would be an acceptable % for me, since I have my RfB up it's best if I recuse from discussion such as that. Wizardman 02:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Oppose. 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)
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)
Oppose We need far fewer bureaucrats than admins. As such, we don't need the same standard for bureaucrats as we do for admins. Captainpanda 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
I agree with 85 as well. 75 is too low, but 90 is ridiculous. Acalamari 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. 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)
Support in the 80%-85%. Stewards can do far more damage than crats and we trust them at 80. MBisanztalk 03:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Support 80 percent. jj137(talk) 03:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think 85% makes a lot of sense, too. 90% is unrealistic--we need more bureaucrats. Darkspots (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Support 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)
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)
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. GracenotesT§ 03:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose in general - I don't think it would be effective. 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)
I think that's kind of what some said they'd like to happen. The same amount of people getting promoted, but keeping it consistent w/ the same percentages w/ RfA & RfB. нмŵוτнτ 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Oppose - 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)
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)
This 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)
Support 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)
Proposal response break 1
Oppose - 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)
Support 80-85% should be the discretionary range, like 70-75% for RfAs. GlassCobra 05:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. I think 80% is fine. Useight (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose 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)
85% - alternatively, just do the right thing. The community doesn't oppose bad 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)
80%-85% Anything above that will be ridiculous. —Dark(talk) 09:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Support 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)
Support 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)
Support. 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)
80-85% sounds good to me. --Tango (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Support 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)
Proposal response break 2
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)
Oppose. 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)
Support - 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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to hold potential 'crats to higher !voting standards, then, I'd say the % should be the same as for adminship. SQLQuery me! 19:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. Laxer standards around 80%. Malinaccier (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Among the opinions supporting change, one finds a small assortment of AGF violations. Never a good reason to change behavior. -- Iterator12nTalk 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. -- Iterator12nTalk 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!) -- Iterator12nTalk 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. -- Iterator12nTalk 23:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. 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)
Support. 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)
This nicely nets out one aspect: 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.
Why not “go into here”? Be bold: The absence of consensus may be interpreted as a prohibition on action that would disturb the status quo.
But then, what about these guidelines that require quasi-unanimity? The answer may be to search for those principles (ok, we got the pillars, done) and (only) those guidelines that truly unite us. You see, every social system raises the question what to do with the needs, desires, opinions, etc. of minorities. Larger communities tend to put the minority question into sharper focus. WP already has a very reasonable answer: discussion. No meeting of the minds, more discussion. (But also: any point of view that is not sustained in substance drops off.) Who says that the discussion must end then and there? If there is a guideline to that effect, that would be my first example of one that wp can do without.
Putting it differently, I’m disappointed in how much we overlook the words of WP:DEMO: polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. I am also of the opinion that we can’t solve the problems associated with a larger (and more diverse) community by defining down the concept of consensus. Instead, we must raise the profile of discussion. -- Iterator12nTalk 03:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (Note that in this short essay, I raised a couple of rhetorical questions. This time, I was mart enough to answer the questions myself. Smile.)
Well, I didn't want to get into it because it would get off-topic quickly.
The thing is, while discussion can be an effective method for communication and decision-making, it breaks down in communities with larger populations, like the English Wikipedia of today. There are indeed principles that are generally considered set in stone, true, but what do we do in cases like bureaucratship requests? Any candidate, regardless of how well-behaved he or she has been with the admin tools (because let's face it, they're a de facto requirement for adminship), he will have managed to upset someone. Sometimes, the upset user is legitimately upset, and sometimes the user is just holding a needless grudge, but in both cases, unless the opposition to the user's candidacy is blatantly based on the desire to cause drama, it is not discounted. So, by the prevalent rules, you have a situation in which that voice will match the strength of ten others. (And, let's face it, unless it is blatantly obviously in bad faith, bureaucrats have the desire to not cause more drama, and they usually judge towards counting the opposing !vote. That's, in my eyes, an acceptable call.)
But that behavior extends to everywhere else in Wikipedia. Often, there are two possible methods of solving a problem, and most of the community agrees that one of them is better; however, there is always a smaller group that believes that their proposal is better. However, trying to attain unanimity will only leave the problem unsolved, because we've become too large to agree how to solve it, even if we all agree that it has to be solved.
So, we've gotten to the point where we need to decide how small is too small a minority. It is always an ugly decision to make, but since we live in an imperfect, non-isentropic world, we need to make it. A one-in-ten ratio, like the one we have right now for RFB, is inadequate for Wikipedia's growth rate, and will lead us into stagnation and paralysis. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposal response break 3
Support, 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)
Support 85% I am all for baby steps. Lets see how a little change mixes it up. GtstrickyTalk or C 02:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Temporary Abstention While it is completely inappropriate for me to offer my ideas here as I am currently undergoing the self-inflicted vivisection we all euphemistically refer to as RfB, I will say that as a statistician (well actuary ), the asymptotic behavior of for fixed is one that bears remembering. -- Avi (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the latter is not an asymptote, is it? . My point was the former, , how given a fixed "k" opposes, the number "x" of supports affects the ratio of support asymptotically, even if the ratio of x to k goes to infinity. Or, in other words Which is something to consider with how we currently view all of these processes, in my opinion.-- Avi (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Support 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)
Support 85% -- I'm uncomfortable with anything less. --A. B.(talk) 03:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Support 80-85 - I also think 75% is too low but would agree with a minor relaxation of standards. — xDanielxT/C\R 10:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - 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)
Support - 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)
Oppose - 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)
Meta-comment. There have been 52 votes cast opinions expressed here starting with Avruch down through Until (1 == 2). Of the 52, 11 are opposed to any change, and 41 are supporting a change (with of course a range of 75-85% or no percentage given. That's a 78% support. So, my question is, what percentage does this consensus need to be looked at seriouisly by the existing 'crats to merit any change? 75 like RFA? 80-85? 90 like the current crat system? Let's !vote on that too! If you believe that consensuses about consensuses should be at 75%-85%, vote support, otherwise oppose. After this quick tally, we'll can have a consensus about whether the consensus about the consensus should have a 75% or higher mark. Of course, that would then merit a serious discussion about whether the consensus to have consensus about consensus's consensus shouldn't be lowered. Or raised. I've lost myself. Or, here's a simpler thought, how 'bout we just let the 'crats use the discretion that they have, and have been given, by this community to decide if someone else would use/have the same discretion and thereby promote to 'crat? (and yes, the world I live in is exactly that simple and filled with exactly that much idealism) :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. 90% is pretty high. --Kbdank71 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Support: 90% is too high. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
support 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)
That's probably the smartest set of ideas. Interesting thinking. Kingturtle (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support 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)
Support - An 80% guideline, in line with stweardship, 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. --YbborTalk 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Oppose 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)
Oppose 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)
Strong Support A new level of 80%. That would be just fine with me. Jmlk17 22:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. 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)
Support 80+%". · AndonicOHail! 10:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Support 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)
Support 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)
Ok, doing an informal count I get:
27 for 80%+
16 for 90%+
14 for 75%+
9 for 85%+
1 for 83.33%+
For what its worth, that averages to 82%+.
So it is clear, 90% is too high. Now we've got to narrow it down. 17:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I will chime in with numbers after my RfB is removed (unless 22 opposes suddenly decide to switch to support, or 115 new supporters flock in, it's pretty much a forgone conclusion). -- Avi (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a good average. 41 want it lower, 26 want it higher. ~82 seems fine. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 17:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
But only 76% want any change at all (51 supports, 16 opposes, if you will). What percentage does this apparent "consensus" need to change consensus about RfB consensus? And yes, I mean that. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Support lowering to 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)
Support 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)
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)
Support lowering to 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)
OOPS. 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)
Proposal response break 4
Support lowering to 80% 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.
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?
Requiring a fixed amount of supports over opposes in conjunction with a minimum passing threshold basically breaks the distribution into two parts:
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.
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.
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'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)
Very strong support. 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.) BellwetherBC 00:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Even having looked at the ratio/graphs, which are impressive in showing how nearly impossible it is to be promoted at 90% bar, I still end up wondering if one point has been made concretely. Perhaps it is thought of as simply a given, yet to me it requires that we lower the bar. Anyone who has been here long enough, that has been an admin long enough, in order to develop the history by which people can judge them worthy of trust, haven't they almost by definition also have developed enough opposition to sink them? That is, if they have been active, they likely have been inadvertently making enemies solid opposes. For any given duration of time as admin, one will make some number of unhappy people. It is almost as though the bar ought to be lowered with a particular activity level or length of service. Put another way, to reassure those worrying at lowering the bar, given a reasonable amount of time as admin, any truly undeserving candidate won't be able to even rise to the 50% level!Shenme (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Support 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 %. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
comment - It has become difficult to tell how much support there is for various solutions. I have copied this discussion into Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar and laid the comments out under different categories such as 90%, 85%, 80%, 75%. It gives the eye an easier view. If I made any errors, please correct them. Kingturtle (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus
This is something I've always failed to understand. If RfA and RfB are judged by consensus and not voting, why do we have expected percentages and why are they different? To me, this looks completely contradictory. Consensus is consensus - we shouldn't have different "levels" of consensus depending on what we're commenting on. I'm sorry, but people can't start talking about this process being consensus and then have two different levels with which they expect candidates to be promoted with. With respect to RfB - people make the standards higher when commenting anyway, so I fail to understand how we need more support as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
RFA/B is a vote plus a discussion. By any practical standard it is silly to think of these as "consensus" driven exercises at all. While a person's reasoning may sway other people's opinion, it has long been true that votes (not logic) control the outcome. The world of RFA would be so much clearer and easier to understand if people would simply stop looking at this dog of a process and calling it a cat. Dragons flight (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the point Avruch was attempting to make in beginning this conversation and I completely agree with it. As such, I support the 75-80 model and am now going to say so above. SorryGuy Talk 03:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Consensus, in practice, is when two or more parties who disagree actively attempt to resolve their differences through some rhetoric means. Otherwise, there's deadlock. (Consensus also has an alternate definition on Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus.) When consensus doesn't work, people usually turn to polling (or may turn to it earlier than that, when impatient). Apparently this is the case here, because a person who votes on RFA doesn't usually talk about agreeing on forging an agreement with opponents about whether the candidate should be an admin or not. It's a binary decision; there's no middle ground. It's very opinionated. There's no way to resolve this fundamental issue with the current structure of RFA. And the way that people are, probably no way to resolve it, period, for a social process like this. See Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers. GracenotesT§ 03:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we take 'cratship more seriously, so we require there to be clear consensus in RfB, and the higher numbers are kind of a rule of thumb for that. delldottalk 03:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't really agree that it's clearer consensus - it's just a higher number. Given that candidates are subjected to higher standards anyway, it makes the situation even worse. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It's clearly absurd though to have different percentages for RfA/B. As I think someone said earlier, there's a different question being !voted on in each case, but the criteria for consensus ought to be the same. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What's clearly absurd is to suggest that there can't be stronger consensus about one issue than another, or even that certain actions shouldn't require stronger consensus. If someone couldn't see, for example, that there was a stronger consensus that Newyorkbrad would be a good arbitrator, than there was for the other candidates, then that someone would have, in my opinion, very little facility with the English language. Furthermore, I strenuously object to shifting the rules of Requests for Bureaucratship, while several such requests are active, even though it means candidates that I personally support will likely fail. Adjusting a process while it is happening is a very bad precedent to set. --JayHenry (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Your language seems to suggest that you don't fully understand the meaning of the word consensus. What does a "stronger" consensus mean? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Words, dear Malleus, are wonderfully complex things with shades and nuance -- denotation and connotation -- this is why dictionaries list multiple definitions for words. Or indeed, why we even have dictionaries and usage notes and language panels in the first place. Obviously, but of course you already know this, stronger consensus or clearer consensus, is when more people agree and less people disagree. --JayHenry (t) 05:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest that it's always better to have at least some understanding of the meaning of the words that you intend to abuse dear JayHenry. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If you'd prefer semantic games to discussion, I'm willing to play such games as you'll quickly find that I'm rather good at them. It's obvious in the Wikipedia context that "consensus" does not mean majority. Because nobody has even mentioned "higher than 50 percent" in the discussion above us. So if not majority, and if not "any arbitrary threshold" then it's clear that consensus means something different than something rigid, inflexible, and legalistic. There seems to be a page called WP:CONSENSUS that I see mentioned frequently on Wikipedia. And when people say consensus it seems to be a distillation of the thoughts in that page, such as "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved." Well, that would rather quickly lead one to the conclusion that stronger consensus -- or clearer -- would mean that more people agree. I don't think I've said anything particularly surprising, nor can I see where any words have been abused. --JayHenry (t) 05:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There is always at least a few RfA's in process. Does that mean we could never change the rules about RfA? What if there are RfB's active for the next two weeks? Community attention is on this problem now, not six months from now. Making the change is the province of the community - implementing it appropriately is the province of the 'crats. Avruch T 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think what they'd do would be implement it for any that started after the decision would be made. нмŵוτнτ 04:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If you adjust the process now then people -- because they are human -- will judge the effects of the change based off how it affects the people currently running for 'cratship. It's impossible for humans not to give greater weight to the tangible than the hypothetical. But people make better decisions when they're not mired in the pressure of the here-and-now. As for changes in RFA, I believe that in general, such discussions take a very long time and the people running at the start of the process will not be affected by a conclusion months later. For RFA, there are frequent periods when it's running uncontroversially. These are, indeed, the best time to make amendments. Adjusting the guidelines during a particular controversial RFA is, indeed, a recipe for disaster.--JayHenry (t) 04:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good point, it's better if we keep the running RfB's and the changes to the process separate to keep from throwing a monkeywrench in either. And in the case of RfB we do have the luxury of periods where there are no RfB's, something that would be hard to get in RfA, as Avruch points out. delldottalk 05:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There is rarely much if any discussion on RfAs or RfBs, there is just a series of monologues, there is no dialogue. Discussion requires two (or more) people talking to each other and responding to each other's points. There has been a suggestion made (multiple times) before of having a few days of pure discussion before anyone can vote - perhaps we should introduce that for RfBs (and later RfAs if it goes well). We can then have a pure vote and not take reasons into account - how good your reason is will be accounted for by how many people you persuade to your view during the discussion. (Ideally, we would actually reach a genuine consensus and there would be no need for a vote, but that's pretty unlikely in most cases.) --Tango (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "consensus" is the right word to describe what is being looked for at the moment in promoting bureaucrats - we could add an adjective like "strong" before consensus but I'm not sure that would be pretty meaningful. It has been clear that the English Wikipedia community expects bureaucrat candidates to have significantly more support than candidates for adminship. Looking at it numerically. Of RfBs closed as successful, six have been closed as successful with less than 90% support.
Andrevan at 87% - some heated discussion resulted at WP:BN.
Essjay at 89% - Danny's promotion of Essjay was heavily criticised, especially by Cecropia
Grunt at 75% - Ugen64's promotion of Grunt was reverted by Angela. Ugen64 resigned as a bureaucrat soon after.
Warofdreams at 88% - Angela's promotion of Warofdreams does not appear to have been controversial
Cimon Avaro - 79% - Ed Poor's promotion of Cimon does not appear to have been controversial
Ed Poor - 88% - Angela's promotion of Ed does not appear to have been controversial
I think the Grunt decision (discussion of which can be found in one of this page's archives) shows the point at which opinion solidified that bureaucrats noms require more support than admin ones - note however that the poll in the archives doesn't show an agreement that the standard should be 90% (nor does this later poll). It is hard to point definitively to when 90% became seen as the marker that had to be reached, but I think one must acknowledge that this happened at some point. Instead of consensus, the language that has been used and I think best reflects the approach today is that RfBs require "no significant opposition". That is a high bar, hard (but not impossible) for candidates to pass. Its result is obvious, few new bureaucrats are created. Wikipedia nevertheless have more active bureaucrats than any othe project - 12 bureaucrats have used performed crat actions in the last 2 months. The work is however unevenly divided amongst them. The community may of course discuss promotion threshholds for bureaucrats, reach a consensus that those should be lowered and bureaucrats will of course act accordingly. I agree with those who have pointed out that it would be unwise to alter the approach while requests are live as this would create uncertainty in an area where a reasonable certainty of outcomes is desirable. I do not believe a bureaucrat could function if a sizeable proportion felt they had been promoted improperly. No doubt should there be an agreement to lower the bar for successful RfBs, we will be seeing more candidates in the future. WjBscribe 09:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. There appears to be a general agreement about reducing the standards to 80-85% above. Would you agree this is the case? Avruch T 13:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Also interestingly - there was clearly no consensus for 90% expressed in any of those polls or the surrounding discussions (which focused in large part, particularly in the second case, on the idea of polling rather than the subject itself). Avruch T 13:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I assume (I may have missed a crucial discussion) that the figure has resulted from longstanding practice becoming custom, rather than from a discussion which concluded on that approach being optimal. As to the discussion above, I would agree that there is growing agreement that a relaxation of the standards of RfB would be beneficial- especially if one assumes that those looking for 75% would also accept a reduction that was nevertheless higher than that figure. It should be remembered though that this page is frequented by a very specific section of the community and may not reflect wider consensus. I note that those opposing change seem to be some of the rarer participants here. I would suggest advertising the discussion more widely and perhaps creating a particular centralised proposal for change that the community could discuss over the coming weeks. WjBscribe 13:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Its been listed on the CENT template for awhile. What else would you suggest? Avruch T 14:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I wonder if it might be worth developing the above response into a specific proposal people can agree with or disagree with, rather than having multiple responses possible. Another thought occurs to me - one of the matters cited in RfB closes in the past has been the level of opposition (not just %s). No admin has been given bureaucrat status in the past with the opposition of more than 16 users. I wonder whether people think this is a user right which should not be given if more than a certain number of users in good standing raise good faith concerns? WjBscribe 19:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason I stayed away from a specific proposal is that any specific number (75%, 80%, 85%) are going to get specific opposes - when what I was looking for was general support for the idea that 90% was too high. We seem to have achieved a consensus on the fact that 90% is too high, and most people are asking for 80% or 85% - I'm not sure which has more support. Based on the results of this proposal, I could see another one asking for people to decide between 80% and 85%... But I'd rather have it be said that "90% is not the limit (and by the same token, 16 opposes is not the maximum) and bureaucrats should feel free to promote at lower numbers based on the consensus demonstrated here." Avruch T 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
$.02. I think that the number is irrelevant if it is balanced against a proportionally larger number of supports, for example Riana. Percentages are hard enough to interpret for close calls, and 16 opposers can easily "pile on" from a single event/guffaw/lapse/edit in a candidates history. Wouldn't seem fair to expect perfection where perfection can't exist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I would caution that people often display an inherent heightened standard when opining on RfB's as opposed to RfA's (case in point?) and that would need to be factored in as well, but I am loathe to comment further until after my own RfB closes for propriety's sake. -- Avi (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, with Avi. Avruch T 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Keeper that when there is a significant number of voters, percentages make much more sense than absolute number of opposes. Taking Riana's case as an example again, allowing only 16 opposers would mean of there were 230 supports and 17 opposes, the ratio of supports to opposes would be 13.5 to 1 and it would still fail? Insanity.
Also (and I don't feel so strongly about this one), if it isn't too late, I'd like to voice my disagreement that the "new" criteria should wait until all current RFB's are done. The current consensus of the community is the current consensus of the community; and whatever current consensus is, that's what we should use to determine a current RFB. This isn't like an ex post facto law, which goes against common ideas of fairness. No one is going to be unfairly "punished". --barneca (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this is repeating something already said above (it's a big page), but out of curiousity I just looked, and no RfB candidate has ever not been promoted if they had more than 85.4% (sorry for the ridiculous precision, but my point is that Quadell's, in Jan 2006, failed to do so at 85.3%). In other words, all candidates who have ever reached 85.4% support or higher in an RfB have been promoted. So, when considering whether to use "new" or "old" definitons of consensus, they aren't quite as far apart as going from 90% to 80-85% would suggest. A case could be made that using a (roughly) 85-86% cutoff already had community backing before any of the current candidates signed up. --barneca (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Barneca, as pointed out above, percentages have a built-in limitation when the number of respondents increases, in that they asymptotically go to one. I think the Support-to-Oppose ratio is a better metric, in that it remains linear regardless of the volume of respondents. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Question to Avruch, you say above that "we seem to have a consensus" to lower the Bcat standard to somewhere in the 80% range. According to my math, about 78% of "!voters" in your straw poll agree that the 90% is too high (with varying degrees of lowering), meaning around 22% say leave it alone. My meta question: What percentage does your poll need to be consdiered consensus? 75%? 80? 90? Do we need to !vote on that too? You see where I'm going with this? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I do see where you're going, and I would say... That way lies chaos. I don't think consensus is usually determined around the 'wiki based on percentages, not really outside of RfX... I would say the general opinion and weight of the arguments above is that it is too high. But if you want to stick on percentages, I'd say 75% for this proposal works for me :-P Still, any RfX related consensus is determined by the 'crats, and not the person who drafted the proposal. Above somewhere WjB agreed that consensus is headed towards < 90%. (Couple oppose votes added since then, of course). Avruch T 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ratios vs. percentages
For As Barneca and for others that believe percentages are a better metric for larger-response nominations (of either RfA or RfB) the following table shows a basic comparison and the asymptotic behavior in action.
Yikes. I see your point. So, all that beautiful charty-ness aside, what would you like to see as the appropriate ratio for passing an RfB? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: "for Barneca"; Avi, I think I made that point myself a few days ago, way up the page. Although I didn't use your precision, or go nearly as far. --barneca (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case, please read "in support of Barneca" -- Avi (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have prefered "Barneca is correct, as always", but I'll settle for that :) --barneca (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Keeper, my personal belief, which is based on current on-going experience, is that the standards for RfB are inherently higher than those for RfA, so the same ratio means more. How much more is a question. Choosing a larger ratio together with the higher standards will perforce have a synergistic effect. On the other hand passing an RfB should be more demanding than an RfA. Once my RfB finishes, I'll be able to try and put my opinions down more clearly. -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'll just hafta be patient then....Arg. I'm no good at patience. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Bad timing
Am I the only one who thinks it's troublesome to change standards in the middle of multiple RFBs? If there is any consensus to change, it's overshadowed by the political implications of such a change. If I support Candidate A, who looks like they're going to hit 83% or so, of course I'd love to move the consensus to 80%. Of course, WP:AGF applies, but I'm worried more about a subconscious thought process -- "80%? Hey, Candidate A would pass if we changed consensus!" I'm not opposed to discussing what counts as consensus, but doing so at this time raises serious concerns about the motivations, intentional or unintentional, of those forming "consensus". Ral315 (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Upon re-reading the above comments, it appears Rx StrangeLove and Gracenotes mentioned this. So, can anyone explain why they think the standards should be changed now? Ral315 (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite the contrary -- it's been a while since we had any significant number of RfBs up. It's only natural to think of the standards as more or less academic while there's no one up under them. But now that there are a bunch all at once, they get attention called to them. Please remember to assume good faith. - Revolving Bugbear 11:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No need for there to be any conflict in this at all in fact: Discuss whatever procedure you want, use the old procedure while still discussing, use old procedures for things started during discussion, use new procedure when discussion concludes. I'd think that was common sense actually! Does anyone significantly disagree? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I mentioned. It doesn't affect these if we start after these. Clearly we won't change anything that's already begun. нмŵוτнτ 15:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
:-)
While we're at it, could we discuss other criteria for eligibility. For instance, how about making admins or bureaucrats do an exam instead? At the very least an admin bit is very much like a drivers license as it stands anyway, so why not use a similar procedure? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ral. It's an extremely bad idea to have this discussion now. And really, I can tell the proposal is driven by egalitarian instincts, but it's based off a very faulty premise. Requiring a very clear consensus for bureaucrats means that we have a pool of bureaucrats to which there is very little objection, and which can handle the workload. What is the benefit of adding bureaucrats that are not as trusted? --JayHenry (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're looking for an answer one has already been provided: when there's not 5 active RFBs. --JayHenry (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a better question is why? No one has pointed out any problems this is meant to solve. Just saying that standards are too high doesn't identify any problems that causes. On the other hand, agree or disagree, several potential problems with lowering them have been put forth. RxS (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that we have very few bureaucrats and relatively few admins. Also the current crop aren't frankly *that* fantastic (with apologies to those who still are, but are cowering in the corner where I can't see them :-P) . I don't think the criteria for bureaucratship (and adminship btw) set the bar either too high or too low. This doesn't necessarily mean the criteria are just right though! It could just as easily mean they are abject bullshit. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) or possibly "bearshit", in this case ;-)
I really can't see how doing it now rather than when there is no RfB going is an "extremely bad idea." The 90% cut off is not necessarily set in stone, although practically all RfB candidates have had to show respect for it, and I think we can trust the crats we've got to apply the correct criteria. I've only had limited interaction with a couple of the candidates, so proposing this is not in any way an attempt to make it easier for them to be successful. If you are opposed to changing the rule, fine - I don't think it necessarily follows that discussing changing it must also be bad. As for your "very little objection" argument... I'm not sure I agree. Any time a 'crat makes a remotely controversial close, there is an outcry that reaches the heavens regardless of who did it. Avruch T 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, a point no one has acknowledged - the presence of a number of RfB's means that the attention to this proposal is much higher than it might otherwise be, so that any resulting change can be said to have a more meaningful consensus. Avruch T 16:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying that the people who presently have the +crat flag had "very little objection" to their having become bureaucrats. Not that they don't have objection to some of their decisions. Right now we have a situation where trusted people sometimes make controversial decisions and there is an outcry. But the outcry when "controversial bureaucrats" (which presently and blessedly we do not have) make controversial decisions it is going to be even worse. WP:AN is a constant bloodbath. WP:BN is not. By having the discussion now, yes, you draw the attention of a biased sample (in the statistical sense, not pejorative) of people who are focused on the current candidates, and not looking at the long term. --JayHenry (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Are the bad timing concerns addressed if we use Kim Bruning's suggestion to apply old standards for anything that was started while the discussion was ongoing? Can we agree to do that? delldottalk 19:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That's perfectly fine with me. The problem was that it seemed as if the original proposal was aimed at changing them immediately, and that's something I can't support. Ral315 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem entirely sensible to potentially have one or more of the current RfBs fail, yet be over any new threshold that might be agreed, requiring them to be run again with all the time-wasting that would entail. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps my writing was unclear, but I intended to leave it open to either outcome. There is nothing about this proposal that makes its outcome especially binding - more than anything, the votes are advice directed towards the 'crats. I wouldn't want to require or preclude a promotion at less than 90% by making the proposal more explicit in terms of the timing of its effect. Avruch T 22:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh?
I'm just slightly confused. I thought RFA/B "percentages" were rough guidelines, not set in stone (At least, that's what Will said when he closed my recent RFA). If that's the case, we're essentially tabling a proposal to change a rough guideline? ^demon[omg plz]15:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
They are I think. I did an unscientific, math challenged scan of the successful RFB's and it looks like the effective range for promotion is a little north of 85%. But I don't think there's a hard cut off...which is fine, a discretionary range is a good thing. RxS (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet people are opposing the current RfBs because a candidate isn't able to name the correct "rouge guidelines". dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
People are opposing the current RfB's for many reasons . -- Avi (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, obviously. If I recally correctly you seem to have coppped the least of the "#Oppose - Can't count good. ~~~~" dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
To note, I have the least supports as well . Maybe it's just my scintillating personality :D -- Avi (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well none of the other sections of this page seem to apply, so I'll just drop my idea in here. IMo we say RFA guidlines are rough because there are so many different profiles that define a good administrator. Some are great editors and write tons of FAs. Others are vandal-fighter extraordinaire. Still others are formatting and coding wizards who do wikignome work. And some are meta-style experts with things like DR and XFD. On the other hand, the profile of a good crat candidate is rather smaller: be a great admin. I'm wondering if we couldn't codify application requirements for nominating oneself or another person to RfB. If there were strict rules, it might be possible to lower % requirements, since there is an inherent quality control feature in the rules. Some rules I've toyed around with, based on my own ideas and things I've seen in all these RfBs are
Must have been an active admin for the last 12 months
Must not have been the subject of a user conduct RFC
Must not have been subject to an adverse ARBCOM ruling or community sanction
Must have no valid blocks in log during last 24 months
Must have performed Q number of Blocks, Z number of XFD closes, M number of page protects, and and reviewed R number of RfR requests.
Ernestly participated in B number of AfDs and A number of RfAs (ernestly defined as within first 3 days, hence no snow piles, and with more than a Support)
Must not have been subject to a WQA in the last 6 months
Must have participated in some form of DR (MEDCAB, MEDCOM, Clerking, 30, Mentoring, ARBCOM, etc)
Must have performed L number of mainspace edits and P number of vandal reverts
I know these are just my personal opinion, but I'd wonder who meeting the above wouldn't be considered a good candidate for crat? MBisanztalk 02:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Objection
Somebody before me must have objected to the computation of percentages on the basis of the sum of supports and opposes - instead of on the basis of the sum of supports, opposes and neutrals. Neutrals do matter. To take an arbitrary example, right now the Epbr candidacy shows a support of 72%. However, among all people who cared enough to let us know, only 68% (67 out of 98) supported the candidacy. We don't want to write off the neutrals. -- Iterator12nTalk 23:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That would basically make neutral the same as oppose. Mr.Z-man 23:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that neutral votes are computed in the final percentage: such a vote is essentially a "I have no vote either way" comment, rather than a "I am half-supporting, half-opposing". AGK (contact) 23:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Neutral is "no vote". It would be better renamed as "Abstain" or simply "Comments". Majorly (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If the 'crats are doing their job right, they factor in 'leaning towards support/oppose' and the strength of the supports and opposes as well as the the soundness of the rationales (at least WjB did in the ^demon RfA). It was shown on that occasion that it isn't quite the numbers game that everyone had assumed it had become. EJF (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what EJF has written. In fact, if one looked at it another way, one could argue that the Oppose and Neutral comments taken together indicate a positive decision not to Support. Similarly, the Support" and Neutral comments taken together indicate a positive decision not to Oppose. If one wanted to complete this, the Support and Oppose comments, taken together indicate a definite decision one way or the other. It is useful to look at these three interpretations together, as doing so acts so as to dissuade one from adopting a numerically convenient, yet glib and over-simplified view which just looks at the relative frequencies of the number of Support and Oppose comments. The more complicated and numerically less easy way of looking at the results is what experienced people in other areas who gauge people's opinions do if they want to do the job well. I'm surprised that this hasn't been discussed or is apparently not well-known here. DDStretch (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That is my interpretation of neutral - "half support, half oppose". If the neutral votes were factored in (in this formula, exactly as the NFL factors ties into a team winning percentage), shoeofdeath's percentage would fall from 77$ to 73%, and Jouster's would actually go UP to 39% (rounded up from 38 1/2) from 37%, so neutrals DO indeed matter. ArcAngel (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've also found it strange that neutral !votes appear to be ignored. Like you I believe that they certainly ought to matter, and to be taken into account. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Let us take the situation where 60 support opinions were given, 30 oppose opinions, and 50 neutral opinions. Would anyone want to discard the neutral opinions in such a situation? If so, then I would admire their consistency, but would wonder whether it was a foolish consistency. If not, then one has a different set of wrangles to answer in wondering why one should not accept them in some situations, and yet not this one. More to the point, at which point might one move from factoring the neutrals into account (on the one hand), and not factoring them in (on the other). There is much written in academic research dealing with voting procedures and voting paradoxes which are certainly relevant here, and I think it would pay to inform oneself about it (I haven't read about it for some time, so my knowledge has been worn down by the ravages of memory loss.) DDStretch (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Where there is voting in professional societies (that I know of) on technical matters, the common practice appears to be to include the neutrals in the total population. On the other hand, abstains are excluded. Majorly's suggestion of renaming the cat is a good one, but raises the problem that on present evidence most abstainers will not be stopped from taking positions far removed from abstainment. Thanks for the responses. -- Iterator12nTalk 00:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
In true consensus situations, neutral positions are synced with support positions. The only thing that stops a true consensus are negative positions. Put your closed fist in if you can live with the decision; put one finger out if you cannot support the decision. If there is opposition, you work out the problems and see if you get all closed fists and no fingers. That's an example of true consensus.
Mind you, we're definitely not using true consensus here. Kingturtle (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we shift RFA back closer towards that model please? Somehow AFD now works better than RFA. It's amazing :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
We would end up with very few admins if we required true consensus for promotion. Consensus decision making doesn't scale to large groups, and Wikipedia is very large these days. --Tango (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The wiki model divides the large group into small teams of 10-30 people. RFA was essentially designed before we fully understood why wikipedia worked. Perhaps a fundamental redesign is in order? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're absolutely right. Generally things work because only a small number of people are involved. Anything which requires a large group to be involved falls apart (RfA and major policy changes spring to mind). A fundamental redesign would be good, but what would it be based on? Pure democracy? Representative democracy? Dictatorship by cabal? --Tango (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Before starting to do that, a little more exploration of what happens and what perhaps should happen in the present set-up might be an idea. In one respect, the discussions above do not acknowledge enough the importance of the weighting of opinions people express by the closing admin. This does seem to be important, as understanding it explains the decisions reached in cases where the closing admin. did not appear to adhere closely to a simple numerically-based decision which could have been carried out by an automated system.
Some concerns or features of a candidate's behaviour may carry more weight (in favour or against) than other features. Similarly, simple support (or oppose or neutral) opinions, with no explanation may well tend to carry less weight than carefully argued and described reasons why a particular opinion was reached. These last two features will combine together in certain ways as well. All this is well-known in the area of Multi-Attribute Decision Making (This isn't dealt with directly in a wikipedia article, but it can be partially understood by looking at some parts of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.) In one recent RfA, the oppose opinions were extensively challenged, and responded to, whilst the support opinions were not challenged so often and, even if challenged, were not justified so often. This may well have had the tendency of increasing the weight given to the oppose opinions, which was probably not what the challengers wanted, but the explanation of why a particular opinion was expressed seems exactly what the advice given in the RfA suggests should happen ("Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence." in WP:RfA.)
It is only by understanding what is required in admins: what the desirable characteristics of successful candidates should be, and what characteristics should not be seen in successful candidates, that some clarifications of the procedures that need to be used to select them can be made. I have not covered all aspects in what I have said above, but given some indication of an example one that might be important to consider. DDStretch (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Re Tango: When I've designed systems, I've always tried to hitch-hike on the "dividing into small groups" effect that the wiki already gives us for free. Why re-invent the wheel wiki? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Because RfA is no longer a small-group discussion. The smallest completed discussion in 2008 had 27 opinions, and was part of a batch which had low turnout; the largest completed discussion had 155. (Elonka's RfA in December had 242 opinions.) Argyriou(talk) 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I very much dislike the idea of making a neutral as "half-support, half-oppose." In this case, a neutral simply moves the the percentage closer to 50%. That is, if the RfA currently has a 50%+ percentage, it lowers it, and if it's less than 50%, raises it. I question what good this could possibly do. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the neutral merely being interpreted as "half support, half oppose" would be a mistake. The suggestion I made above in my last-but-one message should not be interpreted in that way, as it would merely be another numerically (or perhaps better arithmetically) easy way of apparently simplifying a rather more complex situation than is realised at the expense of forcing a uniform interpretation and equal weighting of all expressed opinions where such an interpretation is not advisable, and, in fact, doesn't correspond to what sensible closing admins do anyway. This entire issue really has been explored within the relevant academic literature, and various means of solving the problem, depending on what one wishes to achieve, have been proposed. That is why I suggested that before diving into implementing another arithmetically convenient solution, some attention needs to be given to what the requirements are for assisting a closing admin do the job well in the context of what qualities are needed to be seen and not seen in suitable candidates. DDStretch (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion re "neutral" !votes
Perhaps, instead of diregarding neutral !votes, or counting them as either a support or an oppose, we could count them as half of each? For example, if there are (after adjusting for unqualified or trollish opinions) 30 support, 10 neutral, and 10 oppose. If "neutral" is counted as opposition, the candidate has only 60% support, and the RfA fails, even though 4 in 5 did not object to promotion. If neutrals aren't counted at all, the candidate has 75% support, and the RfA succeeds, even though only 3 in 5 supported the candidate. If the neutrals are counted as 50% each, then the percentage is 70%, and it's a borderline case. Argyriou(talk) 00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As pointed out above, mathematically, that causes a reversion to 50% and makes it even harder to pass muster. That may not be helpful. -- Avi (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, it defeats the purpose of a neutral vote, which is essentially a "no opinion" or "abstain"—in fact, I feel a re-titling may be in order, but that's a different matter. AGK (contact) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As AGK says, it would add nothing and just make things harder. I like the neutral column when I want to state a rationale or state an issue that keeps me from going one way or the other. Dlohcierekim 17:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
There are three uses, right now, for the neutral opinion: To register a mixed opinion - something like a 50%/50% !vote, to abstain from !voting while making a comment, and to "park" while bringing up an issue, before ultimately deciding to support or oppose. In theory, the third option should resolve before the end of the !voting, and the second option should be placed in the "general discussion" rather than "neutral". While counting a neutral vote as 50% of a support does tend to pull the percentage towards 50%, that may be the intention of the person !voting neutral. Making it harder for a candidate to pass muster is not a bug nor a feature. If the candidate inspires a great wave of apathy, he shouldn't pass too easily, nor should he be shot down too easily. Argyriou(talk) 18:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Making it 50-50 is automatically making it harder for a candidate to pass (as opposed to being shot down) since every measure of consensus is strictly greater than 50-50. I too prefer the current abstention meaning of the term, and would not be adverse to a re-naming to prevent confusion. -- Avi (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't "tend" to, it invariably does so. When I register a neutral opinion, I don't expect it to change the final tally at all, and most of the neutrals I have seen are similar. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, that is rather a naive view. Many neutral votes seem to be saying that I would like to support, but I can't, for these reasons. In other words somewhat negative. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be agreeable to changing Neutral to Abstain. By defintion, "abstaining" means quite literally that you are not participating. In essence, 99% (or even higher!) of editors "abstain" from voting. By not voting. To be neutral, as Malleus suggests, means that something is holding you back from supporting, and you've actually taken the time to say so in an RfA (something an editor is not required to participate in). "Neutrals", but that definiton, mean hesitation, not abstention. That should, in my opinion, lean harder on the oppose side than the support side. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the best abstention was to be silent as well, and it is the one reason that is basically sinking my RfB. There is a sizable contingent in the community that believes that the silent abstention perforce means apathy or ignorance of the process, or at the very least its subtleties. Therefore, purely for practical reasons, the non-!vote (try THAT for double negatives) needs to remain. Furthermore, if you really wasnt to oppose, then oppose. If you really want to support, then support. We should not be engaged in trying to psychoanalyze all neutral-choosing editors' reasons for doing so. They have the opportunity to oppose or support, if they choose neither, they know a priori that their opinions will not be factored in to the final decision--which makes sense as they did not commit one way or the other. -- Avi (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
But their votes are factored in, in the sense that they affect the other voters who take the trouble to read them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, of course, I meant when determining the community consensus. -- Avi (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I actually take an opposite view on the very same neutrals. Since something is stopping them from supporting, and yet they wanted to support by their own token, I concluded that they didn't want their neutral to count. However, I recognize the validity of your argument as well, and don't have any really strong objection to the half-and-half idea. I just think that continuing the discounting of the neutral section is a good idea. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with keeper, I look at them the same way. If someone can not support, to the point of going neutral, it seems to be a weak oppose. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You should then say anyone cannot oppose, to the point of going neutral, seems to be a weak support. If an editor cannot commit either way, or chooses not to commit either way, that should not be considered as part of the consensus calculation. -- Avi (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, any argument for the half-and-half (which does make RfA more difficult to pass) is that the same argument can be used the other way around, replacing support with oppose and vice versa. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Abolish neutral?
If the consensus view is that neutral votes should not be counted when determining consensus, we should abolish the neutral heading in RfAs (and RfBs). There is already a Discussion section above the support and oppose; if someone has something to say without explicitly joining or opposing the consensus, they can do it there. Argyriou(talk) 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If a change is to be made, which, in principle, I think should, then it should be an adaption to an "abstain" section, rather than support or oppose: that would allow an editor to refrain from taking either side, whilst still weighting a vote, and yet not simply discussing. AGK (contact) 23:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If you abstain, you aren't voting. Majorly (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like a big deal - there is considerable inertia working against changes to the RfA template, for one, and for two the problem doesn't seem to merit such a response. What is wrong with the way it is done now, where the neutrals don't figure into the numerical outcome but can inform other voters and the closing crat with their opinions in a separate section? Avruch T 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The neutral section is a place to voice an opinion, both of support and of concern, that isn't quite strong enough to warrant a !vote in either the Support or Oppose sections. Abolishing it accomplishes nothing, and the Discussion section is traditionally used for discussion about the RfA itself, rather than the candidate. EVula// talk // ☯ // 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I find the neutral section is a very good place to look to see how one can improve. bibliomaniac15I see no changes 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
the Discussion section is traditionally used for discussion about the RfA itself, rather than the candidate. Is that what it was established for? Aside from occasional procedural announcements, it seems to lie fallow. Abolishing "neutral" and forcing people who want to say something but don't want to vote to actually talk about their issues seems to be the better way to go if "neutral" votes are not going to be weighed by the 'crats. Argyriou(talk) 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The Discussion section is also used by the candidate to comment in general rathern in response to individuals. Pedro : Chat 08:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, RfAs hold a dual role: not only do they serve as our means of promoting administrators, but they are also a high-level way of receiving feedback/constructive criticism on their editing (one step up from Editor Reviews). Just because they bureaucrats may ignore the Neutral section doesn't mean that comments there are useless; in this case, bureaucrats (and their needs) don't matter. Even if an RfA passes, a candidate can glean important knowledge about how the community at large feels about them from comments in the Neutral section. EVula// talk // ☯ // 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Just as they can from comments made in the discussion section. In fact, Deacon of Pn-whatever responded to a concern of mine (regarding his handling of a dispute which I'd observed) which I'd left in the discussion of his RfA just a couple of days ago. I think he will take my concern seriously. Really, if we're not going to quantify the neutrals in any way, it's probably better to just let them register their opinions and discuss them; that will hopefully lead to more open discussion rather than seeing a neutral as a voter who needs to be persuaded. Argyriou(talk) 21:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I refer back to my mention of the Discussion section being about the RfA itself, rather than the candidate. I 100% agree that feedback can be gleaned from comments regardless of where exactly they are placed (some of my best feedback from my RfBs has come from the questions themselves, rather than any of the !votes); however, comments in the Neutral section have a bit more weight to them, in my opinion, than a random statement in the Discussion field. The latter is just a comment; the former is a statement specifically about the candidate. EVula// talk // ☯ // 21:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering that many feel already that the RfA functions, in principle, as a duality, both as a means to promote and give constructive criticism on the candidate's abilities/quality of edits - my take on it is this - if you remove the neutral section, you remove a fundamental area of the critique process. It's a manner of organization. Users users will feel less inclined to weigh in on the discussion if they are riding the proverbial fence if the section is ablated. In other words, the users who would normally "vote" neutral will not chime in at all, or rarely. Wisdom89(T / C) 22:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
<outdent, because this isn't a reply to anybody>. What about renaming Neutral to what it really is, which is Hesitation. For whatever reason, an editor has ventured into RfA, has looked at a candidate, and has hesitated. Can't support. Can't oppose. But also, can't abstain. Has to say something. In other words, hesitates. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't renaming it be virtually same thing as calling it neutral? I ask only because if the issue surrounding the neutral section is that it is discounted and serves no purpose for the crats to promote, then calling it hesitation doesn't abolish the problem Wisdom89(T / C) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"Hesitation" has a subtle negative connotation associated with it. "Neutral" is inherently... neutral.EVula// talk // ☯ // 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, WT:RFA enjoys another pointless point of discussion. Leave it as it is; it isn't hurting anybody that I know of. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I second that. Leave it. Wisdom89(T / C) 22:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've tweaked the template to now read abstain, which I hope is something we can sample on future RfAs. If it doesn't work, so be it: but, pointless ping-pong discussion with no action will get us nowhere. I've posted an explanation on Template talk:RfA. AGK (contact) 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>First, I don't see this as pointlesss, but thanks, AD, for your harmless point. Anywho, looking at the last, oh I don't know 50 RfAs though, those that are in the "neutral" column are there for different reasons. True, some are there by guise of "waiting for answers to question that I posed". Some are there because others are there. And true, some are there because they can't make up their mind. Those seem to be the minority though. I would argue, based on reading relevent and recent neutral comments from the last few months, that those that the majority of those that are there are actually opposed to the candidate for some reason, but can't pull the Oppose trigger. Why? I dunno. Either they're too nice or they're too scared to do it, it seems. (Along the lines of "Moral Support") Looking back at recent RfAs, it seems to me that someone in the neutral category isn't actually neutral by sheer definition, because they usually say "why I can't support" rather than "why I can't oppose". Something (in the candidates history or in other prior oppose !votes, usually) has caused a hesitation. Call it what it is (hesitation), or get rid of the subsection altogheter is what I'm saying. Adding comments in the neutral section, as it sits right now, by and large are not neutral and are certainly not abstentions. (abstention means absent, or not present). Most editors, by that definiton, are absent, because they don't participate in Rfa). Someone willing to go so far as hitting Edit this page and casting a neutral vote, seens ti mean they are opposed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand why this is such a problem. It's a single word, the name of a section. It's been there for years now. Who cares? Really? Everyone already known the point of this section, and if you go changing it, it'll cause confusion, because many will think that there is a new function of the section. Plus, all the policies relating to RFA that refer to neutral will have to be changed, and the whole fuss will generally cause a rather large mess, when you think about it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this discussion has cropped up, I may as well comment on it. I, as many have said above, feel this is a quite pointless exercise that will ultimately end in no real change and the whole discussion will have been without no real aim at all. If we were to have an additional section on top of the Support and Oppose sections, I'd propose an "Other comments" section. Which in my view, is already rendered redundant because of the discussion section already in place. If we are to change the template, instead of renaming it we should change the purpose - but not to abstenation. Rudget (?) 10:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I see neutral as a valid and useful position for RfAs, and I see no reason to abolish it. Neutral is very different from Discussion or Comment. These positions and comments are not simply there for a Bureaucrat to use for determining success/failure, but moreover are provided for the candidates to learn specifics about (and make adjustments in the future regarding) how the community considers them, and are provided for editors involved in the discussion to dialog about (and with) the candidates and to assist in making apt decisions. Neutral positions are a helpful part of the RfA process. Kingturtle (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I frequently use the neutral section when I am really between supporting and opposing and can see where both sides are coming from. I think it is helpful for candidates as it allows them to easily see the numbers of users that have taken the middle ground, and why for future efforts at RFA. I think the name is alright even if it is not 100% strictly true, it counts neither way in the percentages, so calling it neutral is arguably appropriate. I think neutral positions are helpful, and don't think getting rid of them is necessary. Camaron | Chris(talk) 15:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Question
Maybe someone answered above already, but I've searched around and I can't find any official policy, or even a guideline describing the percentages the bureaucrats should use when closing an RfA. On WP:Bureaucrats, it says "a consensus", and nothing else. Maybe it did in the past? Anyway, maybe I'm being thick here, but I have the idea that the 90% "consensus" rule doesn't even exist. As shown above by WJBscribe, it's been ignored enough times so why is it still used as though it's a policy? The same also applies to the 75%. Thanks for anyone who can find the answer to this. Majorly (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't. It's as simple as that. And even though the community demonstrated clearly that they were opposed to this high bar, four 'crats "stuck to their 90% guns" and failed Riana's RfB. BellwetherBC 15:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
See [2] for an explanation of how practice drives mandates and so on, Dan puts it better than I ever could. That doesn't things can't change, but it does mean the established practice has a perfectly legitimate role when making decisions like this. Policy is descriptive etc.. RxS (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
. Maybe something to do with the vivisection that occurs? The third hasn't gotten back to me yet. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
. -- Avi (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
. My point was the former, , how given a fixed "k" opposes, the number "x" of supports affects the ratio of support asymptotically, even if the ratio of x to k goes to infinity. Or, in other words Which is something to consider with how we currently view all of these processes, in my opinion.-- Avi (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
. 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 
