Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 22

message: There have been several requests for this position lately, and some discussion as to what the standard for the position should be. Bureaucrats have no other function than to promote editors to housekeeping positions, based on community consensus. The community has made it clear that they feel that bureaucrats must work to determine consensus when there is a contentious nomination.
The standard for promotion to admin has generally been that below 75% does not promote, above 80% promotes, and anything in between takes some work and discretion. Still, a Bureaucrat is expected to consider other factors, such as sockpuppetry and bogus justifications.
Question: should the standard for promotion to bureaucrat be different than for sysop, based on the added responsibility or other factors?
=== Tally ===
#               	Description                                                                      	%               	Votes
1               	Bureaucrats should have the same requirement as admins for promotion (status quo)	~75-80%         	7
2               	Bureaucrats should have a standard five percent higher                           	~80-85%         	9
3               	Bureaucrats should have a standard ten percent higher                            	~85-90%         	5
4               	Bureaucrats should have a standard fifteen percent higher                        	~90-95%         	6
5               	A different standard should be applied (what?)                                   	           	8
6               	Other opinions                                                                   	           	1
2–4       	Those in favor of some amount of increased vote percentage                       	~80-95%         	20
2–5       	Above plus the "different standard" voters, who want greater restrictions        	           	28
Total votes cast	Total votes cast                                                                 	Total votes cast	36
:Note: This tally may be slightly out-of-date. Do not feel that you have to update this tally when you add or change your vote.
=== Votes ===
==== Option 1 (~75-80%) ====
Bureaucrats should have the same requirement as admins for promotion (status quo).
# Enough people keep an eye on this page that we can keep it sane. Perhaps require sponsorship of at least 2 existing bureaucrats, if anything. --Improv 17:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard for Promotion to Bureaucrat 

message: ==== Option 1 (~75-80%) ====
Bureaucrats should have the same requirement as admins for promotion (status quo).
# Enough people keep an eye on this page that we can keep it sane. Perhaps require sponsorship of at least 2 existing bureaucrats, if anything. --Improv 17:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes 

message: Bureaucrats should have the same requirement as admins for promotion (status quo).
# Enough people keep an eye on this page that we can keep it sane. Perhaps require sponsorship of at least 2 existing bureaucrats, if anything. --Improv 17:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 1 (~75-80%) 

message: Bureaucrats should have a standard five percent higher.
# Bureaucrats only have one (albeit an important one) additional responsibility.  A standard just a little higher should suffice.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:32, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
#Acegikmo1 18:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 2 (~80-85%) 

message: Bureaucrats should have a standard ten percent higher.
# — Kate Turner | Talk 17:13, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
# No position is as bound to policies and community consensus as the bureaucrat's. It is almost purely administrative. That makes it especially important that bureaucrats are excellent readers of what the community wants, and that he/she has an excellent grasp of the policies in place. I think each individual should vote without requiring _too_ much from the candidate, but that any dissenting voices should weigh very heavy. — David Remahl 17:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 3 (~85-90%) 

message: Bureaucrats should have a standard fifteen percent higher.
# Netoholic @ 17:25, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC) -- This level is supported by past bureaucrat votes. It's a hefty level, but I think that a strong show of community backing is necessary to avoid conflicts after a contentious admin vote.
#Gzornenplatz 18:32, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
#—Lowellian (talk) 21:36, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
#we need far fewer bureaucrats than sysops, and the responsibility is higher.  so it seems obvious to me that the standard of community support ought to be higher.  i'd say 90%, with some discretion allwed at discounting known troll votes. Wolfman 14:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 4 (~90-95%) 

message: A different standard should be applied, but the criteria for bureaucratship should be stricter than adminship. Please explain your reasoning and your alternate proposal here, or do so elsewhere and provide a reference to it here.
# uc 21:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 5: different standard 

message: #As I proposed on T:RfA, subjecting bureaucrats to periodic review might help avert a lot of controversy.  (I'm not sure if this really answers the poll question.) VeryVerily 11:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 6: other 

message: * I'd also like to see some sort of minimum participation times, like 9 months on the project and 3 months as an admin, before a nomination can occur.  Perhaps this doesn't need to be explicitly stated as a rule, but should be considered a major contributing factor (much like total edits is a factor for admin promotion).
* I don't like the term 'promotion' - there is no seniority between general users, admins or bureaucrats. It's just that they are volunteering for extra tasks. Mark Richards 17:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: In light of the vote above indicating that most people expect a higher standard for bureaucrats than for sysops, I strongly protest against the promotion of Grunt with a bare 75% of votes. Gzornenplatz 21:15, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
I have formally asked Grunt Ugen64 to ask Angela to reverse his action. He is ignoring consensus. I said I did not want to act on this because of the appearance of bias, yet he made only his fourth promotion ever as a bureaucrat on an issue in which he had expressed a bias. His last promotion was six months ago. If anything I think this illustrates the importance of being more careful in bureaucrat promotion. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grunt 

message: I have removed Grunt's nomination for bureaucrat. The final vote at the extended end time (and at the time of removal) was (31/11/3) or 73.81%. As is usual, this does not count the neutrals, which also expressed doubt, but they needn't be considered for consensus.
It is well known that I ended up opposing Grunt's bid and have waited three hours beyond the end time to see if any other admin was inclined to act. I have no problem doing the removal, since the nomination clearly failed by even our most liberal policy (75%-80%). For the record, of 24 votes in the current advisory poll on bureaucrat promotion, 20 editors (83%+) feel a bureaucrat should achieve 80%-85% approval, and a significant minority (11 or 45%+) would look for an even more restrictive standard, so I believe a bare minimum of 80% is what we will be looking for in the future. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grunt's Bureaucrat Nomination 

message: Requests for adminship recent updates
;15 Oct 2004
:Candidacy notice: Self nomination of Skyler1534 withdrawn by candidate.
;14 Oct 2004
:Please examine and consider voting and/or commenting on UninvitedCompany's request for bureaucrat status, along with 172's. Bureaucratship is an important responsibility and deserves more attention than these nominations have received.
;11 Oct 2004
:Please consider and vote in the advisory poll concerning Standard for Promotion to Bureaucrat.
I removed the side bar on the right from the main RFA page, as it violates the KISS principle. We don't need or want a permanent "RFA goings-on" sidebar. Having another place to update creates unnecessary work for future nominators and maintainers. Furthermore, it's instruction creep at its worst: the original vote notice ballooned into three notices, then it found itself cemented into place in a sidebar. I am unabashedly taking a crowbar to it, nipping the instruction creep in the bud.
By the way, I have nothing but respect for the well-meaning maintainers who added the bits and pieces of the creepy sidebar. Instruction creep is a collective disease; it's no single editor's fault. • Benc • 06:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed instruction creep