Wikipedia:Adminship survey/K

(03/22/02) RFA promotion standards #2
The standards as currently employed on RFA by the bureaucrats (not the voters!) are too broad. The bureaucrats can give their own interpretation, which ultimately leads only to strife. Like nearly all other-language wikipedias do, we should have a simple numerical cutoff point. It's arbitrary but at least it's fair.

Agree

 * 1) This is a toughie but on balance I'm in favour. I'm against spamming or canvassing (especially on IRC) and I think votes that just say support or support per Jimbo should be discounted - other than that, well we elect world leaders this way - why not admins? --Mcginnly | Natter 15:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree if we continue to have votes. Grace Note 09:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Fully agree. As I wrote above: Votes are so incredibly different in kind, that it is effectively a numbers game already. There are substantial opposes that are ignored by sympathy voters, and compelling reasons to trust and support which are ignored by opposers. And what about ""oppose per concerns raised by user:Name"? How important should those ideally be considered? Abolish WP:Canvass and make the numbers game official. Then just count the votes, period. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

 * 1) I trust good people to do the right things. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Otherwise we may as well go off and code up the 'cratbots now. There's too much of a risk of things like borderline trolling, and I trust the current 'crats to be able to sort out unusual problems in the spirit of WP:IAR (which I believe to be quite close to the spirit of WP:POINT, but seen from a different point of view) rather than following the number of a percentage all the time. --ais523 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I trust bureaucrat discretion, and numerical has its issues.  Ral315 (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Thus far I haven't seen bureaucrats apply discretion improperly, so the current system seems fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I just can't agree with this. RFA isn't working well but this isn't why. And if RFA were working well this may not be an issue.  Is hard to judge if the standards when the whole process is struggling long before the point conclusion.-- Birgitte SB  21:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) This isn't a problem. With regards to crats, doing a little mental exercise can work wonders, and very often, you may find that you guessed correctly. And for reasons that I stated above, I am against strict numbers. Grace notes T  &#167; 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) I'd prefer to remove all RfA limits and leave the decision entirely to the 'crats' discretion. Yuser31415 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) See above. I think the 'crats can handle it. — Moe  00:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) We don't give out bureaucratship lightly. I doubt the current standards augment the inevitable strife baseline.  Durova Charge! 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) An arbitrary cutoff point is not fair at all. People shouldn't fail their RfA just because a few extra people came to oppose, because that does not at all reflect consensus. If it were set at like 65%, it would be fair, but then you have the problem of people who shouldn't get adminship getting it. -Amarkov moo! 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) No evidence of this at all. —Doug Bell talk 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) We appoint them via RfB for a reason - so community consensus on whether the user has good enough judgement to close RfA's.  Daniel.Bryant  04:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) While I'm certainly not in favour of unlimited discretion, the current 5-10% window should certainly not be much narrowed. Eluchil404 05:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Terrible idea, encourages votestacking. Opabinia regalis 06:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Not an especially good idea. Even if we set an arbitrary cutoff, we'd still have endless arguments over sockpuppets, suffrage, frivolous reasoning, etc.. ChazBeckett 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) I have never been in favour of such a numerical system. I trust the bureaucrats to make the calls in the best interest of Wikipedia. If people are going to throw their toys out of the pram because decisions go against them, maybe this project isn't for them. Rje 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) I agree with Yuser31415 (number 7 of this section); the 'crats could have total discretion and I think they would sort things out ok. I'm not suggesting that, but if anything I think they should have more discretion than they do now. Else, why not have a bot to promote any RfA greater than 75% and fail any below? James086 Talk  10:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) I think I would support total bureaucrat discretion. Grand  master  ka  10:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Who says that other Wikipedias don't have strife in their RFA processes? Tito xd (?!?) 23:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Like I said before in a previous statement, I trust the 'crats to do the right thing. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  00:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Tony Sidaway 01:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC) The very suggestion is unadulterated tripe, and the responses to date reflect this.
 * 22) How it is now is still better than what the question proposes. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other

 * 1) That would work if we turn RfA into a vote (i.e. move the discussion to the talk page). Without bureaucrat discretion, pile-on nonsense opposes cause too much damage otherwise. Kusma (討論) 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd be ok with a strict numerical limit, but I think it still takes the b'crats to sift out the patently unqualified votes before counting them. Αργυριου (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)