Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Jo-Jo Eumerus

Peregrine Fisher oppose
Peregrine Fisher has indicated that they wish to withdraw their oppose; could someone strike it or remove it from the oppose tally somehow? P-K3 (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. 28bytes (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

RfB discretionary range
Probably better to sort it out before the RfB is closed, but if this ends below <85%, what's the acceptable range, 75-85%? --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The threshold for consensus is 85%. We will determine consensus if and when it drops below that. Primefac (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a discretionary range for RfAs, as per an earlier community decision, but what makes you think there is a discretionary range for RfBs? ——  SN  54129  22:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , for raising this question, as I had been wondering this as well, but looking at most of the few opposes of the candidate, the oppose arguments have no real merit to them as they're almost entirely procedural objections relating to whether we have enough bureaucrats or not already or whether we even need bureaucrats at all. Thus, assuming things proceed roughly in the same fashion that they have, there is a strong consensus to promote here (nearly unanimous, in fact). This is the problem, though, with the discretionary ranges, and, honestly, I'm thinking they're more trouble than we worth. We shouldn't try and assess consensus based on whether the candidate got 95% versus 85 or 80%. I mean, we should have a requirement for a stronger consensus for RfB than RfA, naturally, but given that someone could conceivably be promoted to administrator with a support rating of 60% if the oppose arguments were weak, it's entirely conceivable, then, an administrator could be promoted to bureaucrat with a support rating of 70%. It all depends on the arguments. ;-) Doug Mehus  T · C  22:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , no comment as I'm the nominator. :)  Maxim (talk)  22:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What an absolutely arrogant thing to say, . Need for the tools has always been a valid reason to oppose any RfX, and the community deciding it feels like it needs more crats is the only way one can possibly “need” more bureaucrats. This is a factor in all requests for permissions “above” RfA, and is something that’s a perfectly valid reason for someone to oppose. Not expanding a user group unnecessarily is a valid concern that has nothing to do with the candidate, but the only way to express it is by opposing. You’re saying that those of us who hold this view somehow have less value in our opinions than you do. That’s not okay. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * the only reference is from Requests for adminship, stating In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Just like RfA's, RfB's are not votes so the "percentage" is not any sort of hard rule, also noting that the convention is that there is an significantly higher than for admin expectation of support. — xaosflux  Talk 23:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not the case. See below. Far greater nuance. All the best. ——  SN  54129  13:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (re to SN54129) Technically, 0-100% is the discretionary range for crats, I was asking for a general range where they will open a crat chat, below which they will fail. The community set the 65-75% range without any determination that >75%=pass and <65%=fail, but it's used nonetheless because someone made a WP:BOLD edit to the RfA page. (re to and ) Then, to reframe my question, at which percentage will crats fail (most recently SoWhy's failed candidacy at 72% comes to mind) in most cases? Because, clearly there is some frame of reference even if no pointers to it exist on-wiki, asking mostly because all candidates below 85% clearly don't not have a consensus to promote (similar to how RfAs don't). --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * these are case-by-case, and just like RfA's "'crat chat's" are never required. — xaosflux  Talk 12:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, as I noted above in most cases 85+% will pass, as far as "will fail", I suppose it depends on semantics - !pass would be in general <85%, but there is a range between "unsuccessful" and "no consensus to promote". Neither requires a crat chat, both have the same technical result: access to the crat tools is not added. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The current discretionary range was discussed at, which had substantial participation, so I wouldn't say it was due to a bold edit. isaacl (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)