Requests for comment/Bureaucrat voting survey

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following request for comments is closed. Closing this RfC. As a survey, it served its purpose: it gave some feedback and useful signals. I don't think the participation is significant enough to draw conclusions. Effeietsanders (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to survey users' opinion on how to vote for and keep bureaucrats on wikis, whether adding new ones or confirming existing ones. Many questions below with multiple choices are meant to be much more flexible than Requests for comment/Bureaucrats on small wikis proposed and withdrawn by Ajraddatz with my support, which could require at least 10 active supporting voters with at least 80% of supports. When answering each question, please do not support conflicting answers at the same time. If choosing others, please write in your preferences, whether stricter or laxer than already itemized choices. There is no need to oppose all other answers, but writing in the comments with any supports or oppositions may increase the value of the choices. Thanks for voting. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jusjih (talk)

To answer the talk page, requesting opinion here on how to vote for and keep bureaucrats is not limited to smaller wikis. So many possible answers are available to choose from. In case of very different opinions, we will find the best compromise.--Jusjih (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 1: How frequent should existing bureaucrats be confirmed in order to continue?[edit]

Every 1 year[edit]

Every 2 years[edit]

Every 3 years[edit]

Every 4 years[edit]

Every 5 years[edit]


Other (please specify)[edit]

Question 2: How many minimum active supporting voters should elect or confirm a bureaucrat?[edit]

15 votes[edit]

14 votes[edit]

13 votes[edit]

12 votes[edit]

  • support. A user who cannot get 12 active supporting voters should not be a bureaucrat.--Jusjih (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11 votes[edit]

10 votes[edit]

9 votes[edit]

8 votes[edit]

7 votes[edit]

6 votes[edit]

5 votes[edit]

Other (please specify)[edit]

Question 3: Which minimum percentage of support overall should elect or confirm a bureaucrat?[edit]






Other (please specify)[edit]

Suggest 66.7% (≈⅔)? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 4: Excluding the voting edit, how many edits within the past year of a bureaucrat voting should a voter have in order to be considered active?[edit]

500 edits[edit]

450 edits[edit]

400 edits[edit]

350 edits[edit]

300 edits[edit]

250 edits[edit]

200 edits[edit]

150 edits[edit]

100 edits[edit]

50 edits[edit]

Other (please specify)[edit]

  • Oppose Oppose all of these edit counts suggestions, at least anyone who are staffs of WMXX (under AffCom's rule) should always have sysop/bureaucrat permission (or even CU/OS) be granted as emergency appointment, regardless of low edits. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per above. RadiX 17:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 5: If a voter has not edited for a full year, how many months of edits before a bureaucrat voting should a voter have in order to be considered active?[edit]

6 months[edit]

  • Support Support: Voters for bureaucrats should be stricter than for administrators. Those who have started editing too recently should not vote for bureaucrats.--Jusjih (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

5 months[edit]

4 months[edit]

3 months[edit]

Other (please specify)[edit]

Oppose Oppose all, unfortunately I agree Bjarlin on talk page: this question is really illogical. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]