Requests for comment/Bureaucrat voting survey

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)

---

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multiple choices are meant to be much more flexible than Requests for comment/Bureaucrats on small wikis proposed and withdrawn by Ajraddatz with my support, which could require at least 10 active supporting voters with at least 80% of supports.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)

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

Every 1 year

• support. This is already the policy for administrators and bureaucrats on English Wikisource and stewards. Users who cannot pass the annual confirmation should cease to be bureaucrats.--Jusjih (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose because under this policy, Special:CentralAuth/WMFOffice should also lost their bureaucrat permission on testwiki. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  Then ask for exemption with strong reasons.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Unnecessary bureaucracy. --Rschen7754 21:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Rschen7754. RadiX∞ 16:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Smaug the Golden (talk - my contributions) 19:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Accountability is important. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 08:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Every 2 years

•  Support just keep the de facto AAR global policy. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unnecessary bureaucracy. --Rschen7754 21:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support. Changing to a laxer choice.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- CreativeC38 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Every 3 years

Every 4 years

Every 5 years

Unlimited

•  Oppose. Being a bureaucrat means responsibility, not honor, and not even for lifetime.--Jusjih (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jusjih: Do you know that on Limburgish Wikipedia, all sysops and bureaucrats are having their permissions forever (except for those who abused permissions on that project)? (consult @Aelske, Cicero, Guaka, Pahles, and Steinbach: if you don't know about it) --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Individual wikis may choose something stricter, but it's not Meta's place to force this on them. --Rschen7754 21:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think crats should need to be confirmed. The inactivity policy is enough. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• As per Ajraddatz, inactivity policy is enough, and any local policy in larger wikis also enough. No need to impose, imho, such a rule to local comunities. —Ah3kal (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose CreativeC38 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Per Ajraddatz, inactivity policy is enough. --J.Wong 15:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Smaug the Golden (talk - my contributions) 16:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support. No need to impose restrictions here. This should be entirely up to local communities' rules. RadiX∞ 16:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support. Does not depend on time.--Arbnos (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Buttons aren't medals. 🎖 --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 08:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Other (please specify)

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

15 votes

•  Support This is the working number for stewards, as far as I am aware. --Rschen7754 21:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support. Changing to a stricter bar.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support like CU/OS. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  CU/OS require at least 25 votes, not 15. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Support this is a good option. Shows enough of a local community. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Good idea CreativeC38 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support But smaller wiki's should have an exception or a different rule if they don't have that many metapedians. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 08:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

14 votes

13 votes

12 votes

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

11 votes

10 votes

• Comment: Requests for comment/Bureaucrats on small wikis would propose this bar, but I prefer a little stricter bar.--Jusjih (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This would indeed be a reasonable number for small wiki's. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 08:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

9 votes

8 votes

7 votes

•  Support.--Arbnos (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

6 votes

5 votes

Other (please specify)

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

90%

85%

80%

•  Support: Requests for comment/Bureaucrats on small wikis would propose this bar.--Jusjih (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per MarcoAurelio's and Ruslik's comments on this RFC. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Local communities may decide on their own whether or not a RfB should be subject to a minimum percentage of support. They may opt for taking a decision by consensus instead. RadiX∞ 17:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Bureaucrats are one of the highest functions, lower rates of support could provoke controversy. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 08:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

75%

•  Support – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- CreativeC38 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Per above. RadiX∞ 17:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support.--Arbnos (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 17:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

70%

Other (please specify)

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

• None. Per above. RadiX∞ 17:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

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?

500 edits

•  Support: Voters for bureaucrats should be stricter than for administrators. Chinese Wikisource requires at least 250 edits to vote for administrators, but all bureaucrats are gone there.--Jusjih (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support A bureaucrat must know the wiki CreativeC38 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support: like CreativeC38 said. --Smaug the Golden (talk - my contributions) 16:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose. All edits should be considered and not only those restricted to a given period of time. RadiX∞ 17:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support.--Arbnos (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

450 edits

400 edits

350 edits

300 edits

250 edits

200 edits

150 edits

100 edits

50 edits

•  Support This is usually the standard that I look for. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Rschen7754 03:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose way too few - CreativeC38 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose. All edits should be considered and not only those restricted to a given period of time. RadiX∞ 17:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose. 50 edits is not enough even in small wikis. --Smaug the Golden (talk - my contributions) 19:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support but not 100%, this should be "the auxiliary rule" if local wiki's don't have other rules (kind of like an "essay" which are de facto rules), and an exception should be made for Wikimedia and local chapters staff in emergency situations. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 08:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 17:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Other (please specify)

•  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)
•  Oppose per above. RadiX∞ 17:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

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?

6 months

•  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)

5 months

4 months

3 months

Other (please specify)

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

•  Oppose I agree with Liuxinyu970226 - CreativeC38 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Edits (and by extend edit coins) don't make your opinion stronger or weaker, long time users can take long breaks for whatever reason voluntarily or involuntarily, setting a limit on voters like this will make the actual community support less broad. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 08:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)