Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold

Closing comments from bureaucrats

While there is definitely useful commentary below that will guide bureaucrats in closing requests for bureaucratship, it is my opinion that there is no firm consensus one way or the other about the appropriate threshold. While "80%" would appear to be the front runner at a glance and by the numbers, one still has to account for those who support a higher threshold but did not specifically oppose 80%. It is also important to point out that this RFC itself was trafficked by substantially fewer editors than a typical RfB; and even without making adjustments, 80% was still only supported by 75% of those choosing to signing next to a # mark beneath it.

Given that requests are so few and far between, further discussion on this in the near term would probably not be a worthwhile use of time. And really - if the community really wants to make it easier for folks to make it through RfB, they should just go easier on the candidates... Other bureaucrats should feel free to make further closing comments beneath mine. –xenotalk 02:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with xeno on this closing. There is no clear consensus for an appropriate threshold. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This RFC seeks to clarify the requests for bureaucratship process. Editors are granted bureaucratship based on consensus of the community. Users are encouraged to voice their support or opposition of candidates, but the process is not a vote and is based more on the strength of arguments rather than raw numbers. Although it is not a vote, percentages in support or opposition are used to help determine consensus. This RfC seeks to clarify the percentages used in the requests for bureaucratship process.

A recent RfC gained consensus for lowering the threshold for requests for bureaucratship. Per the closing bureaucrat, a new RfC is being held to determine what that new threshold should be. Please add your support or oppose to the percentage thresholds below.

Other threshold percentages (based on policy or recent practice) are listed below for comparison.

Recent Thresholds
Bureaucrats 85–90%[1][2]
Stewards 80%[3]
Administrators 70–80%[4]
Checkusers 70%[5] (secure poll)
Oversighters 70%[5] (secure poll)
ArbCom 2008 63.9%[6]
ArbCom 2009 59.9%[7] (secure poll)
ArbCom 2010 56.7%[8](secure poll)

Timestamp: 01:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfB
  2. ^ For the history of the RfB percentage, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion#History of "90%"
  3. ^ See meta:Stewards/elections 2011/Statistics
  4. ^ See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA and its process.
  5. ^ a b Although 70% was used as a threshold, the results were considered unsatisfactory as only one candidate reached that level. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Discussion.
  6. ^ See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Results#Vote tallies
  7. ^ See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009#Results.
  8. ^ See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010#Results