Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat elections

First response

I believe b'crats, like admins, should be given title indefinitely until they don't want it anymore. The reason ArbCom does not work like that is ArbCom requires a tremendous workload. B'crats (like User:Angela, and I don't mean to pick on her specifically) who prefer not to use their special access are not pressured to do so - but it's important to replace them as they fade into inactivity.

I thought of a "b'crat holiday" concept also, but was not inspired to put it on paper (or a cathode ray tube). Basically, there's no reason people still can't run for b'crat whenever they feel like it, as under the current system. The advantage of having seven b'crats run in the same week is that we're pretty much guaranteed to see one or two or three promoted. Under the ad hoc system, where everyone runs at different times, it seems that it works against the candidate who must face additional scrutiny.

I would be willing to support a "b'crat holiday" under either of the following scenarios:

It is essentially optional, such that anyone may run for b'crat at other times, and it is not necessary for any of the candidates to be promoted.
It is necessary for one candidate to be promoted every six months or one year or whatever, but that candidate must still meet a minimum of consensus, less than current RFB standards, but similar to RFA standards. (I'm a little uncomfortable with that, actually).

Kudos to Ryan for thinking outside the proverbial box. Shalom ^Hello 00:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator editor...

I don't like the change from "administrator" to "editor" in the first line of the Format section. Bureaucrats should only be selected from the existing pool of administrators, as they have always been. Why have someone promoting administrators when they have never been administrators themselves? The comparison to ArbCom is not correct; ArbCom is much more of a community function, and, since it's not an access level, has nothing to do with being an administrator. -- Renesis (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since for technical reasons it has to be that way (unless we involve Stewards), I have changed that back. Of course if anyone loses cratship, you will need a Steward anyway, but... Prodego ^talk 05:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen bureaucrats?

This proposal would create an effective limit of 15 bureaucrats, which I'm not quite sure is a good idea. Discuss. -Amarkov moo! 05:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good idea. This proposal would just reinforce the status of bureaucrats as a "superior" class of users, and further increase the concentration of power among a few individuals. I would prefer that we followed the practice of some other projects, and made all admins bureaucrats. Admittedly we don't "need" that many bureaucrats, in a technical sense, but power ought to be spread around as much as possible, to prevent the development of an oligarchy. Walton^talk 10:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The project itself is growing. Do we really want to talk about shrinking the pool of workers at the 'crat level? I cannot see any benefit to the community in limiting the number. JodyB_talk 14:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is a small subset of admins that are quite well known for doing rather controversial things, and if you close an RfA controversially, all hell will break loose. While most people have no problem with the more controversial admins making easily reversed admin actions, crat actions are almost never undone. Because of their important role in determining consensus, the bureaucrats always require more trust then regular admins would need. Prodego ^talk 05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which would mean we would have to raise rfa standards and everyone thinks they're to high already. --Chris ^g 10:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I keep saying, the best solution would be to either scrap bureaucrats entirely and have a bot to count votes, or to mandate that bureaucrats can only promote those who pass the 75% threshold. Instead of moaning that the RfB process is broken, we should face the reality that the idea of "discussion not voting" is an unrealistic way to run a community, and that bureaucrats have far too much power. Walton^talk 12:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the limit of when and how many is too restricting and soemwhat scope creep. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]