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multiple choices are meant to be much more flexible than Requests for comment/Bureaucrats on small wikis proposed and withdrawn by Ajraddatz with my support, which could require at least 10 active supporting voters with at least 80% of supports.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

Every 1 yearEdit

Every 2 yearsEdit

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

Every 3 yearsEdit

Every 4 yearsEdit

Every 5 yearsEdit

UnlimitedEdit

Other (please specify)Edit

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

15 votesEdit

14 votesEdit

13 votesEdit

12 votesEdit

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

11 votesEdit

10 votesEdit

9 votesEdit

8 votesEdit

7 votesEdit

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

6 votesEdit

5 votesEdit

Other (please specify)Edit

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

90%Edit

85%Edit

80%Edit

75%Edit

70%Edit

Other (please specify)Edit

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

500 editsEdit

  • Support 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 Support A bureaucrat must know the wiki CreativeC38 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support: like CreativeC38 said. --Smaug the Golden (talk - my contributions) 16:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose 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 Support.--Arbnos (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

450 editsEdit

400 editsEdit

350 editsEdit

300 editsEdit

250 editsEdit

200 editsEdit

150 editsEdit

100 editsEdit

50 editsEdit

  • Support Support This is usually the standard that I look for. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Rschen7754 03:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose way too few - CreativeC38 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose 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 Oppose. 50 edits is not enough even in small wikis. --Smaug the Golden (talk - my contributions) 19:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support 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 Support --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 17:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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)
  • Oppose 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?Edit

6 monthsEdit

  • 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)


5 monthsEdit

4 monthsEdit

3 monthsEdit

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)