Jump to content

Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Witch (talk | contribs) at 19:38, 18 January 2006 (→Agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There are many opinions regarding adminship held by a variety of people, and a number of perennial complaints about adminship or the related procedures. Several issues have been debated to death a number of times already, and there seem to exist good arguments on both sides of the issues. This straw poll seeks to find out if a substantial majority of editors believes that certain changes should be made to our procedure or precedent.

This is NOT a policy proposal, nor is this poll in any way binding. This is a gauge of public sentiment. However, if public sentiment is that a certain policy would be beneficial, effort can be made towards creating a policy proposal. Voting may be evil but learning public opinion is not. If an public opinion is obvious, people may want to take it into account for their future actions or judgments.

This poll consists of a number of statements that people can express agreement or disagreement with. Feel free to comment on your opinion. I've attempted to compile all frequently-expressed statements; that should not imply that I agree with any or all of them. If I've missed a couple, please let me know. Radiant_>|< 17:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for Adminship

See also User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform.

RFA should be more a discussion and less a vote

Agree

  1. Always should have been, always should be. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree, per LV. I feel that it's becoming too much like AfD, in which a simple majority can overrule the more obvious answer. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree, what ^demon said. --badlydrawnjeff 18:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yup. android79 18:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree, and it would seem that this is a reversal toward old ways of doing things, not a change being advocated (conservative vs. radical perspective). -- nae'blis (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree, even though we're voting to reduce voting. --Interiot 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agreed. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes. Carbonite | Talk 18:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Any voting is pernicious, it is a playing ground for trolls and fraudsters. Also leads to frantic campaigning by non-native speakers in their national wikipedias. --Ghirla | talk 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. yes, and this should work both ways. it seems some vote against for frivolous reasons. some also vote for as a matter of course. some reasonable indication of the vote rationale should be given for a vote either way. otherwise, i assume that the voter is not really informed about the matter. i particularly dislike positive votes because "it's no big deal". bullshit, it actually is in practice. Derex 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Defenently. People should as a bare minimum explain why they oppose or support a candidate, and unless good reasons to oppose is given mechanical vote count should not disqualify a otherwise qualified candidate. Conversely clear proof of a "bad attitude" or past a history of disruptive behaviour should count for more than any number of "he's a cool guy" type support statements. --Sherool (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Agreed, and we need to take voting out of the process to a great degree. Rx StrangeLove 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Ideally I'd like appointed admins, but I don't see a possibility of this happening. Sooner or later we will have to deal with the increasing problem of non-acculturated editors making it to adminship. It's a bit of a time bomb. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. We generally don't vote on Wikipedia, but try to reach consensus. That should apply to RFA as well as other areas. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Absolutely. Too many voters are getting away with half-assed votes that fail to explain anything. -ZeroTalk 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Agreed. A sentence or two, at least, should be provided to explain why the editor responded the way they did. – Seancdaug 21:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Aye. —Nightstallion (?) 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes, but "I've bee persauded by the comments of Users X, Y, & Z above" ought to be an acceptable rationale. No reason to force people to parrot. DES (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Absolutely agree. I have seen excellent editors being scared away from Wikipedia after a failed RfA in which editors voted alongside a political or religious POV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Wholeheartedly agree with ^demon; vote #2 way up top. - Pureblade | Θ 23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yep  ALKIVAR™ 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Agreed, so long as people's comments are still grouped under "support", "oppose" or "neutral" headers because I fear making it even more difficult for bureaucrats to close these things up. -- Francs2000 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. NSLE (T+C) 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Rossami (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Yes, I'd like to see a more RFC style page. Rx StrangeLove 04:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Yes! Best to see people oppose candidates with real arguments and not just votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Nobrainer. - FrancisTyers 15:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Yes, although I don't have a problem with votes like "per User:X" or "per nom". the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 16:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Yep. The voting aspect seems to encourage laziness and shortcuts leading to groupthink. The Witch 19:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. A vote reflect the opinions expressed not the other way around. It allows for accountablity of nomination with % for and against as well as an easier divide of opinions (pro or con) for those voting. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We can always ask users to provide reasoning, but there's no getting around the simple reality that at the end of the day, every RfA is a vote, which the nominee either wins or loses. --Aaron 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Given that most support is based on a broad history of good behavior, rather than any specific good deeds that can be highlighted and talked about, I don't see any workable way to make it less of a process of endorsements and disendorsements without seriously reducing its ability to guage community sentiment. The current process is objective and fair (i.e. consistently applied), even if not everyone agrees with the results. Maybe if there were a specific proposal here someone could convince me that it could work, but in terms of the nebulous concept that we should discuss more and vote less on RFAs, I really don't see how to implement that in a way that is likely to make things better. Dragons flight 19:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Joe 19:49 17 January 2006 (UTC).
  5. A discussion opens the door for subjective interpretation on those who make the final decision. Avriette 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It's fine as it is now.  Grue  20:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Definitive results and consensus in RfA are only reached through votes. Harro5 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Rudolf Nixon 23:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This allows too much wiggle room for the closing admin to decide whether he or she wants to delete based on their own preferences. And why do I get "agree" when I click on edit next to "disagree"? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The closer Wikipedia is to a Democracy the better. freestylefrappe 01:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to note my disagreement with that view. One of the neat things about WP is that it is NOT a democracy, but not a dictatorship either. Consensus is the wiki way. We have "rough" consensus because strict didn't scale to our size, but we still don't just let bare majorities rule. Democracy means 51% can oppress 49% and that's just not good. IMHO. Sorry for commenting on a comment but I feel rather strongly about that. ++Lar: t/c 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree with Harro5's comment. enochlau (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Errr...what? Consensus is orthagonal to voting; polling is a way to gauge support/opposition to a consensus idea, but the idea of winners & losers is what consensus is (ideally) supposed to avoid. Reducing it to bare numbers makes it a very different creature. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree with Dragons flight. Additionally, the RfA's I've seen have been pretty good discussions, which come much closer to the consensus ideal than AfD. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I like to see a vote, but I think people supporting should be required to give reasons, and not just "it's no big deal." SlimVirgin (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Disagree. In honesty, I dont think the RFA system is that flawed. Good people usually get in, bad people usually stay out. I have sometimes been swayed by arguments of others, and others have sometimes been swayed by my arguments. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it tastes fine to me! It would be nice to see more arguments with votes, but you cant really make that a rule... If anything this topic is a matter for discussion rather than voting! The Minister of War (Peace) 08:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Anyone who has been here for a period of time is bound to have both friends and enemies. Votes are sometimes difficult as it is when certain individuals come to vote for no reason than to support a friend, regardless of their suitability for the job, or even when they come to vote against them in spite of their ability to do the job, simply because of a grudge. Reaching a consensus would be nigh-on impossible. The existing system, while flawed, is the best solution. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Leave it just the way it is. It is easier to come to a concensus. I agree with the other users who disagree too. --Terence Ong 14:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. While it's a good idea in theory, there really can't be much meaningful discussion about support votes. If you agree with the nominator and think a user would make a good admin, I don't think parroting everyone else or coming up with new ways of kissing someone's ass is very constructive. Only way real discussion can happen is if people oppose with good reasons and others comment on those reasons, which is exactly what happens now. - Bobet 17:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Voting works in an Rfa because otherwise bad faith editors will try to fill the page with various diffs of just about anything. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. The survey of editor's opinions should still be included, but more emphasis should be placed on discussion during the RFA. BlankVerse 18:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per BlankVerse. I'd always like to see more discussion than just "support --~~~~", but I believe there is room for a quantitative read on sup/opp/neu votes. --Syrthiss 18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not sure I have enough idealism left to think that anything can be done about this issue without moveing power away from the community something I do not view as acceptable.Geni 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RfA is a synthesis of "voting" and discussion. I think this aspect works fine as is. --Durin 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per BlankVerse. I feel many votes on WP need more discussion, I'd prefer a system of the RFA being open (say) for 5 days of comment and questions and then 2 days of voting, I also feel that people with valid points are sometimes put off by seeing a large support and that some will possibly just vote and then never see the comments of others which might impact their final conclusion. Having comments up front would help people see a broader picture of the candidate prior to voting. --pgk(talk) 20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'd like to see the evidence of TonySidaway's "increasing problem of non-acculturated editors making it to adminship". While it's a valid potential problem, I'm not sure it's something that currently exists. If it does, I want to know about it even more. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reponse to that, I should point out that Wikipedia Culture by its very nature is evolving, and that such effects traditionally cause confusion or dismay for older contributors. They may consider new people "non-acculturated" when in fact culture has changed and they themselves have lost their "acculturation". For that precise reason it would be a bad idea to have appointed admins, because it cultivates stagnation. Radiant_>|< 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It's both a discussion and a vote. Ultimately, admins are promoted based on numbers of votes, but those numbers can (and should) shift based on reasoning presented in the discussion. The discussion, however, is the heart of the process. Antandrus (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It's going to be a popularity contest and have nothing to do with anything remotely to do with adminship, no matter what we do. I prefer Talrias' proposal, which several users opopsed his rfa for. (wtf?) --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It seems like the German version, which is closer to a straight vote with occasional comments, is less contentious than en (in part because people don't feel the need to challenge every oppose vote). The Italian version is very similar to en and has very similar problems, but once again, the lack of a necessity to comment on an oppose vote seems like a good thing. The arbcom elections here, which were more of a straight vote, were less contentious. I think we probably need to tweak the system, but I suspect that requiring comments is just going to produce more sheer text and hence more opportunities for ill will. Chick Bowen 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I think elements from both should be included in the RfA process. We need voting to include some measure of objectivity, as evil as voting is, but we also need some subjective leeway as a last resort -- checks and balances, if you will. (Disclaimer: WP:NOT a real democratic government.) Johnleemk | Talk 12:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Discussion should be required for votes to count. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. We need both; votes should not be counted unless they're accompanied by some discussion. The "vote" should just be clarifying the for/againstness of the discussion. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Not sure what anyone would wish to discuss, there isn't much to be discussed about the fact that a candidate hasn't been problematic in the past. (Besides, if he has been, the fact will be brought up anyway.) Pilatus 17:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Those in favor of blind counting should check out Rl's RFA, where multiple oppose votes from people who clearly misunderstood his responses to the questions (which were both honest and showed a clear grasp of wiki concepts and procedures) led to a denial, and him leaving. - BanyanTree 18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standards for becoming an admin should be higher than they are now

Agree

  1. Absolutely so, up to and including taking past "official" conflicts into account. --badlydrawnjeff 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with a weak form of this, primarily I think there should be a requirement for a minimum number of support votes, but also see my comments below. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with the above. violet/riga (t) 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've recently seen an admin with 2,000+ edits ousting from Wikipedian an editor with 50,000+. This is just inacceptable. It's very easy to amass several thousand edits, posting flattering messages on talk pages, get promoted to adminship and start to intimidate those wikipedians who really write this encyclopaedia. Currently admin expectations are too lax. --Ghirla | talk 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Standards should be a lot higher, and perhaps official minimums (time, number of edits) should be instituted. Gamaliel 18:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. very much so. i don't think we are particularly short of admins. and it is a big deal, if not used judiciously. good admins are no big deal, bad ones are. there are too many nominations of buddies. there are too many nominations as a "reward" for hard work by newcomers. Derex 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A pack mentality is developing amongst admins and few are willing to make personal decisions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Indeed. How many incompetents must wikipedia hand the mop and bucket to..? -ZeroTalk 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel this is a personal remark on all Admins. It's at least fairly uncivil. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Too many admins haven't been here long enough. There should be easily-pointed-to standards, such as length of time, edits, etc. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. freestylefrappe 01:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes, we need higher standards. Well, we need some standards first. (SEWilco 04:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  13. Agree with Katefan about the need for a minimum number of support votes. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Of course. We need this more. A certain number of months, edits and votes. Having 3000 edits of fighting vandalism are very good but not enough. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes, please. Too many admins seem to take their status as a license to role-play (which is much easier than writing articles to academic standards) and there is no doubt many are elected by groups of friends who approach Wikipedia more as a community website for social interaction rather than an encyclopedia. Personally, I don't think admins should be elected by the online mob, but should be appointed by bureaucrats, according to academic reliability and trustworthiness, who've been carefully selected for the task by Wales. The Witch 19:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal standards should be higher

  1. Not higher "official" standards, but I think many of the regular RFA voters need to have higher "personal" standards. Currently, if you have 1,000 edits, have been here for three months, and you haven't fucked up yet, you'll get approve votes from one to two dozen RFA regulars. BlankVerse 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with BlankVerse. Carbonite | Talk 18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed with BlankVerse. Personally I was promoted in my second month on Wikipedia — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification: I'm saying that there shouldn't be official standards because of good users that have been promoted early. However, people can do what they want (and personal standards can have expemptions easier). — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree in principle. —Nightstallion (?) 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree, high personal standards would be better than anything "official".  ALKIVAR™ 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree, especially with BlankVerse's sentiments. Official standards aren't the issue, since there actually aren't any (the standards written in the main RFA page are suggestions only). --Deathphoenix 16:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's about accountability not promotion

  1. There is no real need to mess with the standards of promotion. We get plenty of good candidates and most of them go off to benefit the encyclopedia. The real problem is that it is too tedious to deal with that small minority who after becoming admins fail to adhere to community standards for someone in that position. Hence standards keep going up to try to avoid those problems, but ultimately that's like trying to cure a hangnail by cutting off one's hand. If admins were more accountable for their behavior, it would be much easier to regard promotion as "no big deal". Dragons flight 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What he ∧ said, and for that reason am in favor of the temp de-admining concept down the page. Rx StrangeLove 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this should be a separate issue. And I don't see anything defining this. It's all very warm-and-fuzzy, but can't be useful without defining "accountable". Avriette 20:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure. If standards would be higher we would lose many good potential admins. But accountability should also be higher for administrators.  Grue  20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely. If we didn't have to worry that we were effectively promoting administrators for life, there wouldn't be as much concern about the possibility of a bad promotion. A sensible, community-oriented de-adminship process is necessary to ensure that adminship remains "no big deal". Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I hesitantly agree. I'm concerned that a de-adminship process is likely to be a beacon for abuse, but I still think that there needs to be some increased form of accountability. – Seancdaug 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think this is a better view of this part than standards per se. 1000 edits and 2 months are enough, if they are GOOD edits and if the person was REALLY paying attention. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Adminship should be no big deal, and a person who has proven him- or herself responsible can be trusted with the tools. But they must not abuse that trust. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ditto Sjakkalle. Adminship should be no big deal, and it should be as easy to deadmin as it is to admin. Johnleemk | Talk 12:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree with this viewpoint as well, though I think the requirements for starting a deadmin process should be non-trivial. I wouldn't want an army of sockpuppets being able to deadmin someone who blocked a POV-pusher for borderline incivility, for example (this example is not as clearcut as, say, blocking a blatant vandal). --Deathphoenix 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are expectations, not standards

  1. I think this should be phrased expectations rather than standards. I think the community as a whole must expect more from its RFA candidates, and vote accordingly; I personally feel the days of "adminship is no big deal" are passed. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Katefan0. The bar has been raised and becoming and admin a big deal even if doesn't change what you do. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with Katefan0 and ^demon, but also don't want to appear to be maintaining exclusivity. ie "Oh yeah, all of you admins just want to keep other users out of your exclusive club!". --Syrthiss 18:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with Katefan0 --pgk(talk) 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As there are no "official standards", it would be hard to make them higher. Personal standards cannot be legislated, but expectations can be. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree with Katefan0: Remember, once you're an admin, you're a public figure of Wikipedia, so you should behave like one. It's expected of you these days. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I agree with Katefan again that the days of "no big deal" ought to have passed. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Also agree with Kate here. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. Not sure higher standards are needed quite yet. We are promoting good candidates now. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First, there are no "standards" to be made higher. Second, there's no evidence to suggest that higher standards (or lower standards for that matter) will result in "better" admins. Until you can show that, this is a bad idea. --Durin 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Have seen no evidence that bad candidates are being promoted due to low standards. On the contrary, the evidence I have seen suggests that the bigger problem is perfectly good candidates who are rejected due to unreasonable standards. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Works fine now. Harro5 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think standards, if anything, should be much lower than they are now and the value of "administrator status" lowered. It's just a few extra tools for crying out loud. Also, alongside this however, desysopping needs to be made much easier. --Celestianpower háblame 21:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. per Celestianpower --Rudolf Nixon 23:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As has been said before, there's nothing wrong with the standard of candidate that's been coming through right now, and if it ain't broke, why fix it? -- Francs2000 00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Adminship should be no big deal. Rogue admins are the exception not the rule. enochlau (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I think the solution is not making it harder to become and admin, but easier to cease becoming one. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. It's an interesting experiment to go through the RFAs of the five admins you think are most controversial (it'll be a different five for each person). Some problems were anticipated by oppose voters, but many weren't. You can't really know how someone will use the admin tools until they've done it. Chick Bowen 05:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. By whose standards? Opinions on the direction Wikipedia should be going vary greatly across the board and by imposing "standards" we risk boxing everyone into a single group's set of standards. Their nomination should be based on their ability to do the job and their integrity. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Current standards are excessive. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. If people feel they want to change their personal standards that's fine. But personally I see no problem with the users being promoted at the moment. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The vast majority of admins that are promoted are doing a good job. Right now, I can think of only four or five that are problematic. Pilatus 17:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. I don't think there should be any official standards for admins. If people want to set their own, sure, but I think that each candidate should be judges based off of his or her personal accomplishments, not off of a list of criteria. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Are there official standards? I've never followed any. android79 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be suffrage rules for voting on RFA

Agree

  1. Yes. I think that any form of election (ArbCom, and Admin) should have minimum voting requirements. It'll help reduce the risk of ballot stuffing. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't want to commit to any specific standard right now, but it's reasonable to have some minimum requirement. Carbonite | Talk 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with Carbonite on this one. --badlydrawnjeff 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely. Bureaucrats can discount proven socks, sure, but in reality sockpuppetry is not always easy to prove. Suffrage requirements will not solve the problem completely, but will at least prevent casual sockpuppetry.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak agree. Minimum voting requirements would be fine... but don't be too strict about them. (I.E.: 500 votes or more is ridiculous; make it time based, like 1 week with at least 20 edits) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes per Demon and Carbonite. --Aaron 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Absolutely. 1,000 edits and 3 months of editing. 10,000 is even better, for it would definitely cut off any troll from voting. From my experience, newbies do not know what RfA is all about. If they come here to write articles, let them do it. If they come here to vote, this is a sure sign of corruption. --Ghirla | talk 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    10,000 would deny suffrage to the vast majority of Wikipedians, wouldn't it? I'd say 250 or 300 is more than enough. --Aaron 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's orders of magnitude more than the suffrage requirements on the current ArbCom vote. æle ✆ 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's twice as much as I have after 3 years of editing. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Absolutely, provided we don't make it harder to vote than to become an admin. ;) Gamaliel 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 100 edits and/or 1 month --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Small, but yes. Dragons flight 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes. I'd say around 500 edits. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I'd be in favor of a move to limit votes, if we keep a vote, to administrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The number of edits is important, but also the type of edits. Others have expressed that people need to have experience with every piece of the encyclopedia, including the back-end stuff like C/A/T/IfD, project pages (active participation in a project is an excellent trait in my book). Conversely, people who show up and edit only in those pages can't be good candidates for adminship. These are the "career politicians" others have eluded to. Avriette 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 100 votes and/or 1 month is a good cutoff point. Limiting voting to existing administrators is a terrible idea, for reasons obvious enough that I will not bother to explicate them here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Agree. Something similar to Arbitration vote requirements would be reasonable: 150 edits, and a registered account for at least three months. Elonka 20:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Agree with 100 edits or 1 month. Let's keep RfA as a community thing. I respect Tony Sidaway greatly, but his suggestion screams Wikicabal. Harro5 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Absoluely. I believe 700+ should suffice; article mainspace and talk of course. -ZeroTalk 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I'm with Linuxbeak on this one: a very low threshold, sufficient to eliminate the obvious sockpuppets, isn't a bad idea, but that's all it should be. The frequently cited figure of 100 edits/1 month is just about at the upper extremity of what I would personally find acceptable. – Seancdaug 21:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. In effect there are now, as annons and compelte new uers are likely to be disregarded -- these should be made more explicit. 100 edits and 1 month sounds not unreasoanble to me, but any figure is somewhat arbitrary. However, users without suffferage should be aallowed and encouraged to comment, and particularly to draw attention to any problems that they had with the candidate, or on the other hand any particularly positive interactiosn that they had. This should ideally refer to specific events, for which diffs could in priciple be found (although a relative newcommer might not be skilled at providing diffs so they shouldn't be required). DES (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Absoultely Yes, Reminds me of my failed RFA, loaded with new users oppose votes, 500 edits and 2 months will be very nice in my opinion. --Jaranda wat's sup 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. 100-250 votes AND 1-2 months. OR won't do. Tintin Talk 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I agree with Tintin on the requirements for this. - Pureblade | Θ 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Absolutely what said sufferage standards would be is up for debate however.  ALKIVAR™ 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I very much agree with this idea -- Francs2000 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. To cut down on ballot stuffing. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Damn it, yes. NSLE (T+C) 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. It's probably easiest to just semiprotect all RFA subpages. Radiant_>|< 01:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Per Radiant. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Some sort of standard is needed. I like Lar's idea of only allowing non-Admin votes also. (SEWilco 04:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  31. I'd like to see a minimum number of recent edits to keep out users who stopped editing ages ago, but who make a surprise appearance for the sole purpose of voting against someone they had a fight with. Voters should be current, active members of the community i.e. one of the people who may be directly affected if the nominee becomes an admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. While it's a shame that newcomers to Wikipedia would be locked out for the sake of keeping sockpuppets and vandals off the list, it's probably better that they familiarize themselves with what is expected of an admin before they decide on whether someone is up to the job. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Without question. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Absolutely. I don't fully agree with "admins only", but that suffrage is the easiest to enforce. I'd like there to be some suffrage, but the actual suffrage requires further discussion. --Deathphoenix 16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Yes. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Yes. The Witch 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. Strongly disagree. First, RfA is not a vote, but a consensus building mechanism. Bureaucrats can, do, and will eliminate votes as they see fit in the pursuit of evaluating community consensus. Second, any attempts at stratifying the community of Wikipedia beyond "editor" leads to significant problems not the least of which is most likely impacting the pool of volunteers...which we ALL are. Third, is there any evidence to suggest that suffrage would "solve" any problems plaguing RfA? I doubt it. --Durin 19:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Durin. Bureaucrats can decide whose votes they count and whose they don't. Also requirements for suffrage are instruction creep. RfA shouldn't be more "elitist" than AfD.  Grue  20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see a rationale why "RfA shouldn't be more elitist than AfD". Care to elaborate? --Ghirla | talk 08:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No, commenting on RFA's should be open to everyone. If someone is a newly created account it invariably gets mentioned and the 'crats can take such considerations into account. Suffrage restrictions would imply that RFA is a strict vote - not consensus. --CBD ☎ ✉ 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Such rules aide elitism so that only members of the cabal can vote for new admins.--God of War 22:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no damn cabal. -ZeroTalk 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So let's make sure there never will be.--God of War 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Why would we replace our current solution to this problem -- bureaucrats making individual judgments in each instance -- with an arbitrary blanket rule? It seems the current solution is better. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. per God of War. Only the true Cabal would deny that a Cabal exists. --Rudolf Nixon 23:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And only a true coward uses a sockpuppet to disrupt a serious poll. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not only should there be no voting requirements, but Bureaucrats should not be allowed to discount votes for any reason other than sockpuppetry or double-voting. Promoting and failing potential admins should be admin-level work based only on percentages so Wikipedia is an actual Democracy and not a PRC democracy. freestylefrappe 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Don't fix what aint broke. I have confidence in our bureaucrats to sniff out dodgy voting. enochlau (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ditto, ain't broke --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hell no. But obviously we should retain the right for bureaucrats to discount obvious sockpup votes. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, what you mean by "obvious"? We've recently seen controversies as to which votes were obvious sockups and which were valid votes questioned by trolls. --Ghirla | talk 08:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Obviously we should discourage sockpuppetry on adminship votes. But arguments should be presentable by anyone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong disagree. Obviously sockpuppets should be damned to hell. But suffrage rules are bound to center on two things: editcountitis and months of membership. Both have nothing to do with whether you should vote or not. Hell, I've edited as an anon for some time, I knew most of the policies before making an account, but by suffrage rules I probably wouldnt be able to vote!! The problem is not new users; stupid votes just come from stupid people, and any open society has quite a few of those around. We should not repress it, we should just deal with it. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per CBD. The 'crats do a fine job as it is, no need for potentially damaging instruction creep. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The majority of admins that are promoted are doing a good job. Nothing wrong with process, and suffrage won't fix it. Pilatus 17:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. Aren't there already? Don't BCrats typically discount (or take into less consideration) newbie or IP votes? --LV (Dark Mark) 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There should be clearer guidelines, with the BCrats still making the final determination. BlankVerse 18:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fine the way it is, with no IP voting, and 'crat discretion for new users. android79 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As an atypical user, I started commenting in project space (AfD, RfA, etc) at around 700 votes. I'd hate to see such a boundary placed at more than 500 votes; hell, ArbCom election isn't requiring more than 150! -- nae'blis (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per the above. I'd rather see no hard rules, but rely on Bureaucrats discretion. --Syrthiss 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. What LV and the others said. Let the Bureaucrats decide. —Nightstallion (?) 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. If it is decided that AFD should be a vote and not a discussion, then having some voter requirements is a good idea. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If RfA becomes a straight 'voting' situation, then suffrage makes sense. Otherwise this is largely opposed to the idea of consensus, especially at any high levels of requirements. WP:AGF. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. radical idea to think about... limit admin votes to NON admins (of suitable experience level). Then let admins remove from among themselves if necessary. may not be workable but limiting admin votes to JUST admins seems way wrong. I'd rather see it stay a discussion/consensus process though. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Comments are fine for anyone and welcomed from new and experienced users alike, but voting should be only after a certain time, and that time should be fairly uniform and transparent regardless of the bureaucrat. Karmafist 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Let the bureaucrats decide. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Bureaucrats obviously can ignore the vote of someone who clearly has no clue what's going on--a vote by a brand-new user without a comment or with a comment that makes no sense. But there is and should be some consensus element, and if a new user points out something that matters--a key diff, perhaps--then the bureaucrat certainly should take her vote into account. Chick Bowen 05:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ditto everyone else, especially Chick Bowen and Nae'blis. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats should remove votes that are in bad faith or nonsensical

Agree

Don't remove, but strike out

  1. Strike out, but don't remove completely. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree per LV, again. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strike out, so we have a record of what votes were discounted...but maintain the stricken vote so the process is transparent. --Syrthiss 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Should clear bad faith votes be made, they must be removed immediately by a bureacrat. We trust bureaucrats to act in the interests of Wikipedia and displays of bad faith on RFA are especially damaging. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per the above. —Nightstallion (?) 21:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yeah --Jaranda wat's sup 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strongly agree. Often, oppose votes are personal vendettas, and nothing to do with the editor's potential ability as an admin. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree revenge votes are quite a frequent occurance, then there are the boothy type voters who oppose everything with no stated reason, and then there are simply straight oppose pileons.  ALKIVAR™ 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As well, votes which do not explain their reasoning should be struck out. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. [No explanation provided] --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strike and Comment. These should not be removed, a strike out shows it was removed ex post facto, but a brief comment should be made. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Bureaucrats are human like the rest of us. While most of us would trust a crat to make the right decision, it is possible that they would make the wrong one, and we need to be able to view the decisions they have made to avoid this. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I believe this would help the process substantially. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes this can help the process a lot. Also reasons should be given for opposing. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. As above. The Witch 19:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove, don't strike but comment

  1. Striking really just looks bad to newbies, as I remarked way back when. A comment explaining why (perhaps via subst'd template) educates and is perceived as fairer. Strikeouts are a bad practice, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (the comment should be placed in a way that doesn't impact the numbering, if numbering is used, of course). Note to nose counters, some of the "disagree"s below probably COULD be (virtually) moved here since their comment indicates this approach, and they were placed before I thought to add this choice) ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I strongly agree with Lar on this not just in RFA polls but in all our polling scenarios. Strikeouts are perceived as confrontational and are frequently misunderstood. A comment achieves the same end but does so in a way which is perceived as adding facts to the discussion. The new user may dislike that the comment was added but he/she has a harder time feeling disenfranchised. Rossami (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A strike-out is bound to cause irritations, so I'm tempted to say that nothing should be done, and to leave it to the bureaucrat, but that would be inhumane. It's perfectly fine for admin to just comment if there's something problematic. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strongly agree with Lar and Rossami here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ditto those four guys above me. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. Don't remove or strike out, but make admins and BCrats should make a clear note of problems with any votes. BlankVerse 18:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If someone makes a vote like this, I want to see it. It should be made clear by the closing 'crat that it's been discounted, though. android79 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Admins should never have the right to outright remove votes completely. --badlydrawnjeff 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strikeout or otherwise comment on them (even to the point of indenting them from being in the numbered count), but removing the vote entirely from the list is poor form. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As Android. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. We can tell without causing futher conflicts. Add a note if it's that important. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I had a "nonsensical vote" and Boothy's vote against my adminship which were duly noted and understood for what they were, but they should not be removed --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bcrats should be disallowed to unilaterally discard any vote as long as this vote conforms to suffrage requirements articulated above. --Ghirla | talk 18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree with what people have already said. Who is to judge whether or not something is in "bad faith". Also the practice of noting someone either being a sock puppet or vandal is fine on the first reference, but is annoying when the same person goes through all open RfAs and makes the same note on each one. I think once is enough. Sue Anne 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No problems with discounting them, but votes shouldn't be removed, only personal attacks or other material that would also be removed on a non-voting page. Gamaliel 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. All votes should be available for posterity.  Grue  20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree with others above. Don't alter comments of others, but note possible socks/vandals/whatever. --CBD ☎ ✉ 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Even the nearly perfected BCats need accountability. --Rudolf Nixon 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Nothing should be removed from the discussion - it should be an accurate record of the process, complete from start to finish. -- Francs2000 00:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Agree with the above. enochlau (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I'm ok with bureaucrats commenting that they didn't count a vote when closing, but don't delete them. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • Comment: Policy has been that every vote is left up, but the bureaucrat takes the nature of the vote into account, if necessary. I think maybe we could remove actual feelthy language or open racism or something. I don't think a bureaucrat should generally be deciding what amounts to bad faith or "nonsense" while the vote is ongoing. -- Cecropia 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC) addendum at 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally think that we need to define what "bad faith votes" amount to first. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linuxbeak, please see: ([1], [2], [3]) -ZeroTalk 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Of course. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linuxbeak, I think we are going too far down the road of "define this," "define that," "make this rule," "make that rule." Wait until you've made an unpopular decision and you'll find out what voters find wrong with different votes. In a big hurry. -- Cecropia 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the votes should be left up, but bureaucrats should discount them when counting. It'd be nice if they point out what they discount. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking out other people's words has the connotation of effacing or vandalizing them -- in the real-world sense of "vandalizing", not specifically the Wikipedia sense. Therefore, it's always going to come across as rude and uncivil to me, and I'm likely to revert it if I see it done. --FOo 04:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Existing administrators

We're already aware that admins should not 1) protect pages in an edit dispute they're involved in, 2) block when they have a previous conflict with the user, or 3) unblock themselves when specifically blocked by another admin. There are some other admin actions that seem to be controversial.

Admins should be held more accountable for their actions than they are now

Agree

  1. Yes. Admins need to be held to a much higher standard than normal users. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Without a doubt. --badlydrawnjeff 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Adminship is no big deal, but abuses of power should be. There ought to be a much clearer, more streamlined way to deadmin someone (and I continue to read that as 'dead admin'). -- nae'blis (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely agree. This is probably the most important of the proposals on this page. Admins are the public "face" of the Wikipedia, they are some of the most active editors on the Wikipedia, they are the ones responsible for enforcing Wikipedia Rules and guidelines, and they should know better! Also see the comments on my talk page for more of my opinions on the matter. BlankVerse 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem that I see right now with the Wikipedia is that exactly the opposite is happening. If you've been here a long time, you've are given lots of slack for any of your misbehavior. Look at User:Ed Poor, for the prime example, who was given enough rope to eventually hang himself (figuratively). BlankVerse 19:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think this is the biggest issue facing Wikipedia currently. Admins should be held to at least the same standards as regular users. When an admin and a regular user both violate 3RR, civility, NPA, harassment, or whatever... but only the user gets blocked (or the admin gets unblocked quickly) it sends a terrible message. Admins should not be required to be perfect, but they must not be held to a lower standard of behaviour than everyone else. --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The name alone implies higher standards which should be maintained, though in practical concerns (1RR, 2RR?) I'm not sure what that higher standard should be. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The problem is that admins currently may do whatever they want without any fear of being defrocked. I know admins guilty of copyvios, gratuitously unblocking vandals of their own nationality, intimidating other editors, indulging in wheel wars, inserting "fuck off" in every other edit summary, etc, etc. This is a profanation. --Ghirla | talk 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. yes, and for non-admin actions as well. after all, admins are promoted in the first place because of non-admin behavior. if you've got the right temperament to be an admin, you'll meet a higher standard in all regards. the system is based on trust. if i can't trust your judgement as an editor, why should i trust your judgement as an admin? Derex 19:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I agree that there needs to be an accountability loop. I have yet to hear a mechanism to do this. --Durin 19:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Absolutely. Dragons flight 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Totally. And I explicitly disagee that they should only be held to high standards regarding their "admin actions". It was their non-admin actions that were judged when they were RfA'd originally; they should continue to act in a manner compatible with the trust of the community. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I'd like to see the arbitrators more willing to challenge abuse of administrator powers, and unafraid to remove the sysop bit if they think this is in the interests of the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. They should be as accountable as non-admin users.  Grue  20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Currently, administrators have no effective accountability to the community following their promotions. It's a bizarre dichotomy: you need over 70% support to become an administrator... and 0% support to keep it. Arbcom is clearly not an effective sanction. We've seen an increasing willingness by a small group of administrators to forget that they act on behalf of community consensus and beginning to think that they are the community. This has to stop, or it will cause very serious problems for Wikipedia down the road. I have to wonder if Wikipedia's IRC channel is a part of the problem. A lot of the wheel warring I see here is exactly like the infantile crap I witnessed on IRC a couple of years back (and is the reason why I stopped using it). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Agree. With increased power, comes increased responsibility. People look to admins to see what a good wikipedia citizen looks like, and what type of behavior is expected. When a admin abuses their position, harasses another user, or makes poor judgment calls in a controversial situation, it reflects badly on them, reflects badly on Wikipedia as a whole, and encourages bad behavior on the part of others. Elonka 20:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Aye. —Nightstallion (?) 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Agree with Crotalus. Moreover, I think that higher accountability for admins would go a long way to correcting the dismaying trend of seeing adminship treated as a mark of social status. Adminship is a job, not a privilege, and anyone unable or unwilling to meet the requirements of that job should not be kept on. – Seancdaug 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Currently unless policy violations are flagrent enough for the arbcom to act (and they are settign a high bar on this) there is nothing that can be done except engage in wheel wars, which is very bad for the project, or let a determined admin have his or her way. DES (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Agree but not because of some of the above reasons. I think that though Admins need to be accountable for their actions, I think that their actions are less important than everyone thinks. What sum of loss to Wikipedia is an editor (with dubious edit history - POV, personal attacks, incivility, unco-operativeness) not being able to edit for 24 hours? One or two good edits if that? I think we need some perspective. --Celestianpower háblame 21:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Jeandré, 2006-01-17t22:30z
  21. No matter how many times we say the contrary, people see adminship as a big deal. We must be a good example for users and potential users. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strongest possible agreement. For ALL actions, not just admin ones. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Admins are supposed to be the senior members of the community - steady and reliable in all their actions. Without a doubt, we should be held to a higher standard. Rossami (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes, and desysopping should be easier. Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I can't think why we shouldn't be. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Admins are the face of Wikipedia. How can we tell newbies to follow the rules if the admins they look up to break them and are not held accountable for it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Too many admins use their powers as a licence to vandalize. Quaque (talk • contribs) 07:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Ditto Rossami and Titoxd. While I agree with Natalinasmpf that all editors should strive to be as accountable as possible, when we're talking in real terms, let's face it -- admin accountability right now is a bloody huge joke, and admins are the face of Wikipedia to the outside world. We need to be more accountable. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. When we have an RfA on someone we expect rather high standards not just of project and policy interactions but of normal edits as well. Why should this change once they become an admin? Abuse of admin functions is even more serious, however. WhiteNight T | @ | C 12:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Definitely, per Johnleemk, BlankVerse, CBD and others. — mark ✎ 14:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Not an ounce of admin review takes place. Marskell 15:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 17:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. As evidenced by Jimbo's recent fiat at Talk:Alan Dershowitz, administrators are being given greater editorial control, not just extra buttons. Thus, I feel it is proper to hold admins more accountable for both editorial and administrative actions. --Tabor 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. With great power comes great responsibility. Pilatus 17:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Or to put it another way, there are a few dozen admins who should likely be sacked. They're certainly not following WP policy. The Witch 19:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only to their admin actions

  1. Only when it refers to serious things, such as blocks. violet/riga (t) 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. When I'm editing an article as a regular user, I don't expect to be held to some higher standard, though I always try my best to live up to a higher personal standard. When I'm wearing my "admin hat", I do expect to be held to a higher standard. Carbonite | Talk 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the comments in this section are claiming that administrators are no different than anyone else in an editorial capacity. See Talk:Alan Dershowitz for a simple demonstration that this is not always the case. When we start giving admins greater editorial control, I think it is fitting and proper to have higher editorial standards for admins. --Tabor 17:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The current problem (with some admins, certainly nowhere near all) is their abuse of power. Anyone can edit, so it's not an abuse of power when an admin gets weird on a certain article. However, if in the middle of an edit war, an admin in any way tries to use his/her adminship as some sort of sword to hold over the head of a "mere" user (i.e. subtly implying on the article's talk page that any user who changes the admin's most recent edit may find themselves blocked a few minutes later), then that should be treated as seriously as if the admin went ahead with an actual abuse of power. In short, threatening users into silence in order to win an edit war (or any other argument on Wikipedia) should be considered an "admin action" whether they actually carry out the threat or not. --Aaron 19:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Carbonite and Aaron -- Francs2000 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Uh-huh. NSLE (T+C) 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Editors aren't marked as Admins, so they only need to behave as admins when doing admin actions. (SEWilco 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  8. Adminship means we trust someone to use the administrator tools, not we expect them to be some kind of senior editor. If they misuse the tools, their misuse needs to be pointed out to them. But they're not a distinct species. Chick Bowen 04:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone writes POV articles once in a while, usually without knowing about it. Even admins have feelings and opinions. When these feelings encroach upon the (mis)use of admin powers though, that is going too far and there needs to be more accountability and more of a consequence for this kind of action. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Admins can make the same silly edits as any random editor and should be treated as an editor in that case. Misuse of admin tools is a different story and there should be some seperate accountability. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mostly admin actions unless they start vandalizing. a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. What does this even mean? It's just a vague principle that, when stated, makes everyone nod in agreement (like "politicians suck") but doesn't contribute in any meaningful way to a workable solution or even identify a potential problem. Gamaliel 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In my experience, problems with administrators are dealt with satisfactorily by the current process. Administrative actions are as transparent as they can reasonably be. Questionable or controversial actions are usually scrutinized quite closely, and reversed if necessary -- we have numerous processes for doing so, e.g. WP:DRV, WP:AN. In that context, I'm not sure what "more accountability" would entail. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give you an example - I saw a case where an admin threatened to block a user if they again reverted a page the two were disputing, then actually did block the user for reverting, then protected the article to the admin's preferred version, then falsely claimed the user had violated 3RR, then declared that they would block the user indefinitely if the user continued to edit war. Wanna guess what happened when the user complained? The user got threatened with more blocks for 'harassing' the admin. That's what 'more accountability' means... let's start with some accountability. Any accountability would be nice. Right now it is nearly impossible to hold admins to account for anything. Which is incredibly damaging to Wikipedia's image and development. --CBD ☎ ✉ 21:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did the user complain? If that's all there is to it, I would imagine that the rest of the administrators would quite rightly ensure that the block was removed and the offending administrator admonished by the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it should be made more clear in the block notice or something how to contact another administrator to get a second opinion if you think you have been unjustly blocked. The admin in question screwed up anyway, there shouldn't be a need to user Admin Powers on an article that you edit for content. There is just too much to go wrong, instead the administrator in question should have requested another admin block the page. - FrancisTyers 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. more vague instruction creep used only to de-op admins not loyal to the cabal. If this were a serious proposal, it would be objectively defined. --Rudolf Nixon 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What Gamaliel said, this is unconstructive and vague to say the least.  ALKIVAR™ 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I can't agree to this unless you explain what you mean. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you like it to mean? This poll is intentionally vague, to gauge opinion. If opinion is that we need more accountability, we can use the remarks given here to propose a policy on how to do that. Radiant_>|< 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Current processes are sufficient. We don't need more red tape. enochlau (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Current processes are excessive. Adminship is no big deal. Bad blocks are undone quickly. Page protection is just a time-out. The revert button is already available to all users. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. per Hipocrite. - FrancisTyers 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Current processes are adequate. -- Arwel (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. I think this conflicts with "adminship is no big deal". Admins can have editing disputes as much as regular editors, and as long as they don't abuse their privileges, I don't care that much. android79 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The big problem right now is that there is no way to hold a misbehaving admin accountable except through peer pressure or a very long RFAr. If you block them, they can unblock themselves. If you protect an article, they can still edit it. And when they edit war with "regular" editors, there is always the unstated threat that they can block or ban the person they are in conflict with. BlankVerse 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adminship is a big deal, regardless of what the guidelines say. It may not have been a big deal in the early days of Wikipedia, but these days nobody just saunters in, makes a few edits and gets elected as an admin a week later. You have to have a long paper trail (in number of edits anyway, not necessarily time) and a relatively squeaky-clean history to survive a vote. --Aaron 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Normal users should act like administrators, only without the powers. In fact, all members of the community should aspire to become an administrator, just that new users don't have this because we need to make sure we can trust them. So yes, administrators need to be more accountable for their actions, but other users too. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Natalinasmpf stated exactly my feeling on the matter. --Syrthiss 19:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is a loaded question. Kind of asking "did you stop beating your wife?". Admins are accountable like any other editor in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring is an inappropriate use of admin powers

Agree

  1. Duh. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Probably so, don't ya think? --LV (Dark Mark) 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Erm, yes. Most certainly. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Duh. --Interiot 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is this a trick question? Carbonite | Talk 18:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. of course --Ragib 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Can we invoke the reverse snowball clause on this one? android79 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It takes two to wheel war. Every admin in a wheel war should temporarily lose admin priviledges. BlankVerse 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So what should I have done when 172 pulled the block I had placed on him?Geni 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are in a mutual wheel war, then you both should lose admin priviledges. If you instituted a one-time block that was overruled by the misbehaving admin, then see my remarks in other sections. BlankVerse 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a "timed admin block" which removes admin powers from one user and the one issuing the block? For 24 hours? (SEWilco 04:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  9. Hm, a toughie :) I also think that admins should be (permanently) deadminned for wheel warring if they are caught at it more than <insert a number you like> times (I like three).—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This needs a vote? — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree with the comment, and with android79. Sheesh. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Major league agreement. --Aaron 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. But it's so much fun! Errr, it's bad, yes. Friday (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strongly agreed. Problem is, it's effectively approved of by ArbCom (for refusal to hear a case about it) and Jimbo (who has done it himself). The chances of getting this culture changed are, to say the least, limited. --Durin 19:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No kidding. Dragons flight 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC). Tricky one. Not.[reply]
  18. As others have said, this doesn't take a lot of thinking. Anything which makes it fundamentally more difficult to contribute to the encyclopedia should be dealt with. Repeated reverts and blocks impede progress in a serious way. Avriette 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. To some degree yes. If an admin starts a wheel war (by doing the action that another admin has to revert) then this action is most likely inappropriate.  Grue  20:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Wheel warring is the admin version of edit warring, but more serious because it involves an abuse of trust, and also because "ordinary" editors cannot easily correct such actions, as they can with normal edit wars. We urge users to discuss rather than blindly reverting, and have WP:3RR to enforce this. It should be even more so with admin actions. If an admin does a deletion/undeletion/block/unblock you find harmful, discuss it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per Linuxbeak. æle ✆ 20:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Most likely, mh? —Nightstallion (?) 21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Ah... does anyone really dispute this? – Seancdaug 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Obviously. DES (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes, except when it absolutely isn't. Demi T/C 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Of course. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Duh  ALKIVAR™ 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. This is fairly obvious tbh -- Francs2000 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Damn right. NSLE (T+C) 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Needless to say. enochlau (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong agreement. Unfortunately, apparently not a view shared by the current ArbComm. I voted against all ArbComm candidates who wheel war. To Tony's comments below: The end does not justify the means. ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Absolutely. To combat this a special AN or other type of notice board to report wheel warring may be helpful. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. O RLY? Of course! The community looks at admins as examples, regardless of adminship being a big deal or not, and if we give these kinds of examples, with what face are we going to block editors for breaking 3RR? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Naturally. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. But sometimes, you can't avoid it, especially in cases of bad faith blocks/deletions. Shit happens. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Wheel warring is just as bad, if not worse than edit warring. I can think of no excuse to justify wheel warring, and I'm trying to be civil here. I'm tired of all the batshit flying around when it comes to wheel warring. As it stands, editors are more accountable for edit warring than admins are for wheel warring — revert four times and you're blocked, but unblock four times and feel free to keep exercising your powers to defend the 'pedia! What the hell ever happened to m:eventualism and AGF? Johnleemk | Talk 12:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Obviously. — mark ✎ 14:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Speaks for itself. Marskell 15:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Any type of reverting save simple vandalism is typically counter-productive. Learn to discuss. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Can you say "stating the bleedin' obvious"? -- Arwel (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Thought it already was one. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 17:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Duh. Pilatus 17:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Clearly.--Alhutch 18:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. This happens only because an appalling percentage of admins don't bother to even give the appearance of following Wikipedia policy and behave more like trolls. The Witch 19:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. Existing alleged cases of wheel warring appear to be deletion/undeletion cases and a sign of the ongoing tension between process and content. See recent arbitrator comments in rejecting a case brought by Radiant, and also Warren Benbow for a case where repeated undeletion was required to keep an article in a state where the AfD could proceed. The article was kept unanimously. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the article would also have been kept if you hadn't wheel warred over it, I fail to see what your point is. Radiant_>|< 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that wheel warring can occasionally end up at a good result, does not make it a good strategy for getting things done. Dragons flight 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gosh lots of comments. I'll register polite disagreement on both points. In fact I challenge the use of the term "wheel war", which implies an abuse of power, when alll that is happening here is a difference of opinion on how that power should be used in the interests of Wikipedia. Sometimes not taking administrator action can be more damaging than taking it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I sympathize but I believe repeatedly redoing admin actions stems from a false sense of urgency. In almost all instances, there is time enough to discuss, and even in cases where something bad sabotages a discussion it can be redone for that reason. Demi T/C 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to repeat a quote I ran across... it's from an administrator I really admire, even if he's human and sometimes does things I don't agree with. What is this about running out of time? Wikipedia is not a multiplayer game, it's not a time-critical affair. If something needs to be done, it'll wait until tomorrow, or most likely someone else will do it if it urgently needs to be done. I think Tony would do well to heed those words. Which administrator said them is left as an exercise to the reader, at least for now. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The only alternative to Wheel Warring with administrators like Radiant and Carbonite is subjugation. Instead of telling my kids that they can't fight, I give them Soccer Boppers. --Rudolf Nixon 23:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...the hell? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of how many rules you make, life finds a balance. You can constantly fight against life, or you can embrace the balance. --Rudolf Nixon 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/Rudolf_Nixon Sockpuppet check in order? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, sock checks are for repeat vandals, not just people who disagree with you. --FOo 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Point being, Rudolph Nixon's edits are primarily to this page, yet he's got firm opinions about the way things ought to be run. Seems like someone is (afraid/unwilling/avoiding) using their usual login for this page only, which could be a sign they're commenting twice, or not. Knowing they are not let's us accept them more at face value, wouldn't it? -- nae'blis (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. Of course "wheel warring" (what a strange term) is a bad thing. However, given that blocking a user means revoking their editing privileges, and given that some blocks are indefinite, there need to be reasonable processes in place to review and undo unfair blocks. When an admin is overstepping blocking policy, this needs to be reverted. It is important to have peace and harmony among administrators, but it is equally important to be welcoming and not to bite newbies. Whenever possible, disagreements over blocking should be resolved in discussions, of course, but sometimes it may be desirable to hold a poll. An admin who feels that they are backed up by common sense, process and policy in reverting another admin's block should not be accused of "wheel warring" unless they do so repeatedly.--Eloquence* 02:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I"d like to mention that the name comes from the user group "wheel" that is commonly found on unix systems. It's between users and root, but actual permissions depend on configuration and file ownership. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wheel warring is bad. Deciding what constitutes a wheel war, however, is tricky. Who gets to make the call? Certainly, the two parties in the dispute can't make that determination. If they were level-headed enough to be seriously thinking about the consequences of a wheel war, they would be very unlikely to be in such a dispute in the first place. I guess I'm not sure what question this section of the poll is supposed to answer. Rossami (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's only wrong if it's not solving anything. If we wheel wared over blocking a rogue admin who was unblocking himself to vandalize the front page, 1/2 of the wheel war would be right.
    May I ask who's comment this belongs to?  :-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring consensus is inappropriate for an admin

Agree

  1. Yes, almost always. There will always be that .0001% where Admin actions could go against consensus. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What LV said. --badlydrawnjeff 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely agree. A huge problem for the Wikipedia currently is that WP:IAR has morphed from a guideline for newbies to not worry about all the rules, to a license for admins and ArbComm members to do anything they damn-well please. IAR should be stricken from Wikipedia guidelines. BlankVerse 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Except in very rare, time critical, 'emergencies' admins should be the most dedicated to following consensus --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In most cases, yes. android79 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WP:IAR should be replace with Use common sense and admins should follow the consensus --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Consensus should be overridden only in extreme circumstances. Disagreeing with the result is not an extreme circumstance. Gamaliel 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I don't believe admins are robots, but ignoring community consensus and worse, ignoring the use of consensus building mechanisms when faced with potentially controversial decisions is antithetical to the community which must be supported in order for there to be an encyclopedia. --Durin 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree with Durin. I can understand ignoring a particular vote or the wishes of a small group of people in favor of a broader community consensus, but I have little tolerance for those that blindly ignore and disregard the consensus building mechanisms built into Wikipedia in favor of pushing their own agenda. Dragons flight 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This really is a tough one. With the constant flood of new users, many of whom seem more interested in other aspects of Wikipedia than building an encyclopedia, consensus can and does get it wrong sometimes. I will say this: going against a consensus of trusted users (roughly speaking, admins), is always wrong, unless you're Jimbo. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Jimbo recently discerned consensus by noting a lack of activity of admins to undo something that had been done. I don't think Jimbo's particularly interested in real consensus. That to me is one of the fundamental issues; the culture being supported is subversion of consensus when common sense thinks you should. Except, common sense isn't the same across cultures, borders, and continents. Thus, dispute. --Durin 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Jimbo should be particularly interested in real consensus. Wikipedia needs layers that cut through all the process and bureaucracy. Without it, we become more government than encyclopedia. However, right now the only member of the layer that has the power to cut through the red tape by fiat is Jimbo. My problem is with Admins who self-declare themselves as belonging to that same layer. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Largely agree. There are obvious exceptions, such as implementation of the copyright policy. Determining when consensus has been reached is often a pretty tricky business, too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. By the definition of consensus.  Grue  20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Obviously legal issues (copyvio, libel, etc.) can't be based only on consensus, nor can WP:NPOV and a handful of other basic Foundation policies. However, these exceptions should be interpreted very narrowly. In cases where a reasonable, experienced Wikipedian might disagree on the outcome, consensus should be the governing factor. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strongly agree. I too have seen cases of admins trying to dodge consensus building. For example, proposing a controversial change on an infrequently-visited talk page during the middle of the Christmas holidays (see Talk:List of Polish monarchs), getting a few people into the discussion to agree with them, then ignoring any other objections and rapidly proceeding as though they had a consensus. Elonka 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Concensus is the basis of wikipedia, and IAR is evil. -ZeroTalk 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. In general, yes. It depends on what consensus is involved, adn how one determins that consensu has been reached, and whether prior and deeper policy consensus is involved also. But in general, yes. DES (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Definitely. NSLE (T+C) 00:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Admins should wear two hats. When wearing the admin hat, they should put aside their personal feelings on the matter and make a decision based on what has been decided by the community at large. enochlau (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Agree- As per blankverse.--God of War 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I'm not sure what this part of the poll will acheive. What will those admins who think they ought to ignore consensus do when consensus says they should not ignore consensus? Ignore consensus, of course.--best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. WP:IAR is vastly overused. When cited as justification, it's a sign that the action wasn't actually justifyable. The only exception is when concensus repeals reality (clearly illegal or impossible things). This needs to be accepted again and ArbComm needs to step up to the plate. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Absolutely(expecting someone on the other side to overbold once again and speedy delete WP:CON.) Karmafist 04:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Once you realize what the actual consensus is, IAR should not be used to go around it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Consensus, or at the very least a majority in a vote, should be the driving force behind any admin's actions. WP:IAR is only intended for those actions whereby a consensus is pretty much guaranteed and calling a discussion would just be a waste of time. I'm tired of seeing WP:IAR abused again and again. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Almost always, but remember, consensus doesn't mean counting votes. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Duh. We have admins to gauge consensus. That is their bloody job. Pilatus 17:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Consensus on Wikipedia too often equates to mob rule. An admin should act according to well defined academic standards and WP policy. The Witch 19:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. Disagree consensus is not always clear and is subject to the whim of whoever reads the AFD, RFC, etc... Sometimes a clear consensus can be wrong.  ALKIVAR™ 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Only if WP:IAR is deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then let's delete it already. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot delete policy. But you can ignore it... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy can be put on mfd just like anything else. Then again, these days it's so much easier to grab a few people who agree with you and just revert to your edit until the other side gives up. Speaking of which, WP:IAR is policy again? Last time I checked, it wasn't, but all you need to do is type in a tag and press the edit button and "it's policy", so i'm not surprised. Karmafist 04:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As written above, it's too sweeping a statement. As an example, an AFD discussion may show apparent consensus to keep a particular article but if evidence shows it to be a copyright violation, it has to go. We can't just "vote" to overturn copyright laws. Likewise, a discussion's apparent consensus to delete an article which would result in a violation of GFDL can not be supported.
    I believe that consensus should be respected. Decision-making through consensus-seeking is one of our core principles. But there are some situations where you have to do what's best for the encyclopedia and, if necessary, take the consequences. Overruling the consensus of a particular discussion on a point of principle or policy should be done rarely and is always subject to review. If the deciding admin is found to have been in error, some form of censure may be appropriate. Rossami (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be silly. Even if it were deleted, it would still be in use. Common sense beats any policy that could ever be written down. And we need to use a hell of a lot more common sense than we do now. But, IAR should never be used as a reason for doing something. If anyone argues about it, either tell them why they're wrong, or apologize. Ever mentioning IAR anywhere is likely to attract IAR lynchmobs, which don't help ANYTHING. They won't get IAR deleted, they won't make the use of it change *at all*. They'll just annoy people. I hate overly bureaucratic crap, such as real life governments. "I made 4 reverts in 25 hours! I did not violate 3RR!" is a perfect example of a complaint from a ruleslawyer that was blocked through IAR. In real life, they put teens that are under the age of consent on sex offender lists and jail them, for having sex with other people under the age of consent, but of very similar age. And if the age of consent is 16, someone 17 could have sex with a 15 year old and get busted for "statutory rape". Do you see a problem with that? Legal crap doesn't tend to use much comomn sense. This post could be shortened to two sentences: IAR doesn't do anything. Common sense, or lack thereof does. Oh, and i'm not against age of consent laws. They just need to be enforced and written with common sense. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Consensus does not mean majority and interpretations frequently contradict each other. The point of consensus is to work collaboratively through discussion not to unquestioningly enforce, or punish those against, the purported majority view. zen master T 05:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Actually, I usually agree here, admins shouldn't just disregard consensus when it doesn't suit them. But Rossami makes a compelling case for some exceptions, and I agree with what he says. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NOR, V, NPOV and Copyright are inviolate and cannot be overruled by consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Admins should do the right thing, also per Hipocrite and Phroziac. Rules lawyering is retarded. Personally I think WP:IAR is one of the most helpful and useful guidelines we have. - FrancisTyers 15:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Consensus can be wrong, and cannot be used to override considerations like copyvios. -- Arwel (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. It honestly depends on the situation. Most of the time, consensus should be followed though. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As a general rule admins don't ignore consensus. More likely they just don't bother finding out what it is before acting.Geni 18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's inappropriate for anyone in certain conditions. violet/riga (t) 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It depends on what you understand by consensus. In Eastern European topics, we have seen votes rigged in a variety of ingenious ways: sockpuppetry, campaigning in national wikis and outside websites, etc. It takes ArbCom months to discuss the problem and to issue a ruling. I don't want admins stick to such kind of phony "consensus". --Ghirla | talk 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Depends on the situtation, I certainly agree that admins shouldn't have a "policy" of ignoring consensus, but nor should anyone else. --pgk(talk) 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Consensus must be defined here. Are we, as above, discussing only admin actions? What about articlespace edits? Is this saying that if changes are being made that somebody may disagree with that the admin should contact that person? I agree with this on principle, but would like to see it expanded. Avriette 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. If I keep reading, is this going to become more and more a rehash of the Kelly Martin witch hunts? Harro5 20:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per ^demon. There are situations when policy or common sense overrules consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No one should ignore consensus, period. Consensus is where we get NPOV. That being said, if there is a consensus to go out and lynch an editor because they're from Encyclopedia Brittanica, well.. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ignoring consensus is innapropriate for any editor. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It entirely depends on the situation - there are some situations where vote rigging and sockpuppetry needs to be taken into account, but for the whole everyone should be following consensus. -- Francs2000 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. On the one hand, the answer's easy: nobody (especially not admins) should ignore consensus. However, the difficulty lies in what "consensus" is. Too many people on a "don't ignore consensus!" bent assume it means vote-counting. Two examples are AfD ("we have 67% for delete! You must delete now! Don't ignore consensus!"), and the Kelly Martin userbox thing (one of the issues that cropped up in discussions is what sort of user counts towards "consensus", and whether one sort's consensus can overrule another's). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Does consensus trump doing the right thing? (SEWilco 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  14. Ditto fuddlemark. I also think nobody should ignore consensus, but occasionally other factors must be taken in -- for instance, we very well can't break the law. I don't care if everyone on the bloody 'pedia wants to use a fair use image where it would obviously be inadmissible, it's got to go. I also think consensus isn't going to scale for very much longer as a method of decision-making. It should always form the backbone of Wikipedia, because a wiki's nature depends on consensus, but I think at some point we'll need to have other inputs into decision-making, probably from Jimbo/the board or something like that. But that's immaterial. The point is; don't ignore consensus unless you have a bloody good reason to. Johnleemk | Talk 13:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. What MarkGallagher fuddled. — mark ✎ 14:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Many recent events that suggest a small number of admins repeatedly abuse WP:IAR as a tactic to prod the community (e.g. to draw attention to a pet issue, to create a community turmoil that might break up a logjam or deadlock). Typically, the ensuing hostilities are more damaging than the original problem was. For the instigator, a pet issue is addressed, albeit at the cost of harming the community. More and more, the response is, "A mistake was made. Move on and forget about it." There is no disincentive to repeating the charade. We cannot expect that the number of these fiascos will decrease if we do not change our response to them in some way. --Tabor 18:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rollback button should only be used in cases of clear vandalism, or reverting oneself

Agree

  1. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interiot 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree, while keeping Geni's note about userpages in mind. --badlydrawnjeff 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely. BlankVerse 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In my experience, most admins do not know what Wikipedia:Vandalism is all about. Too often they take any content dispute for vandalism and use rollback button gratuitously just to show off. As an aside, rollback summary with its "block" function may appear intimidating to good faith editors who dare oppose an admin. Anyone who used rollback button to revert non-vandalism and to save time required for an edit summary, say, five times, should be defrocked as a matter of course. --Ghirla | talk 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agreed. If you're not reverting vandalism, then explain what you are doing in the edit summary (and why). --Durin 19:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Absolutely, once you get past vandalism it becomes too gray of an area just to rollback with no comment. And WP:RFR is probably going to become active at some point so there will be a substantial increase in the number of non-admin editors will rollback power. Some pretty clear guidelines in it's use will prevent issues. Rx StrangeLove 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. On balance I agree with this (not least because my vandalism monitoring tool assumes that rollbacks are mostly for vandalism) but in principle the rollback button is just a nice quick (and accurate) way of reverting. If like most of us you don't revert that much except for simple vandalism, it doesn't make a lot of difference. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Aside from the caveat that "vandalism" needs to be very explicitly defined, I see no reason for the revert tool to be used when a hand-edit and an edit summary will help everyone understand what was done and why. See also, "talk page." People seem to have forgotten that it is possible to edit without the revert button. Avriette 20:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree. Other edits require an edity summary. Otherwise is not civil and an abuse of privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. It is taken by many users to mean this, so I revert the everyday way and explain the reason why if it's not appropriate. -- Francs2000 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Always explain your reverts has been a basic principle and policy for a long time. Rollback fails to provide an explanation by itself... the edit summary just gives dry information. Obviously, no explanation is needed for clear vandalism, but if rollback is opened up to allow people to do more than what developer Brion Vibber said that it is intended for, people are going to start forgetting to explain reverts, and just push the button. -- Netoholic @ 06:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Admittedly, I'm yet to see a case where rollback has been used as part of an edit war to prevent easy reverts, but the opportunity is just sitting there waiting to be abused. While the definition of vandalism varies (I have a broad definition of it, including seemingly innocuous POV edits as seen on Abortion) there should be checks on what exactly rollback is used for. If there's doubt, revert should be used. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes, edit summaries are necessary for cases of non-vandalism. Seeing the standard reversion text is pretty much saying "I am reverting your vandalism" or "Self-revert". --Deathphoenix 16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. If you have left comments on my user page rather than my talk page I'm going to minimise any effort expened in removeing them.Geni 18:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rollback is fine when used to mass-revert good-faith but bad-result edits, such as a new user altering and breaking most or all instances of a template. I've done this at least twice, with a polite message on the user's talk page first, of course. android79 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Clear vandalism" is too restrictive. Newbie tests aren't vandalism a lot of the time, for example; I don't see much of a reason to leave a comment when a first-time editor has inserted '''Bold text''' into an article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't see a difference between one click and three clicks. Gamaliel 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. who cares? it just saves a tiny bit of time. if you want to leave an edit summary explaining the reason, don't use it. sometimes a simple statement of the revert is edit summary enough. Derex 19:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Even without optional comments, I disagree. I dont see the "reverted soandso to soandso" as a "I think you are nothing more than a vandal!1111!!" statement. If there was ambiguity in why I've done it, I usually go explain on the talk page or the user's talk page. --Syrthiss 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I rollback is even worse than a regular revert because it says "I, as a trusted member of the Wikipedia community, have found absolutely nothing worthwhile in your edit and label it vandalism." BlankVerse 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If rollback is offensive, reverting the "long" way with an edit summary of rv is just as offensive. It just takes longer. android79 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree with Android79 and jpgordon. I prefer to leave a short message on the relevant talk or user talk pages. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Rollback is simply an easier reversion tool, that is its entire purpose... I see no reason the button cannot be used for reasons other than vandalism.  ALKIVAR™ 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. There are exceptions. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Fully agree with Alkivar. NSLE (T+C) 00:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. As Android said, the net result of the rollback button is that of a manual revert with no summary, or godmode lite. Nobody expects the latter two to be restricted. It's a tool. Use it when you need it. Radiant_>|< 01:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This a stupid question. Use the tool when its useful. freestylefrappe 01:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Use it when you need to use it. enochlau (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. There are significant exceptions: Android79 points out a good example. Also, there's a gray area between POV-pushing and outright vandalism that is rollbackable, but I suspect everyone has a different threshold value, and it's hard to define objectively. However, rollbacking is bad for a content disagreement; I agree with BlankVerse's comment above. Antandrus (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. There's a big difference between clear-cut vandalism and a clear content dispute. In the wide gulf between the two, use whatever makes the most sense in the situation and try to explain yourself soemwhere. JYolkowski // talk 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. You can get it now in God Mode Lite anyway, so why bother legislating it? There are far bigger problems to deal with. Karmafist 04:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per Antandrus. I am hoping some of the other users disagreeing see avoiding needless bad feelings as "useful". - BanyanTree 15:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Some things that aren't "clear vandalism" can and should be quickly reverted. Content disputes however, deserve an edit summary with comment. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. So long as its used for the betterment of Wikipedia, it shouldn't matter.--cj | talk 15:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Should never be used in content disputes, but half the stuff I use it for I would class as newbie tests rather than vandalism. If it's followed up by a message on their talk then I see no problem. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 17:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Agree with making dicussion instead if used to revert, but the button is used for vandalism and self reverts mainly. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. The rollback tool should be redesigned to allow leaving a comment.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I find myself seeing exceptions to this (like Geni's), so I can't agree or disagree. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not an admin issue since other rollback systems are now available. violet/riga (t) 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In general, I agree, but there are always exceptions, such as reverting a large number of edits that fall just a hair below the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Carbonite | Talk 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rollback should come with optional comments. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I mostly agree with this one, but do see exceptions. However, I am of the opinion that rollback should never be used in content disputes. Dragons flight 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mostly agree, but there are some caveats.  Grue  20:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Ëzhiki. —Nightstallion (?) 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Plenty of exceptions. --Celestianpower háblame 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. There's no need to "restrict" usage to just vandalism - it is a tool, and there are uses that we might not think of when using. That said, abuse is clear when it happens (for example, using it in an edit dispute) and should be dealt with. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree that Rollback should only be used for obvious cases where no explanation is neccesary, becuase reverting without explaining is rather rude. Add newbie tests to the list and I would be in the support column. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ditto the others. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mostly agree, but there are some exceptions. Per Dragonflight, others. — mark ✎ 14:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins placing blocks should be contactable via email

Agree

  1. A blocked user should be able to easily contact the blocking admin. Carbonite | Talk 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aye, of course. All admins should be. —Nightstallion (?) 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree, all admins should be email contactable. Steve block talk 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with Nightstallion: one of my personal requirements for adminship is that the potential admin provide a valid e-mail address. – Seancdaug 21:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes Yes Yes a million times yes. This should be a requirement for adminship. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There should be no question about this. No email, no admin bit. Ideally I'd like to see an autoresponder checking this regularly for bounces with the intention of enabling admins to check that their email addressess are still working. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree. If you don't have functional email or won't let wikipedia's send email from wikipedia, don't impose blocks. The block msg should also give an alternate way to get in touch with an admin when the blocking admin might be unavlable or off-line. Perhaps a click-here fucntion that puts a message on a Wikipedia:Requests for unblocking page. DES (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Absolutely. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jeandré, 2006-01-17t22:31z
  10. Yes. It is now a requirement at the RfA nomination stage.
    who wrote this, and is it true? -- nae'blis (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree although I really wish users (blocked for 24hrs) who sent threatening emails could have their blocks increased to indef.  ALKIVAR™ 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Absolutely -- Francs2000 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Somewhat support, won't make the ban as harsh if it were a mistake, although freestylefrappe makes a good point about flame mail, but I don't know how regular that would be. Admins should also check that their email link actually works - I only found out relatively recently that my hotmail account was treating all the emails as spam! enochlau (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes; this is essential. I set up a webmail for just this purpose, and there are many times someone has contacted me there about a "collateral damage" issue which otherwise would never have been fixed. Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yup. Not that admins are required to listen to reason. (SEWilco 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  17. Yes. Flame mail (which I get a lot of) can be just deleted. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes. Important to avoid collateral damage. Regrettably, I cannot be logged in 24 hours a day to receive these e-mails! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Absolutely - but give admins an e-mail address to be contacted on. Getting threatening messages from a vandal you blocked in your private inbox can't be much fun. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Why the hell not? Johnleemk | Talk 13:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Agree. BlankVerse 14:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. d'accord Marskell 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Admins should always be available via email even if they don't block. Feel free to delete flames. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Agree. All admins should be contactable by email. -- Arwel (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 17:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Absolutely, otherwise, blocked users have no (good) way of contacting the blocking admin. --Deathphoenix 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Just in case.--Alhutch 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Yes just in case of collateral damage. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. Admins should not have to regularly check their email for flamemail. The admin's talkpage should be open to edits by the blocked user. freestylefrappe 01:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Admins should not have to expose themselves to outside harassment. Sending mailbombs or signing someone up for spam is too gorram easy. Admins who block should read WikiEN-L or whatever other forum blocked users are directed to post to. --FOo 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. Or some other reliable mechanism but blocked users should be able to talk to their blocker somehow. ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Blocked users should have a clear method of contesting their blocks, besides their own talk pages, email may be the best method. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. To those who are concerned about privacy & flamemails, I'd like to point out that you don't have to reply to any flame mails. --Deathphoenix 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested enforcement

The ArbCom should be less hesitant about de-adminning admins who violate Wikipedia rules

Agree

  1. Yes. Fully. The ArbCom should be willing and fully ready to strip the powers if need be. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely. --badlydrawnjeff 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lack of oversight is part of what has led to the current issues being bled forth across the wiki. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely. BlankVerse 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wholeheartedly. android79 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong agreement. --Aaron 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agreed. violet/riga (t) 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support If it's reached the arbcom, there is generally reason enough to de-admin --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Amen. I can think of a few who need to go. but it's only an appropriate sanction for abuse of admin powers, or when confidence in judgement is shaken. in other words, it shouldn't be a punishment. Derex 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree arbcom should be fully prepared to do so for consistent misuse of admin facilities, editors can always put themself through RFA again. --pgk(talk) 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The strongest support possible. But there should be strict guidelines for de-adminship, e.g., wheel warring or using rollback for no apparent reason a certain number of times. --Ghirla | talk 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I'd like to see the Arbcom temporarily de-admin when they see solid evidence of abuse of privileges. Then, they could reinstate them after a full investigation if they feel it's appropriate, or leave them revoked. Friday (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. See earlier comments on admin accountability Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Easy come, easy go.  Grue  20:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Arbcom's job is to resolve disputes in the Wikipedia community. I must admit that I'm baffled that they did not take the cases involving the userbox fiasco. This is perhaps our most contentious issue, and one that has the potential to literally tear the community apart. (The amount of digital venom spewed over this issue, on both sides, is astounding.) And Arbcom refused to listen. Hopefully, the new election will result in an arbitration committee more willing to act when necessary. That said, I think that it would make sense to have a process besides Arbcom to handle cases where an admin no longer has community consensus. (Note that this would not even necessarily entail a specific finding of wrongdoing - it is simply that administrators must have the continued trust and support of the Wikipedia community.) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oversight is essential. This doesn't mean that an admin should be "punished" by removal for a single mistake (unless it's a real whopper), but a pattern of bad judgment calls or other problems should definitely have consequences. Elonka 20:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Depends on the situation, but in principle, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Definitely. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Jeandré, 2006-01-17t22:33z
  21. Mostly because the ArbCom is well-equipped to understand which of Wikipedia's rules matter, and which don't. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Checks and balances. Adminiship should be easier to lose than it is to attain.--God of War 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Very strongly agree with this one - if admins are reaching arbcom stage in a dispute something in the back of my head is saying they shouldn't really be admins. -- Francs2000 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Definitely. NSLE (T+C) 00:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. probably. though I'm not sure the Arbcom is the right body to take on this responsibility. Rossami (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC) ...read my arbcom candidate statement for my POV on this, too lazy to type it again. :) --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. The point isn't punishment. The point is to inhibit damage to the project. An administrator who breaks articles and drives off editors is hurting Wikipedia. Better to de-admin soon and let them reapply later, than to wait until the problem is so bad that they have to be banned. --FOo 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Perhaps not the ArbCom, but someone should do it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. If this is Arbcom's responsibility they need to uphold policy and sanction the admins who abuse their priveleges to work against it. I feel the ArbCom has been too hesitant the past year. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Ditto Rossami and NightStallion. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Absolutely true. --Terence Ong 14:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Absolutely. Would prefer it was the ArbCom, rather than having to create another bureaucracy or submit completely to mob justice. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 17:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Yes, but only as a remedy for accepted arbitration cases. --Deathphoenix 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. We should avoid turning ArbCom into the 'de-adminning body'. They should be resolving disputes and only get involved in de-adminship in the rarest of cases. That said... if no other means of de-adminning becomes available then the ArbCom will have to take it on more. I just think this isn't the best way to do it. --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The arbcom can't have anything to do with de-opping. It is a conflict of interest. Administrators have to be accountable to the editors that they administer to for the problems implicit in this poll to ever be resolved. --Rudolf Nixon 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Its not arbcoms job... make another body to handle this.  ALKIVAR™ 23:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Would support, but since arbcom is totally unreliable and lazy, no. freestylefrappe 01:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'd expect the arbcom to make a decision based on what they feel to be appropriate based on the situation rather than being a crowd pleaser. It's a lot like how the average Joe Bloggs on the street complains about the "lenient" sentences given out to criminals in the justice system. If you don't like how the arbcom makes its decisions, then make sure you vote for the candidates who support your view in the elections. enochlau (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. Some body, not nessecarily the ArbCom...should be less hesitant about de-adminning admins who violate Wikipedia rules. --Syrthiss 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Members of ArbCom have stated they are not a punitive body. It is not their job to be applying punitive measures. If that is the case, then ArbCom is not the appropriate body to be bringing deadminship pleas to. Instead, we need another body for handling such functions. Are such functions needed? I say yes; it isn't enough to just get a promise from someone that they won't do "X" again. We don't let criminals loose because they promise not to do it again. There does need to be consequences for negative behavior, else we encourage anarchy. In small communities this is not needed. But, we're not a small community anymore. --Durin 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would prefer a community based solution to reassessing and removing adminship. A more agressive Arbcom is a possible, but less desirable option. Dragons flight 20:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree with this on principle, but I am concerned with the notion that ArbCom personnel may feel compelled to vote one way or the other due to political considerations. If they "traded" arbcom status for admin status, there would not be concern about getting into a subsequent political entanglement. I think this needs to be thought out a little more. Avriette 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What political considerations? Shouldn't they be neutral? Isn't the whole point that 'adminship' is a role, not a "status"? ArbCom members may very well need admin tools like delete histories to get to the root of a matter; I don't see why we should require them to give that up. -- nae'blis (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that regardless of whether it should be a role or a status, some users have made it a status. elsewhere the issue has been raised (correctly, in my opinion) of voter blocs, professional voters, etc. ArbCom can't possibly be free of this. Removing them from the possibility of being swayed one way or another by affiliations with other users whould ensure (one hopes) a less partial process.
  5. I think they should be more willing to de-admin admins who abuse their admin powers, but not necessarily any Wikipedia rules. JYolkowski // talk 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There is nothing in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy which indicates the ArbCom has any relationship or control over Admins. (SEWilco 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  7. This shouldn't be the ArbCom's job, but someone has to do it. By deadminning an admin, they would automatically become partisan. Besides, I worry that there is too much of a "buddy" relationship between the ArbCom and many admins these days. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Jamyskis and SEWilco. - FrancisTyers 15:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Someone should be able and willing to do so, but I'm not convinced ArbCom is that body. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Someone should make problematic admins hand in their extra buttons but I'm unconvinced that Arbcom is that someone. Pilatus 18:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should have the authority to temporarily de-admin problematic admins

In other words, troublesome admins might lose their admin rights for e.g. a week. A steward or dev can do this, and possibly this could be added to the bureaucrat abilities.

Agree

  1. Agree per my comment above. If adminship is no big deal, losing it should be no big deal. Abuse of power IS a big deal, however. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely. BlankVerse 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently there is no way of dealing with misbehaving admins other than peer pressure, a toothless RFC, or a very long RFAR. There needs to be some intermediate step, and this it it. BlankVerse 19:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Badly needed. android79 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree per all three above. --Aaron 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This needs to be the first step in handling admins who are disruptive, not following policy and/or wheel warring. I think this should be implemented independently of any discussion about RFA improvements. In the same manner as we temp block editors, temp de-opping will help focus an admins attention. I'd like to see a bureaucrat be able to place one of these blocks for a day with no other input or discussion. In particular, this would be effective in stopping wheel wars from spreading. Rx StrangeLove 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree and propose that a blocked admin should lose access to sysop powers for the duration of the block as well as editting powers. There are more than enough of us to police each other, and a blocked admin could still appeal to other admins. Dragons flight 20:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ZeroTalk 21:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. this is needed. It could be the arbcom, but probably should be a different body/process. I'm not sure how this should be implemeted or what the process should be, though. DES (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. A good respsonse to abuse of admin powers that does not remove them from the encyclopedia entirely It can also prevent wheel wars. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes! This is the admin equivalent of short-duration blocks, and would be entirely appropriate to deal with wheel wars, just as short-duration blocks are appropriate to deal with revert wars. --FOo 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agreed. Admins should be held accountable and if removing their sysop priveledges temporarily is the only way to stop abuse, then so be it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Temporarily being the key word here. There should be someone available to de-admin controversial admins in severe cases until the dispute can be resolved. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. In an edit war, the participants are blocked until they cool down and banned if they can't keep their cool. Can't see why admins shouldn't have taken their extra buttons away if they get into a wheel war and why they shoudn't hand them in if they persist. Pilatus 18:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. Point being?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To stop wheel wars. android79 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Who watches the people who watch the watchmen? Gamaliel 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. no. that's up to arbcom. there are enough admins to police any rogue ones. Derex 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disagree; this assumes guilt before any discussion has happened. There are multiple viewpoints in most incidents; one person's view may or may not be correct. Temporarily de-adminning them is not helpful to resolving disputes. --Durin 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The ArbCom is perfectly capable of handling this via injunction. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wikipedia runs best on consensus. We vote for the ArbCom members, they decide on admin priviledges in these cases. No one but Jimbo, who must have ultimate control over the worst things (he's got Executive powers), should be unaccountable or act unilaterially where there is no chance to undo actions. Harro5 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No one but Jimbo or the ArbCom; I agree with Harro5. I wouldn't trust anyone else in acting unilaterally in these situations. Administrators have passed through RfA, a rigorous process that I usually do trust (I recently commented in an RfA poll that I've seen several candidates get their candidacies destroyed when somebody uncovered one bad edit), so to allow one user to override that is a mistake. From the userboxes controversy alone, one can see the potentially destructive effects of a single user acting unilaterally. However, if the whole ArbCom (or several members of it) acts, then there is enough accountability there to keep one user from revoking another's adminship simply because they don't like a particular admin. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No I would not trust anyone to not abuse this power.  ALKIVAR™ 23:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Someone does. But Bureaucrats should be given this authority, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I'd say give it to the bureaucrats. We don't need more bodies set up. enochlau (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Already covered by ArbCom injunctions. I don't know if they have ever temp de-adminned someone in this way, but it seems it could be a sensible option in some cases. I'm wary of extending the technical power to the 'crats, it's not that I don't trust them all, just that stewards are more detatched and neutral. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 17:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. For now, no vote. I need to think on this one. Leaning to agree on this though. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Nae'blis, being "no big deal" cuts both ways, however I'm not sure there is a satisfactory and workable manner for this to be done, Stewards keep away from their "home" projects so wouldn't be ideally placed to enact without instruction from someone else. Giving the ability to Bureaucrats would (I believe) be significantly widening their remit and as not necessarily selected with that in mind might cause more tension as having an arbitarily assigned "elite". Really should be an ArbCom thing, arbcom should be able to respond quickly enough to serious complaints to request a steward to temporarily desysop --pgk(talk) 19:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Stewards already have this power. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not a problem, it can be done already in clear-cut cases. Whether the given admin is "problematic" or not can be controversial.  Grue  20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not quite sure yet, and per Tony Sidaway. —Nightstallion (?) 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, A couple people have said that the power already exists, Question: Is it used for this purpose currently...has it been used like this in the past? I don't remember seeing this sort of block before. Do you think that we should get more in the habit of making these types of requests to Stewards? Rx StrangeLove 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The power (rather obviously) already exists - both Devs and Stewards can deop at will. But they do not. This section is basically stating that they should. Well, not at will, but to put a halt to problematic admins. Radiant_>|< 22:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I guess I was taking it for granted that they had the ability as they use it on a regular basis, I was trying to (not very clearly I'm afraid) ask if they were in favor of using it for this purpose. Saying they have the power isn't quite the same as agreeing that they should use it for this reason. Rx StrangeLove 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Grue -- Francs2000 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A good idea in principle. It would seem to parallel the ability to block a regular user. The challenge is choosing who will decide and how they will make that decision. Devs and Stewards aren't taking these actions today. Presumably, they have a good reason for avoiding it. Rossami (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not sure, per Grue. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ditto Rossami. Johnleemk | Talk 13:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. If the tool were used like blocking, possibly, but we don't ban users pending RfCs or the like, so in that manner, no. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No need, there already is a capaity for doing this, and, per Rossami, there must be a good reason why they're not doing it with more frequency. OTOH, there should be something similar to blocking a user for editing actions: admins who are blocked can still perform some admin functions. --Deathphoenix 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All admins should be subject to periodic reconfirmation of their admin status

For instance, once per (time period), if (X) users (or X admins) express disapproval of an admin, that admin is subject to an RFA-like process for reconfirmation.

Agree

  1. Sounds like a good way to keep hold of the good ones and rotate out the not-so-good ones. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, assuming that there's a grace period between revotes (i.e., if I don't like Geni's style (first admin I could think of, no offense meant) and put her to vote, and she's reaffirmed, I can't reup her the next day). --badlydrawnjeff 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like this idea, but this vote subject to change; I need to give it more thought (or be convinced otherwise). android79 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It would have to be implemented carefully, but I think 'term limits' for admins make alot of sense. I don't think there should be a 'nomination for de-admin' aspect to it, just every 6 or 12 months put admins up for 'decertification'. Could make removal of admin status subject to the same sort of consensus as gaining the status in the first place. --CBD ☎ ✉ 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Perhaps with an excusal mechanism (as in jury selection)... it should be easier to deadmin someone than admin them, but admin should not be "for life". If the mechanisms for deadminning are corrected, term limits may not be necessary. An admin that has made a lot of enemies??? Maybe that admin needs a break, let someone else step up. We're here to write an encyclopedia and an ex admin can still write good articles. ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While this is a logistical nightmare (making this an agree in principle but neutral in the real worldTM), I think this would probably be the best way to make deadminning easier. There has to be some sort of accountability. And regarding the potential for trolling, that's what 'crats are for, right? Besides, I view the presence of trolls as another defect that has to be corrected -- they're not being taken care of by the dispute resolution process. Johnleemk | Talk 13:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maybe put people on admin probation for a year. (I think they do that at .de.wikipedia.) If the extra buttons have gone to someone's head that will have shown after a year. Pilatus 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. Even the best admins make enemies over the course of carrying out their duties. --Interiot 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No automatic "votes of confidence" every X months/years, but improve the enforcement options for temp/permanent de-adminning. -- nae'blis (talk)
  3. This leaves it far too open to rampant bad faith actors for it to be immediately binding. I would support some kind of regular review of actions that would then be evaluated by, say, ArbCom or a committee of peers as to whether the comments reveal anything that needs acting on. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't think that this is necessary at this time. BlankVerse 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Bad idea. violet/riga (t) 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A logistical nightmare (how do you run votes to reapprove 600 admins? how often?) and an unnecessary one. Arbcom can deal with the bad apples. This would do little more than provide a soapbox for trolls to better attack their targets. Gamaliel 19:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. no. why waste the time? the vast majority of admins raise no questions. plus, it's an invitation for those angry at a (proper) use of admin powers to cause trouble. it there's a legitimate complaint, arbcom should handle it. that's why they exist. Derex 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If the above were to go through, why waste the time on this? A bad admin should hopefully float to the top and be censured by other means. --Syrthiss 19:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. We shouldn't make all admins be reconfirmed because a few may be questionable. Deal with the problem admins and avoid the circus that hundreds of reconfirmations would lead to. Carbonite | Talk 19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is a remedy seeking for a problem. I don't see how this is practicable. Generally, the more you edit, the more people have a thing against you. --Ghirla | talk 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Performing admin tasks doesn't necessarily lead to being popular... "Bad" admins should be desysopped by other means --pgk(talk) 19:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Soft disagreement. --Durin 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I'm opposed to beauty contests anyway. Good admins do what is right for Wikipedia, not what will keep them sweet with the groupies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Because no one would elect me the second time ;)  Grue  20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per the above. —Nightstallion (?) 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Absoultly Not, If we do that, more than half of our admins will be desyruped because of the pouplar rule, damaging wikipedia badly, A complete waste of time --Jaranda wat's sup 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I use to think reconfirmation good, but now think de-adminning after rogue action and the freedom to RfA is better. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-17t22:41z
  18. Forget it. That would be a chance for all these disruptive users that you have blocked, to do a Jihad on you. No way. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Voting is evil. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I strongly disagree with this one. Admins are going to make unpopular decisions and having to come up for a vote and defend your actions on even the most minor of things is pointless and time-consuming. If the problem is big enough than it should be taken to Arbcom. Sue Anne 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. In theory, this is a good idea; in practice, it means that users with an axe to grind are going to be able to get even good, uncontroversial admins de-adminned. JYolkowski // talk 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. This would lead to corruption. Admins should be treated like supreme court justices - elected for life. Otherwise the admin cabal would engage in "you scratch my back..." - which it essentially does since any user who's up for an RFA votes support on every other RFA, usually with no stated reason. freestylefrappe 01:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Hell no, as above. enochlau (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No! More wasted time and more division amongst wikipedians. A bad idea. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Nope. The best way to make enemies is to be an admin. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Leads to too much time spent on RFA voting on a large wiki like the English Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Absolutely no ! This is a pure waste of time (almost 800 admins and the number is still growing) and a possible cause of division. JoJan 09:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. This would be a real invitation for a flame war, given that admins are likely to have pissed some people off, rightly so or otherwise. No way. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. cj | talk 15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Maybe, just maybe in the case of an admin who's abused the tools, otherwise it'll just feed the trolls. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Waste of time, would be incredibly disruptive. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 17:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong disagree. While I agree that deadminning should be made easier, I strongly disagree with this option. The "heavily active" admins are bound to make enemies with their actions, and these admins are bound to fail any reconfirmation of admin status. --Deathphoenix 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Disagree. This option will just make a longer process. Agree with Titoxd. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. Applying to all admins is too strong, but reconfirmation would make sense for controversial cases, if we can agree on some measure of when such a reconfirmation is appropriate. Dragons flight 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Being an admin makes you a target for problematic users. There should however be a voluntary process for this but making all admins go through it would be extremely problematic. -- Francs2000 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A voluntary process would not help, because those controversial admins for which it would actually be (close to) necessary would simply decline to volunteer for the process. Radiant_>|< 12:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A community-based process should be created to de-admin problematic users

Such proposals have been rejected in the past (see WP:RFDA), but the community has evolved since then. A possible hazard would be that it could be abused by for instance users (rightly) blocked by a certain admin.

Agree

  1. Provided that some form of suffrage is instituted to keep from ballot stuffing against the admin that happened to ban you. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Adminship is no big deal. It should be no big deal to lose it, either. android79 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Taking it away should be somewhere near as easy as granting it. Of course, if things are working properly, de-admining should happen quite a bit less frequently than adminning. Evaluating the results might require careful analysis, but that's why we have b'crats. Friday (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ArbCom's already said they are not the body to handle this. --Durin 19:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, properly constructed, such a process would be good for the community. Preferably with some option of temp power removal as above, so it is not an all-or-nothing process. Dragons flight 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely. Arbcom has been given an opportunity to handle such issues, and the results are clearly not satisfactory to the community. I'm confident we can come up with a process that will not risk the horror stories feared by its opponents. Minimum edit counts (1000, perhaps?), a cooling-off period of a week between the action and the filing, requiring multiple users with separate grievances - there are a lot of ways we can have a sensible, community-oriented process without degenerating into a circus of vandals and trolls. Hopefully, it will not have to be used often. Out of our 700 or so admins, I expect between 6 and 12 to lose their adminship if such a process is implemented. These will be our most controversial admins, and on the whole our project will be better off without these powers in their hands. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. If overwhelming amounts of people are citing that a admin has a problem, then there's a problem. its become incresingly difficult to de-sysop even the most incompetent of admins. -ZeroTalk 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wikipedia moves through consensus, not mob rule and beauty contests. Steve block talk 21:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. If arbcom was handling this efficiently, we wouldn't be voting on this. If sysoping is no big deal, neither should desysop. Tintin Talk 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The problem with arbcom is not that it doesn't do a good job, but that it's the only venue for doing any job at all. The community should have some kind of mechanism to bring resolution to most problems, including the possibility of arbcom-style remedies like desysopping, article bans and probation in addition to "banning by consensus." Demi T/C 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Un-popular admins are more harmful then helpful.--God of War 22:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree, but it should not be a community vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. This needs to be sorted way before it gets to arbcom. We just need to make sure this doesn't become a target for vandals and problem users to take up a genuine admin's editing time. -- Francs2000 00:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Some process is needed. Perhaps a recall petition like mechanism? ArbComm has enough to do, not sure they can or will do it. ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ArbCom is swamped most days, so perhaps this should be the solution. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Agree, but this does need to be based on consensus, as again, it is possible for the admin's newfound enemies to railroad this. It should also be possible for admins to ask around for support. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ArbCom's not doiing it, and when they do do it they send 'em back to the masses anyway *cough* Steve *cough*. Let's cut out the middle man. - brenneman(t)(c) 14:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Free-wheeling admins create a lot of bad will. If someone is continuously abusing his editing powers he'll eventually get banned. If someone is continuously abusing the extra buttons he should get to hand them in. Pilatus 18:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. Take it to Arbcom. Gamaliel 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. arbcom. Derex 19:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree, Arbcom --pgk(talk) 19:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A beauty contest judged by a mob. Not the kind of Wikipedia I want to see. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Please no. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This would create mass ganging up, rousing the troups, mobilising the base, etc. Basically, it woould create chaos as everyone got their Wikifriends to support their views. Harro5 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ArbCom needs to handle these. This would lead to realy ugly disputes, nothing is worth that. Rx StrangeLove 21:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Tony Sidaway, and → ArbCom. —Nightstallion (?) 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yikes, no way. ArbCom, please. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't mind my asking, you support the idea of an RFC with "teeth", below. What kind of teeth are you referring to, if not (among other things) the ability to remove privileges being abused from those abusing them? Demi T/C 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, you bring up an interesting point. Now that I think about it, a desysop-process could in fact prove to be useful, assuming that it is kept under control (read: no torches and pitchforks without a permit) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Call me naïvely optimistic, but I think a "community-based process" need not necessarily be "pile the hell on, vent your spleen and get an admin desysopped." Demi T/C 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Arb com --Jaranda wat's sup 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. We need a specific body to handle this... not arbcom (which is already overworked), and not a public mauling.  ALKIVAR™ 23:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Easily abused, so no, leave it to ArbCom, or as Alkivar says, some other panel. NSLE (T+C) 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Not unless problems are identified with the current process for deadminship. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Arbcom has been able to remove admins in the past and I don't think they are going to make the mistake of refureing the problem to WP:RFA again.Geni 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Same problems as with "All admins should be subject to periodic reconfirmation of their admin status". I think abuse of admin powers is a complex issue that involves examining a variety of documents in detail, and only a dedicated body like the arbcom is able and trusted to do that. enochlau (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Arbcom, arbcom, arbcom. This has the same problems as the above proposal. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not really, I have a feeling this will wind up being a "lynch mob". Perhaps best to leave temporary desysoppings to bureaucrats and permanent removals to the ArbCom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I would leave it to arbcom. Otherwise, deadminsip procedure would degenerate into a RfC-style circus. --Ghirla | talk 08:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Arbcom. - FrancisTyers 15:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Don't feed the trolls, we need a body to do this, possibly ArbCom. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Take it to Arbcom. -- Arwel (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Arbcom. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 17:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. There be ARR-bcom ahead maties! --Deathphoenix 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Arb. We don't need vandals and other enemies of an admin to do this. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. If there was a procedure that for temporarily removing admin priviledges from misbehaving admins, and if the the ArbComm would take seriously any major misbehavior from admins, this is not necessary. I see too many potential problems with a community-based method of deadminship. BlankVerse 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BlankVerse is right. We need a simple procedure that allows for the fast temporary removal of admin privs from any admin that has gone rogue. Any community-based procedure would take days to carry out, and could easily be circumvented as long as the admin was popular enough to get all his/her friends to come pile on the vote. I suggest a system whereby, if a complaint of serious abuse of power is lodged, a vote of three admins (or whatever number is determined to be optimal) in agreement would be enough to compel a bureaucrat to remove the admin's privileges while some sort of RfC on the matter is allowed to play out. (I also think that, in order to protect against the possibility of any admin cabal working behind the scenes to quash any complaint, a vote by regular users should also be enough to force a bureaucrat action, but it would require a supermajority and a quorum ... say, perhaps, a minimum of 100 votes cast, with 75% or 80% in favor of removing the admin's privileges.) --Aaron 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not decided. There are pros and cons that seem balanced.  Grue  20:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I tend to agree with User:BlankVerse to soiem extent. But if a person has truly lost the trust of the communinty, deadminship uis appropriate. Any such process would need to be devised to avoid it being an un-popularity contest, however, which would be tricky. I wouldn't support this unless a good process was devised. If the reforms BlankVerse speaks of are made, ther would surely be less reason to consider such an idea. DES (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree that something needs to happen. If the concensus that Arbcom is too busy than something else needs to be put in place, but I don't think should be another process with a community vote. Sue Anne 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Arbcom is for arbitration of disputes. It is not a substitute for community consensus decision-making. It doesn't decide whether the community trusts someone. Since administrative access is granted by community acclamation measured by a bureaucrat, it should be revocable in the same way. --FOo 04:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Make it benchmarks, not users, whether they be arbitrators or otherwise. The key should be letting admins know what not to do to avoid this process rather than trying to corral them into it. Karmafist 04:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I should point out that many people thought a priori that having public voting for the ArbCom election would turn into a mud-slinging spitefest. But it didn't, and in fact turned out quite well. We should not jump to the conclusion that any community process will automatically turn out to be unpleasant. Radiant_>|< 13:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Arbcom is not the right place for this. I'm undecided on allowing the community to deadmin, but I definitely think they should at least have some input. Johnleemk | Talk 13:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. About 75% of the oppose voters say this should go through Arbcom instead. Well, the problem is that Arbcom isn't doing the job. There have only been three cases in the Arbcom's entire history where an admin has been deprived of their powers as a result of a ruling (see WP:RFDA for details). And Arbcom has flatly refused to hear recent cases that involve a great amount of community strife - most of it involving good-faith users on both ends, not the "trolls" that the oppose voters are so worried about (unless your definition of a troll extends to anyone disagreeing with you). How many people believe that all 700 or so administrators are qualified? That none of them deserve to lose their status either for repeated defiance of consensus or simply because they no longer have the confidence of the community? I'm pretty conservative in this regard, myself - I figure maybe 1 percent of the admins (just about half a dozen) really need to be desysopped. 1% of the admins are responsible for 90% of the conflicts, and I think we all know who that 1% consists of, and they are a detriment to Wikipedia and the Arbcom hasn't done anything about it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of the above, look at the Arbcom elections. Some of the most controversial administrators are (or were) running, and received significantly less than 50% support. Often, their refusal to abide by consensus in their administrative actions (including wheel warring) was specifically cited by voters as a reason for opposition. Certainly, the standards for Arbcom are (or should be) higher than for ordinary adminship, but looking at the elections provides a pretty good rough indication of which administrators are too controversial to operate effectively and which ones have lost the confidence of the Wikipedia community. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Bureaucrats should not be on the Arbitration Committee

Some people consider this a conflict of interest, or overcentralization of power.

Agree

  1. In my opinion, Bureaucrats nor Admins should be on the ArbCom. I think that if an admin is eleccted to ArbCom, that his admin rights should be revoked, as a potential conflict of interest. Same goes for Bureaucrats. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree per demon. --badlydrawnjeff 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. BlankVerse 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. agree. choose one or the other. there are enough good users to fill these positions independently. i suppose it's ok to still be a bureaucrat, so long as you don't use the privileges while on arbcom. Derex 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per Derex.  Grue  20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree, have one or the other. Spread the roles around. enochlau (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. Bureaucrats have very little more power than admins.Geni 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not to mention that there is no cabal. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Don't think 'crats should have to be de-crat'd to become arbitors (or vice versa) --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If you've been elected as a bureaucrat, you've already demonstrated your ability to handle conflicts of interest. (And if you haven't, that's an indication that something's seriously wrong with the admin/b'crat nomination and election process, which won't be fixed by decreeing that b'crats can't be on ArbCom.) --Aaron 18:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is only a need for separation when one position can benefit another position. This almost always not the case with Arbcom and and admin duties. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disagree, per above. I don't see why it would be a conflict of interest. --Syrthiss 19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Reflex Reaction, separation of power is normally to ensure checks and balances, as the positions don't particularly overlap there is no such requirement for checks and balances. It might be different if a large number of arbcom members were bureaucrats (ability to desysop and to prevent re-sysopping) --pgk(talk) 19:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bureaucrats are pretty much the same kind of people who make good arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dragons flight 20:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ZeroTalk 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I don't see the conflict here. B'crats basically are admins who can also clsoe RfA's. Usually an RfA is pretty clear-cut, adn the closure is prtty mechanical. if the issue realy becomes a jusdgemetn call, and the closer is also on the arbcom, than that clsoer should perhaps refuse if soemone involved in that RfA comes before the Arbcom, but this is no more of a problem than soemone whith whom an arbvom member might have been having a content dispute or other personal interaction. Unless we ban arbs from all wiki-activity except the arbcom, conflicts can and will happen, that is what recusal is for. DES (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree with Geni --Jaranda wat's sup 22:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I disagree that there is a conflict of interest. Sue Anne 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Disagree, arbcom needs these powers to do their job. No way to check user, look at deleted pages, etc... otherwise.  ALKIVAR™ 23:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Why not? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I don't see a conflict of interests, personally. -- Francs2000 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Why exclude potentially good arbitors --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 'crats maybe shouldn't do day to day admin stuff, but no reason to exclude from ArbComm. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I'm not really sure what good this would cause. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I disagree that this is a problem, as bureaucrats are already held to a high standard. Serving on ArbCom, while an additional duty, shouldn't provoke an immediate conflict of interest accusation. -- nae'blis (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No good reason to stop this because their tasks are unrelated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Any crat is there because they have good mediation and neutrality skills. Or is that not the sort of thing we want on the ArbCom? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. What the others said. Johnleemk | Talk 13:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Not a good idea, I'm sure it won't interfere with their other duties. --Terence Ong 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Tasks don't conflict. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Wikipedia doesn't need separation of powers, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Because of the trust involved in becoming one, I would argue that bureaucrats are more qualified. Bureaucrats have a very specific subset of tools, I don't see how these tools becomes a conflict of interest with being on the Arbcom. --Deathphoenix 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. I don't think there should be a formal policy against it, but I think it would be extremely difficult for a user to perform both duties. I'm interested in hearing what User:Raul654 has to say about this. Carbonite | Talk 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wouldn't performing both roles be a little exhausting? I'd support this just because it seems so impractical for one person to do. android79 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mh. Not sure yet, and per the two above. —Nightstallion (?) 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agreed! We need data from people who have done this. --FOo 04:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment is not taken seriously enough

There are some who consider RFC to be anything from a minor "shot over the bow" to a useless step before inevitable arbitration.

Agree

  1. Myself. RFC's main problem is that it doesn't have any actual teeth to it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. I have suggested RFCs with remedies in the past; it was considered very unpopular. Demi T/C 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Linuxbeak hit it on the head. That's especially true for article based rfcs, which are basically just "go to the talk page". Karmafist 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is indeed a problem. I would say that article RFCs do work most of the time (they don't if they are ignored, ill-conceived or in a relatively unknown area), but people RFCs generally don't work at all. Some degenerate into personal attacks, many are filed in bad faith, and the majority are mostly ignored or disregarded by their subject. Radiant_>|< 23:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strongly agree. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It's seen as a necessary bit of paperwork before full arbcom imo -- Francs2000 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree. Those in power need to learn that community opinion matters here.--God of War 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree as per Linuxbeak and Karmafist. — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree per Radiant. Nifboy 02:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. We need some way to make the subject pay attention to them. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Currently, RFC's on specific admins are turning into heated, emotional diatribes instead of offering real solutions. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree. A two-day-old RFC was ignored when the ArbCom grabbed me. (SEWilco 04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  13. Agree. Perhaps it should be turned into a lower court, with ArbCom being a Supreme Court, to make a legal analogy. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Agree with Radiant and several others. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I don't see how this is related to admin accountability, but IMHO RFC is often a circus for trolls whose purpose is to intimidate well-established wikipedians opposing their views. I can't take this seriously, and I know that many others feel the same way too. --Ghirla | talk 08:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Agree per Tito. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Francs is on the money.... WhiteNight T | @ | C 12:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Ditto Francs. I have never seen a user or admin RfC that wasn't subliminally implying "Sigh...when do we go to arbcom?" (And this includes RfCs I've filed. ;-)) WRT article RfCs, I doubt they hurt, but I don't know how much they help. Johnleemk | Talk 13:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes. — mark ✎ 14:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. User RfCs rarely accomplish their goal given the circus like atmosphere that tends to preside; either the dispute is already out of control, people pile-on based on POV or trolls make a bad-faith RfCs. Many article RfCs are ignored. Just not functioning in its current incarnation. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. User RFC is probably the worst, most useless process on Wikipedia (with the possible exception of deletion review). Article RFCs are flat-out ignored (at least in my experience). As stated by many others, RFC is often considered a prelude to arbitration, rather than a serious attempt at dispute resolution in and of itself. It's also a forum for venting grievances, which makes it inherently problematic. What is worst of all is that with all the venting, there are no actual consequences. A few of the most controversial administrators have openly declared contempt for extensively certified RFCs against them. Result? Nothing happened. What's the point of even having RFC if it is simply useless paperwork that serves as an opportunity for people to get even angrier? Even keeping discussions within the bounds of civility is almost impossible in some cases. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. They are a waste of bytes and when the RFC is done it tells what everyone knew already. Pilatus 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. RFCs are a pointless waste of time and energy. That said, RFCs should be what arbcom already is. Instead, RFCs act as trials without verdicts or become meaningless when other users not involved dont comment or cabal admins c and p what their friends already lied about. freestylefrappe 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. I tend to think that people forget that these are requests for comment so that the subject can see what the community thinks, and then change their behaviour to meet community norms. People tend to see them as just a means of escalating dispute resolution. Having said that, if someone gets lots of RfCs against them, it may be an indicator of significant problems. In that light, I think it would make sense to add a punitive aspect for someone who gets multiple RfCs (e.g. maybe have Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship require three certified RfCs over the past year among other things). JYolkowski // talk 01:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The one RFC that I've submitted received useful comments, and I think I learnt something from them. I think it should be more a learning process than a punishment process. enochlau (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's more that they are taken TOO seriously (by the community) leading to a lot of heat and bad feelings, and not seriously enough (by the person being commmented on). They're broken but I'm not sure what the fix is. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RFCs seem to frequently descend into inconclusive ranting against the person or people in question. This sort of mass expression of hostility is not healthy for either the person in question, or the people who participate. It is polarizing, degrading, and simply nasty. --FOo 04:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The only thing a personal RFC is these days is a huge waste of time for everyone involved, except that it may uncover more evidence before going to the next step of Arbitration. There needs to be something before going to Arbitration but RFC are not it. All they are is blatherings, obfuscations, personal attacks and venues for vendettas. BlankVerse

Rather than letting the ArbCom or the community deal with de-adminning, some other panel should deal with that

Yes, the bureaucrats

Yes, create a new group of functionaries for this

  1. Absolutely, and have them rotate frequently so nobody can blackmail others with this power. Karmafist 04:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree per Karmafist Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Someone has to do it. Pilatus 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. What has the ArbCom done that has everyone hating it so much? Leave this stuff to a well-defined and established system. Can't we have just a little bit of order around here? Harro. 5 02:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No more stuff. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The 'crats should do the actual mechanics work (promote them if necessary). Not sure that removing this power from ArbComm is the right way to go. Would rather see them use it more, not less ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Why? There's enough bureaucracy as it is. — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Then we would have another cabal to blame. With consensus everyone is responsible.--God of War 05:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No need to multiply panels. Leave it to ArbCom as per votes cast above. --Ghirla | talk 08:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Leave it to ArbCom, with stewards/devs doing the technical stuff. It's not like it should be a regular thing, if it is then we're in trouble. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 18:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Arbcom is fine for this. --Deathphoenix 18:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. ArbCom should still be able to de-admin. Bureaucrats should be given the power, but stewards would have to do the actual de-adminning, as bureaucrats do not have the technical power, and it's unlikely that the devs would change this for us (like with the rollback thing). I think maybe a straw poll should be used to gauge community consensus, active bureaucrats should determine what they feel to be the consensus at the end, publically comment, and if they agree to desysop, then they list it on requests for permissions. Or we could just hire Chuck Norris to arrive, and beat the cruft out of the admin until they post for voluntary desysopping on requests for permissions. The previous sentence was a joke, but the rest of the vote is not. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ArbCom has certain situations when they should be active, and they make decisions in those situations. There is nothing in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy that they are the body to affect Admins in other situations. (SEWilco 04:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  3. Giving desysop permissions to bureaucrats is actually quite easy, from a technical standpoint, so if it is wanted, it can be done (just like with the rollback privileges, the Devs don't want to do it until we're sure we really want it). Another good idea would be to get Rambo to beat up rogue admins, too. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More users should have m:checkuser rights

By policy, CheckUser rights are approved by the ArbCom. These users need not be ArbCom members themselves, although all six users are either past (Kelly Martin) or present (David Gerard, Raul654, Jayjg, The Epopt, Fred Bauder) arbitrators. Should the ArbCom increase the number of users with access to CheckUser?

Agree

  1. To be frank, there's nothing you can do with an IP address except locate someone down to their city (unreliably, I might add) and establish under which names that IP has been logged under. It's not a power that can be hugely abused and CheckUser is rarely dealt with these days. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. Don't see a real need for it. Johnleemk | Talk 13:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No friggin' way. When the expansion of checkuser priviledges was proposed, I could see the possibility that it could easily be abused. Although things seem to have settled down now, I saw several cases in the beginning that looked more like fishing expeditions rather than valid checkuser checks, as the persons who had checkuser rights played with their new toy. There is absolutely no reason to expand checkuser priledges beyond those who currently have it. IPs can, for example, reveal which the company where a person works, I there have been at least two cases where there were threats to go to employers over an editor's behavior. BlankVerse 14:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No way. This would encourage admin abuse and controversial blocks, and we have too much of this crap already. --Ghirla | talk 15:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not sure why more users would need this unless some sort of backlog exists that I'm not aware of. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there is getting to be backlog here. As I mentioned below, this might be something which can be solved without giving access to additional users. However, there does need to be a fairly rapid response (6-12 hours, in my opinion) to legitimate requests for sockpuppet checks. Carbonite | Talk 16:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No need. CheckUser is only supposed to be applied under specific circumstances. --Deathphoenix 18:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. I do think it's essential that we have more rapid sockpuppet checks. Perhaps this can be accomplished without granting CheckUser access to additional users. The problem is that ArbCom members are already extremely busy and have little time to hunt down sockpuppets. I'd support having the ArbCom (or Jimbo or the Board) grant access to a few more users, but would strongly oppose any "Request for CheckUser access" process. Carbonite | Talk 14:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think there is room for a CheckUser light. I don't know what form it would take - perhaps something like you give it an IP and you give it a username and it says "yes this user has logged in from this IP and gives you the last date" or "no, this user has never logged in from this IP". You can find out a surprising amount of information with just an IP address. It shouldn't be necessary to know all the IPs they've logged in from. Oppose per Carbonite regarding RfCUa. - FrancisTyers 15:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm in favor of designing a "CheckUser Express" tool that would be accessible to all administrators and could do sockpuppet checks without giving out actual IP information. This would be more complicated to program than ordinary CheckUser (which I understand relies on a high degree of intuition) but it would be more effective. For instance, someone might enter two user names and the tool would return a message saying: "These users are on an AOL proxy, so IP comparison is infeasible here." Or it might say "These users are from the same domain, but different IP addresses. The domain is: (whatever.net)." (If the domain was an ISP, of course, this would be inconclusive - but that's already the case with normal CheckUser). Or, of course, "These two users share the same IP address". (Maybe even "These users are on the same subnet, but not the same IP.") This information could be provided without needing to give admins access to personally identifiable information. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been discussed in the past and the general consensus is that any automated solution isn't especially feasible since CheckUser is more an art than a science. There would be far too many false positives and negatives without having access to the actual IP addresses. Carbonite | Talk 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Currently, the oversight on the use or abuse of CheckUser rights is through the other users with that right. If these are held only by a close-knit and insular group, accountability suffers. I would support some sort of expansion of the group of persons who may review the logs. My preference would be that one or more trusted persons independent of ArbCom and not personally possessing the CheckUser right be able to review the log of CheckUser actions. --Tabor 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an intermediate layer between "user" and "admin"

For instance, a user who gets the rollback button but no other admin abilities, or a user who gets deletion tools but not blocking tools.

Agree

  1. Per the reasoning and support on Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback. God-mode lite is good, but has its faults (slow, bigger drain on servers, compatibility problems). the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 17:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. What for? If an admin can be entrusted to use the rollback and/or deletion, they can be entrusted to use other powers responsibly. Adding another user class just adds more bureaucracy. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Adminship should be no big deal. Johnleemk | Talk 13:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Would the new layer be "really, absolutely not a big deal?" Marskell 15:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per above. - FrancisTyers 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Godmodelight already gives "rollback" to anyone, bureaucracy-creep anyone? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too many layers, too much bureaucracy, too much red tape.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. I don't consider rollback to be a "real" admin tool, since it basically just speeds up the process of reverting. None of the other admin tools (blocking, protection, deletion) can be undone by a non-admin. I support wider access to rollback, but not through a "Request for Rollback" procedure. I strongly oppose making admin tools available À la carte. They should remain a package that's given only to trusted users. Carbonite | Talk 13:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Reminder

I'd just like to remind everybody that m:Polls are evil (and i'd encourage everybody to actually read that article; besides making a point, its actually quite good).

I understand the desire to get an overview of "what the community wants", but with issues this important, i feel they should be discussed rather than polled (ironically, much like what most people want to see on WP:RFA). Most of the items on this list are worth discussing on their own worth and at a leisurely pace.

I'm not saying we should all boycot the polls. This is just meant as a reminder we shouldnt take it too seriously. It would be detrimental if the results of this poll would come back to haunt other discussions on the matter ("the poll indicated most people said X"), rather than discussing the actual content of the matters. Be careful with polls, especially with issues as divisive as these.

We want to come together rather than make camps. Just my two cents. The Minister of War (Peace) 10:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll&oldid=35712273"