Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Apologies for the interruption, but this page had appeared on a list of those containing a markup error, , misnested tags |
|||
| (632 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{historical}}
'''This poll is now closed (15:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)). Summaries of results are available on the talk page.'''
'''Started 2006.01.17 17:39'''
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.
Line 5 ⟶ 9:
'''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 a 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. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
Line 12 ⟶ 16:
==RFA should be more a discussion and less a vote==
''Moved to [[Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll/RFA should be...]]''<br/>
No clear consensus.
==The standards for becoming an admin should be higher than they are now==
Line 126 ⟶ 29:
#A pack mentality is developing amongst admins and few are willing to make personal decisions. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Indeed. How many incompetents must wikipedia hand the mop and bucket to..? -[[User:MegamanZero|Zero]]<sup>[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]]</sup> 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#:I feel this is a [[WP:NPA|personal remark]] on all Admins. It's at least fairly [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]]. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<
#::I believe [[User:MegamanZero|Zero]]'s comment speaks against incompetent admins, both present and potential. No specific person was attacked, nor admins as a group. --[[User:Ryanrs|Ryanrs]] 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 22:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Freestylefrappe|freestylefrappe]] 01:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Yes, we need higher standards. Well, we need some standards first. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 04:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
#Agree with Katefan about the need for a minimum number of support votes. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
#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. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<
# 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. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 19:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Kevin baas|Kevin baas]] 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Yes. Yes. Yes. Please.
Line 138 ⟶ 42:
#Yes. We have people who were adminned after only a month or two with the project. 6 months to a year of solid edits plus good judgement on policy matters would be much more suitable. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 15:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# --[[User:Thorri|Thorri]] 14:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
#The statement that "adminship should be no big deal" was made when Wikipedia was a tiny fraction of its current size. It needs updating. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely, after all, the current standards let through Kelly Martin and Snowspinner. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
# skill testing questions? [[User:Maclean25|maclean<small>25</small>]] 06:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
# I believe that there should definitely be a minimum length of time in order for one to be even nominated an admin. Also too much weight is given on the edit counts. Like people have mentioned, it's easy to amass a lot of edits but how many of them are actually quality? --[[User:Dysepsion|<span style="color:#0000CC;">† Ðy§ep§ion †</span>]] <sup> [[User_talk:Dysepsion|<i style="color:#0000CC;">Speak your mind</i>]]</sup> 19:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. Some sort of [[suffrage]] should be in place: whether to be nominated, or to vote.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you! [[User:Shreshth91|Shreshth91]][[User talk:Shreshth91|<span style="font-size:smaller; color:green;">($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)</span>]]</span> 05:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
# Higher standards, more scrutiny.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 00:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
# Higher standards indeed. Length of time and significant (not just 20,000 commas or welcome messages) edits should be included in some sort of standard for RfA. But there should also be wiggle room for people to vote their gut feelings. [[User:Youngamerican| ''<font color="blue">young</font>''<font color="#CFB53B">american</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Youngamerican|talk]])</small> 22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
# Higher standard, but more ''objective'' and ''quantifiable'' ones -- [[User:Gnetwerker|Gnetwerker]] 19:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely; different standards are applied to different people. One day, people will shout [[hosanna]]s for a candidate with only two months of experience and the next day, another candidate with three months of experience will be denounced for not being around long enough. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
# Agree ''unless'' it were made easier to remove them. I don't see why being an admin - or being de-adminned - need be final.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 23:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
# Agree with the above - admin status should be tenacious, at best. This alone will serve to keep admins' actions and comments in line with written Wiki policy. [[User:Mugaliens|Mugaliens]] 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
==='''Personal''' standards should be higher (admin standards)===
#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. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#I agree with BlankVerse. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agreed with BlankVerse. Personally I was promoted in my second month on Wikipedia — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[
#*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). — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[
#Agree in principle. —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, high personal standards would be better than anything "official". [[User:Alkivar|<
#Agree, especially with BlankVerse's sentiments. Official standards aren't the issue, since there actually aren't any (the standards written in the main [[WP:RFA|RFA]] page are suggestions only). --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 16:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. Setting the cutoff higher will mean that only admins who have never done anything controversial (and who therefore have probably never done anything important) will make it. Instead, voters should rethink their standards, focusing more on responsibility and accountability and less on edit counts and conflicts from the past that people will dredge up. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree in priciple, but it's impossible to quantify. I think this is more of a principle statement, not a suggestion for a change. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. Admins need to have a bit more common sense. But they also must not have to adhere to strict rules just to do a good job. [[User:WriterFromAfar755|WriterFromAfar755]] 02:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 00:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. I don't think I'd like to see clear official standards, however people who vote should have much higher standards. --[[User:PS2pcGAMER|PS2pcGAMER]] ([[User talk:PS2pcGAMER|talk]]) 07:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. As it is, people who simply cruise on through Wikipedia for months can get in easily. They never get stress-tested, and so we never find out what they are made of. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 05:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, particularly in regard to age. A young user who is an active contributor on non-controversial or technical topics will garner few opposes, but might prove very poor in judging personal disputes. This problem would be lessened if there were several levels or types of adminships - there's no obvious reason why "the mop" must be paired with the ability to take disciplinary action. It's unrealistic to expect admins to be equally competent in all things.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#Are there even any official standards for becoming admin? The only standards that matter for adminship are personal and community standards (rough lower limit on edit count, stuff like that). Thus I'm leaving this comment in this section and not the one above. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#'''Agree.''' As a person who's been told to "f*** off" by an administrator who then proceeded to blank my comments on his talk page, I think that administrators need morality. - [[User:Kookykman|Kookykman]]|[[User talk:Kookykman|<span style="color:black;">(t)</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<i style="color:green;">e</i>]] 18:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
===It's about accountability, not promotion (admin standards)===
Line 154 ⟶ 77:
#What he ∧ said, and for that reason am in favor of the temp de-admining concept down the page. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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". [[User:Avriette|Avriette]] 20:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Sure. If standards would be higher we would lose many good potential admins. But accountability should also be higher for administrators. [[User:Grue|<
#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". <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. – [[User:Seancdaug|Seancdaug]] 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 172 ⟶ 95:
# nod at Haukurt, this also would deal those seeking admin for power, honor or recognition -- <small> ( [[User:Drini|drini's page]] [[User talk:Drini|<big>☎</big>]] )</small> 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
# Strongly agree with this. Removing a privilege should always be at least as easy as granting it; I feel ease of loss should be inversely proportional to ease of gain. See my user page, where I've had an argument in favor of easy deadminship up for a week or two. —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 04:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#And I agree with this as well, basically. I think stardards should be higher, but that accountability is a more important issue. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Dan100|Dan100]] ([[User talk:Dan100|Talk]]) 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Ditto [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]]. [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 12:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
#— [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 03:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Moink|moink]] 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
#— [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 19:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#I don't really care who gets made an admin so long as they respect community consensus and don't use their tools to abuse people who disagree with them [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 11:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
#Ditto all above. If they're not abusing the project, they're helping the project and should have admin. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
#I believe standards should still be raised, but I believe it's time [[WP:ROUGE|rouge admins]] actually be held accountable for their actions. It's unfortunate that [[User:Joturner#axiom13|my thirteenth axiom]] holds true. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 20:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
# Without accountability, then promotion becomes a much more serious decision. Accountability will make it easier to give people a chance, without the burden of accurately predicting what they'll do.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 23:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely, a guiding Wikipedia principle is to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] until proven wrong. We can always use more admins, and most do a great job. If we hold those who abuse their tools strictly accountable, we can have enough admins while quickly eliminating the bad ones. [[User:Cool3|Cool3]] 21:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
#Agreed. The easier it is to remove an admin where the decision to give them the mop proved unwise, the lower the standards we need for giving someone a mop. And it never hurts to have some job description for mop wielding, even if only an essay. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 16:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
#That's certainly true. [[User:Madd4Max|Madd4]][[User talk:Madd4Max|<font color="green">Max</font>]] 20:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 02:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. --[[User:Zoz|Zoz]] ''[[User_talk:Zoz|(t)]]'' 13:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
#Definitely agree. Accountability is critical to a professionally-run effort such as Wiki. [[User:Mugaliens|Mugaliens]] 17:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
#Strongly agree. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
===These are expectations, not standards (admin standards)===
Line 177 ⟶ 118:
# Agree with Katefan0. The bar has been raised and becoming and admin a big deal even if doesn't change what you do. --''[[User:Reflex Reaction|<b>Reflex Reaction</b>]]'' ([[User talk:Reflex Reaction|talk]])• 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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!". --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 18:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with Katefan0 --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>([[User_talk:Pgk|<
#As there are no "official standards", it would be hard to make them higher. Personal standards cannot be legislated, but expectations can be. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#I agree with Katefan again that the days of "no big deal" ought to have passed. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
#Also agree with Kate here. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<
#There are expectations, not standards.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with this. [[User:Alphax|Alph]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:Alphax|x]] <sup >[[User talk:Alphax|τ]][[Special:Emailuser/Alphax|ε]][[Special:Contributions/Alphax|χ]]</sup > 13:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with Katefan; anyone who says adminship is no big deal is just saying that to either a) justify a vote that wasn't thought out very well or b) make a defeated candidate feel better. I don't like mindless voting and I don't like pampering. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (admin standards)===
#Not sure higher standards are needed ''quite'' yet. We are promoting good candidates now. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<
#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. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Works fine now. [[User:Harro5|Harro]]<b>[[User talk:Harro5|5]]</b> 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]][[WP:ESP|<
#per Celestianpower --[[User:Rudolf Nixon|Rudolf Nixon]] 23:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#:This user is a suspected [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet|sockpuppet]] of [[User:Zephram_Stark]]. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 21:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 197 ⟶ 141:
#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. [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]] <font size="-3">[[User_talk:Jamyskis|Whisper]], [[Special:Contributions/Jamyskis|Contribs]]</font> [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 12:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Current standards are excessive. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 14:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#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. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 17:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Things seem to be working so why change it. Even with higher standards there's no way to ensure that it will make a better admin. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|(Talk)]] 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 206 ⟶ 150:
#I disagree with the new policy. The current standards are better than the proposed one. Its no big deal, if they are capable of the mop and bucket, let them be. Most admins are doing very well, and higher standards will make no difference. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:Terenceong1992|nc]][[User talk:Terenceong1992|e Ong]] 16:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
#I agree that most admins are doing a good job. And I agree that the bar should be "no big deal" but only when the path to suspended adminship is lower. You don't really know how somebody is going to act until you give them a little bit of power. Observe, give a little more, observe. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
#It's no big deal. [[User:
# The fewer people we allow to become admins, the bigger the outcry becomes when one makes a mistake. As [[User:Tony Sidaway]] said above (albeit ''supporting'' higher standards) "A pack mentality is developing amongst admins and few are willing to make personal decisions." ~[[User:Mdd4696 |MDD]][[User_talk:Mdd4696 |46]][[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696 |96]] 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
#Adminship is no big deal. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of Hearts]] | [[User talk:King of Hearts|(talk)]] 00:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
#Seriously, I think this is no big deal. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
#Ditto [[user:Celestianpower|Celestianpower]]. [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#I agree with Christopher Parham up at #3. With elevated standards, there's a tendency to appeal to the standards and avoid common sense. It should be no big deal but for some reason it has become one. -- [[User:Krash|Krash]] <small>([[User talk:Krash|Talk]])</small> 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#We may ask Collegeboard.com to host '''SAT''' ('''S'''tandarised '''A'''dmin '''T'''est) exams for wikipedia admin candidates.
#*Sarcasm aside, there are no established admin standards. Some admins are less than pleasant to deal personally while they preform admin tasks (or one admin task) flawlessly.
#*'''Admins are not examples to the wikipedia community''', admins can make errors. Adminship is NO BIG DEAL, do <font color=red>'''<u>NOT</u>'''</font> make it a big deal.
#*Admins are, simply put, people with greater access to wikipedia tools such as the ability to delete pages or block users. Almost anything an admin preforms is "revertable" with the exception of media (images) (and several other things I am not comfortable enough to discuss as after all they are vunrabilities/bugs etc.).
#*People voting should vote based on if they think the person in question would use admin tools properly and in the process not be dicks<!--I am not linking to meta :P-->.
#:--<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 20:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#Should be easier to become an admin and easier to be blocked. No big deal. --[[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
#Adminship really isn't a huge deal, with more of them around there will be less backlogs. As mentioned above, Admins don't have a big red auto-destruct button, and their actions are always subject to review and overturn by the community so there is no reason to be paranoid about adding more of them. --[[User:Hetar|Hetar]] 03:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with [[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] (ie. disagree). [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:DarthVader|r]] 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
#No need to create an elite structure of admins. It's not the world's most difficult job. Anyone with a cool head and knowledge of the core policies on Wikipedia should be able to do it. --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 00:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
#Agree as per [[User:celestianpower|Celestianpower]]. [[User:Polonium|Polonium]] 00:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
#Adminship should not be a big deal. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
#Adminship requires certain knowledge and abilities but higher standards won't ensure that these are more common. I.e. 10K edits doesn't mean a person won't abuse their position and 10 doesn't mean they will. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 10:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
#The title of administrator currently confers more standing than it deserves. It shouldn't be a big deal - if you've had a few edits to prove you aren't a vandal then you should be able to have the tools to carry out tasks as you see fit. Just as there are with new editors there are plenty of people who will point you in the right direction when you get it wrong. Equally it shouldn't be hard to revoke adminship. [[User:Yomangani|Yomangani]] 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
#Agree per above. [[User:Computerjoe|Computerjoe]][[User talk:Computerjoe|<span style="color:red">'s talk</span>]] 09:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
===Other (admin standards)===
#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. --[[User:^demon|^demon]] 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#''Are'' there official standards? I've never followed any. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#*To my knowledge, there aren't any. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
#Because we ''don't'' have official standards, the "unofficial" standards will be set by Wikipedians and will evolve over time, as it has already. I trust that this will continue to do so; we are already (for the most part) nominating good Wikipedians deserving of adminship. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
#'''Comment''': For my personal standards: 1) the editor should have been around long enough and done enough edits in a variety of areas on the Wikipedia so that I have a reasonable confidence in their ability to use the added ''
#I think understaning of the blocking policy is essential. Discussions regarding unjustified lengthly or indefinite blocks, or blocking users essentially for disagreeing with an admin in a content dispute are frequent at [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:AN/I]]. Some candidates are asked questions like "when would you block / not block?" at RFA, but some aren't. I think that there should be some mechanism to check the candidate's understanding of blocking (and protection) policy. A couple of questions, for example. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 10:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#As there are no set standards, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. However, what I've seen of personal standards are often far too high (or terribly illogical). I'd support seeing the b-crat being given wide latitude to interpret RFA results (dismissing obvious bias votes, or votes where the only justification is non-sensical). This would encourage people to carefully consider their votes lest they be discounted by the closing b-crat. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 08:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
#I disagree with most of the comments in "agree" because they equate edit counts and duration on the site with "standards". "Standards" should be quality of edits, quality of debate, intellect, maturity, communication skills, number of ''hours'' spent on the site. Raise standards in a meritocratic way? Quite possibly. Impose a mandatory number of edits? No. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 12:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''What standards?''' -- Nominations succeed or fail based on an amazingly wide range of criteria. Each RfA regular has his or her own private standards but they are all over the map. "The standards for becoming an admin should be higher than they are now" -- this implies that there ''are'' current, generally-accepted standards; but there are not. If you allow me to restate the proposition as "There should be general standards for admin nominees" then I'll agree -- but I would not support particularly high explicit standards. Different kinds of editors perform well (or poorly) as admins and any strict standard will probably include rouges and exclude potentially useful mop-wielders. Without a doubt: '''No fixed, official edit count minimum for nominees'''. [[User:John Reid|John ]][[User talk:John Reid|Reid]] 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
==There should be suffrage rules for ''voting'' on RFA==
Line 230 ⟶ 194:
# Small, but yes. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Avriette|Avriette]] 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Absolutely''' what said
#I very much agree with this idea -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#To cut down on ballot stuffing. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Damn it, yes. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[
#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. [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]] <font size="-3">[[User_talk:Jamyskis|Whisper]], [[Special:Contributions/Jamyskis|Contribs]]</font> [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 12:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Without question. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 14:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<
# Yes. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# The standards for new users should not be very high, but I think admins should definitely be allowed to vote. I think by already having the tools at their disposal, they'd know better than anyone whether a given user would be able to benefit from them. [[User:Mo0|Mo0]]<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User Talk:Mo0|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#I feel there should be some standard; people who do not understand the responsibilites adminship entails should not be voting. However, any limit on edit counts or account life is going to be mostly arbitrary. --[[user:tomf688|<
#Any form of voting probably needs suffrage requirements, but they should not be over-strict. --[[User:OpenToppedBus|OpenToppedBus]] - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|Talk to the driver]] 10:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. Vote-stacking is too easy, and groups of friends high-fiving their way into a position where at best they'll do nothing with it and at worst they'll misuse it is hardly desirable. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 15:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
# The German wikipedia has had good experiences with a [[:de:Wikipedia:Stimmberechtigung|policy]] requiring voters to have at least 200 edits in the article namespace and to have contributed in an active way for at least two months. It has been in effect for "important votes" such as RfAs since April 2005. regards, [[User:High on a tree|High on a tree]] 21:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# Yes. Then people will respect it more. --[[User:DanielCD|DanielCD]] 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 252 ⟶ 216:
#Absolutely, but not extremely strict. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 16:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
# I am shocked that there are no standards for this. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
# There should be at least some very minimal standards. --[[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">Kantari</font>]] [[
# Yes, but keep in mind RFA is not a vote ;) -- <small> ( [[User:Drini|drini's page]] [[User talk:Drini|<big>☎</big>]] )</small> 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. I also voted for "1 month, 100 edits" below. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Yes. Having no minimal standard encourages someone using multiple user names.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] 09:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes, as long as it is not too high. It is important that people's voices are heard - particulalry if an RfA candidate has been biting a newbie; I know they ''could'' put a "comment" down, but if they knew they could not vote then it they are unlikely to bother. Thus, I would say 1 month and 100 edits is probably pretty good (voted below). [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
# Definitely. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# Yes. Reduces some sock puppet and "newbie" votes. [[User:Dustimagic|'''Dustimagic''']] *\o/* <sup>([[User talk:Dustimagic|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Dustimagic|contribs]])</sup> *\o/* 09:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
# ''Suffrage rules'' such as at least an arbitrary number of edits to easily blow away one time vote accounts. Some of the people running for RfA's such as myself receive "vandal love" as we are not liked by them for our efforts against vandalism. RfA is a process of determining if someone is admin-worthy. Obviously malicious users do not want ''good admins'' giving them a hard time. Such people should be blown away with ''Suffrage rules''. This does not mean we are forming a cabal, we are only being smart. Who determines these rules? Burocrats, admins, regular users aka ''We the people, for the people''. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
# Per above.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you! [[User:Shreshth91|Shreshth91]][[User talk:Shreshth91|<span style="font-size:smaller; color:green;">($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)</span>]]</span> 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
# Yes, definitely.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 00:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 12:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. [[User:Midgley|Midgley]] 16:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. Should be people who've shown some commitment to the project, not just a casual interest. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 07:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 14:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
#Per everything above.--[[User:HereToHelp|Here]][[User talk:HereToHelp|'''T''']][[User:HereToHelp|oHelp]] 11:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
#The requirements are fine as they are now. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
#Of course.That will prevent users who want to become admins thru less respectable methods, from making multiple accounts and extending support for themselves. [[User:Doctor Evil|Doctor Evil]] 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
===Agree, suggest something very low (RFA suffrage)===
#'''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) [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#It's probably easiest to just '''semiprotect''' all RFA subpages. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
#*I think semi-protection status only block users who have been registered for less than four days and since RFA lasts a week, that won't work unless semiprotect is extended. [[User:Pepsidrinka|Pepsidrinka]] 22:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#**It's based on a formula - I don't see why the devs couldn't come up with a semi that strains out the newest 2% (roughly 8 days) instead of the newest 1%. [[User:
#Per Radiant. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes, if voting still exists. Basically, no absolutely new users (fear of sockpuppeting and vote spamming) and anon users (same). So I guess a semi-protect? -- [[User:Jjjsixsix|Jjjsixsix]] <sup>([[User talk:Jjjsixsix|talk]])</sup>/<sub>([[Special:Contributions/Jjjsixsix|contribs]])</sub> <small>@</small> 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Per BDA. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]][[WP:ESP|<
#Well, my comment above was just a comment, not really a vote... but in retrospect I would limit suffrage to accounts that existed prior to the nomination, at least. [[User:
#Some minimum standards would be nice, maybe around for two weeks with something around 100 edits or so? --[[User:Hetar|Hetar]] 03:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
#I'd say 100 edits or so sounds about right. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 05:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
#I support some sort of standard, but only a very low one. At the same time, I strongly oppose any strictly editcount based system, editcounts are extremely misleading. At the same time, any other system would probably me too complex. To prevent sockpuppetry, I say only count votes from users with contributions at least three days prior to the nomination. Otherwise, give the bureaucrats the discretion to evaluate voters. Still, allow comments, but not necessarily votes, from any user. [[User:Cool3|Cool3]] 21:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
#Well, I would say that they atleast have the experience of a couple of One Month and say 30 edits. I say one month, because if the min. limit is below that, it will not be too much of a problem for users to create multiple accounts and support themselves.If it is reater than a month, it will be quite irritating for a user to mmake multiple acounts a month in advance, and then wait a month before putting up a RFA.This will discourage sock-puppetting.What do you say?[[User:Doctor Evil|Doctor Evil]] 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
===Agree, suggest 1 month, 100 edits (RFA suffrage)===
Line 278 ⟶ 262:
#This is low but better than leaving RfA in the hands of trolls. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 09:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
#agree, '''both''' 1 month and 100 edits. Anybody who takes less than a week to do 100 edits without any concern of the wiki-culture is likely just about the worst we could have choosing an admin. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Agree''' --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]][[WP:ESP|<
#Perhaps a bit low, but seems like a starting point that might reach consensus. While the arguments below regarding the b-crat's responsibility to check for sockpuppets and low-edit/low-activity voters are fine in theory, in practice it is hard to imagine them checking every single voter. Having a minimum bar would at least allow some of that work to shift to other people. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 17:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Agree''' - these numbers sound the most reasonable. A cutoff much higher than 100 edits would make RfA quite elitist. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#Both of them. If someone does 100 edits in a few days, they probably aren't familiar with Wikipedia all that much. If you sign up and don't do anything but vote, that's no good either. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of Hearts]] | [[User talk:King of Hearts|(talk)]] 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
#Good standard. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Even 200 edits / 2 months would be reasonable. -- [[User:Nyenyec|nyenyec]] [[User talk:Nyenyec|☎]] 18:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# This is the right range.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Agree. '''[[User:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue"> of </font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''<sup>[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="darkgreen">ESP</font>]]</sup> 17:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, and I would make it 100 edits ''and'' 1 month. Reasoning above (in Support for RfA Suffrage section). [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree; would stop much of the abuse without stopping good votes. <font style="color:#00BB55"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00AA77"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><sup>([[User:Smurrayinchester|User]]), ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|Talk]])</sup></font> 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree! This is certainly an improvement. [[User:Dustimagic|'''Dustimagic''']] *\o/* <sup>([[User talk:Dustimagic|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Dustimagic|contribs]])</sup> *\o/* 09:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
#1 month and 100edits, else you could hatch lots of accounts and stack the vote.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 00:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, as a bare minimum. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 12:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. There should be some limit, but anything above this minimum comes across as "electors shall consist of property holding, white males aged 21 or more." Lets filter out the meat puppets but allow this to continue to be a discussion with latitude for those that do the actual promoting. [[User:Youngamerican| ''<font color="blue">young</font>''<font color="#CFB53B">american</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Youngamerican|talk]])</small> 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
#Agree--[[User:Looper5920|Looper5920]] 02:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
# I think this is a good standard. Any real editor should have 100 edits, but anything higher and you'll be excluding editors who are conscientious but timid about the ''save page'' button. <span style="font-size: 10px">— [[User:Brighterorange|<span style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #FFE7B0; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #FF9600">brighterorange</span>]] ([[User_talk:Brighterorange|talk]])</span> 17:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
# Yeah, this works. 100 edits isn't much at all, you can make that in a single day. A short (up to 1 month) time limit is also necessary. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:DarthVader|r]] 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. A modest barrier is what is required, certainly not the 500 some have suggested, and a low figure like 10 would be too easy just to clock up for the purpose of voting [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 08:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
#Agree; potential voters need time to learn how important administrators are and what their purpose is. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 20:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
#Agree; those falling short of this are likely solicited votes (if not sockpuppets) anyhow.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 23:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#This way, The voters are not quite too new, but we are not excluding too many. This also takes care of sock puppets. '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]] [[user talk:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Boheme</font>]]'''''
#I agree.I believe 1 month and/or 100 edits is the perfect cutoff point.This will have the right blend of experience, knowledge and undertsanding of Wikipedia.[[User:Doctor Evil|Doctor Evil]] 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
===Agree, some intermediate suggestions (RFA suffrage)===
Line 289 ⟶ 293:
#Absoluely. I believe 700+ should suffice; article mainspace and talk of course. -[[User:MegamanZero|Zero]]<sup>[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]]</sup> 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. --[[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Aranda56|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#I'm with Elonka: 150/3mo seems reasonable, and it is a limit already in use. I'd sooner set the level low than high and 500 or 700+ edits is far too high. Not that I ever vote for RFAs and the like. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 14:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
#Same as ArbCom voter requirements. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#If there's already something that works use it. -- [[User:Omniplex|Omniplex]] 14:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#I would have to agree with Elonka in this. 150 edits/registered account for 3 months would be just right.[[User:Doctor Evil|Doctor Evil]] 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
===Agree, suggest 3 months, 1000 edits (RFA suffrage)===
#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. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#:10,000 would deny suffrage to the vast majority of Wikipedians, wouldn't it? I'd say 250 or 300 is more than enough. --[[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#:That's orders of magnitude more than the suffrage requirements on the current ArbCom vote. [[User:Alerante|æle]] <small>[[User talk:Alerante|✆]]</small> 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#::That's twice as much as I have after 3 years of editing. — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[
#:::10,000 is way too much. 1000 is a reasonable figure. [[User:Djbrianuk|exolon]] 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with this - the bar should be quite high if this is to be worth doing at all, as otherwise the effect will be negligible: a minimum of 3 months and 1,000 edits seems reasonable to me.[[User:Staffelde|Staffelde]] 13:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. 3 months/1000 edits is a level that shows a serious, longer-term commitment. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 07:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
===Agree, only admins should vote (RFA suffrage)===
Line 302 ⟶ 314:
#Some sort of standard is needed. I like Lar's idea of only allowing non-Admin votes also. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 04:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
#Agree. Generally, this is the usual counter to old boys club mentality. Once you're "in" there's no incentive to allow anybody else. So-called "standards" keep rising, but have nothing to do with quality and everything to do with maintaining stature. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
#Since I suggested it... It's a radical idea to be sure but I'm a big ''[[The Moon
#I like it. I know of a couple organizations that do this -- the [[Order of the Arrow]], for example. [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 04:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Causes accountability in and of itself. There is always a great risk involved in having an organization appoint its own members - the same goes for Wikipedia admins. —[[User:Cuivienen|<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b>]] <span style="font-size:x-small;">([[User Talk:Cuivienen|<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>]])</span> 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
# Interesting idea. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# Agreed, this is an interesting idea. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 08:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
# It reflects accountability. — [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 19:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
# This would ensure that admins reflect community consensus, rather than each other, and would alleviate charges of cabalism [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 11:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
# Agree; but then I don't think anons and meats should participate, either. [[User:John Reid|John ]][[User talk:John Reid|Reid]] 02:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
#Interesting, but the ranks of the administrators include most of Wikipedia's most involved editors. While it would certainly prevent an "old boys club" mentality, it would disenfranchise a very knowledgeable and important faction. Some part of me likes the idea, but I'm very conflicted. Perhaps we could, this is just a random idea, create two voting sections on RfA. One for admins, one for non-admins. Then at the end, we could attach percentages to both of the vote counts to arrive at a final tally (perhaps 70% for the non-admins 30% for the admins.) Under the mentioned percentages, a debate might end with a tally of 20/10/5 for the non-admins and 15/5/1 for the admins, this would produce a final, adjusted tally of 18.5/8.5/3.8 (I think that math's right). [[User:Cool3|Cool3]] 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
#'''Agree''' Administrators have too much power over every process on this site. - [[User:Kookykman|Kookykman]]|[[User talk:Kookykman|<span style="color:black;">(t)</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<i style="color:green;">e</i>]] 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
#Good idea. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
#Interesting idea. [[User:Polonium|Polonium]] 16:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
#Great idea. Admins would ''comment'' on candidates but their "votes" wouldn't count. Insightful comments from admins can change the outcome of the RfAs quite easily anyway, and at the same time this would prevent "old boys club" mentality. --[[User:Zoz|Zoz]] ''[[User_talk:Zoz|(t)]]'' 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
#I would go with Zoz's idea that Admins could comment and discuss, but their 'votes' would not count.[[User:Doctor Evil|Doctor Evil]] 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (RFA suffrage)===
#'''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. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 19:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#:Well as I noted above, preventing existing admins from electing new admins would reduce both the occurrence and the perception of cabalism [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 20:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Grue|<span style="background:black; font-family:Courier; color:#FFFFFF;">''' Grue '''</span>]] 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#:I fail to see a rationale why "RfA shouldn't be more elitist than AfD". Care to elaborate? --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 08:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big><sub>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</sub></big> <sup>[[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]]</sup> 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 317 ⟶ 343:
#per God of War. Only the true Cabal would deny that a Cabal exists. --[[User:Rudolf Nixon|Rudolf Nixon]] 23:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#:And only a true coward uses a [[Special:Contributions/Rudolf Nixon|sockpuppet]] to disrupt a serious poll. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 23:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#::Please read [[WP:NPA]]. Attack the idea, not the person proposing it. [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 20:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
#:This user is a suspected [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet|sockpuppet]] of [[User:Zephram_Stark]]. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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''. [[User:Freestylefrappe|freestylefrappe]] 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 325 ⟶ 352:
#: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. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 08:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Obviously we should discourage sockpuppetry on adminship votes. But arguments should be presentable by anyone. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''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
#Per CBD. The 'crats do a fine job as it is, no need for potentially damaging instruction creep. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#The majority of admins that are promoted are doing a good job. Nothing wrong with process, and suffrage won't fix it. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 17:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Apart from sockpuppets, we don't need any more rules on who can vote and who can't. Hard to enforce, not sure what they will solve. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 01:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# Let the bureaucrats decide as they already do. [[m:Avoid instruction creep]]. I could probably say this in a large number of places, but we have about 800 admins. How many of them have gone rogue and/or pose significant danger to the project? IMHO, maybe 1% of them, maybe 2%. So, it looks like we're doing a relatively reasonable job of selecting 98% of admins right now, so I don't think we need to make major changes to the process. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 03:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# as per Jyolkowski.--[[User:Me gusta chaquetearlo|Me gusta chaquetearlo]] 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Durin and JYolkowski said it well. It's about ''consensus'', and prohibiting some users from the process wouldn't solve anything. It works pretty well right now. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
# per others mentioning that it's a crat's job. [[User:
# I see no reason new voters shouldn't be taken into account, if their reasons are legitimate. For instance, if a user gets into a conflict with a newbie, or even an anon, that's a good reason to look hard at the admin nomination. [[User:Moink|moink]] 03:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
#Since when was the validity and soundness of someone's beliefs determined by how many edits they have? --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
#We should respect the viewpoints of all editors, and besides, this is instruction creep at its worst. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
===Other (RFA suffrage)===
#Aren't there already? Don't BCrats typically discount (or take into less consideration) newbie or IP votes? --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<
#There should be clearer guidelines, with the BCrats still making the final determination. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#Fine the way it is, with no IP voting, and 'crat discretion for new users. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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! '''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]]. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Per the above. I'd rather see no hard rules, but rely on Bureaucrats discretion. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#What LV and the others said. Let the Bureaucrats decide. —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#If it is decided that AFD should be a '''vote''' and not a discussion, then having ''some'' voter requirements is a good idea. [[User:Xaosflux|<
# 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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 03:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. [[User:Karmafist|<
# Let the bureaucrats decide. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 05:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Ditto everyone else, especially Chick Bowen and Nae'blis. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 12:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Per LV. On bureaucrats' discretion. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 18:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#Leave it to the bureaucrats to decide. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
#I'd be open to forbidding/ignoring anon votes, but think that all registered users should be able to comment. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
==Bureaucrats should remove votes that are in bad faith or nonsensical==
===Agree (bad faith RFA votes)===
#In 30 seconds any idiot can create a new sock account and post something incredibly stupid on an RfA page. It should be just as easy to get rid of as it is to post. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
===Don't remove, but strike out (bad faith RFA votes)===
#Strike out, but don't remove completely. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<
#Agree per LV, again. --[[User:^demon|^demon]] 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Strike out, so we have a record of what votes were discounted...but maintain the stricken vote so the process is transparent. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 362 ⟶ 393:
#Yeah --[[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Aranda56|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Strongly agree. Often, oppose votes are personal ''vendettas'', and nothing to do with the editor's potential ability as an admin. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Agree''' revenge votes are quite a frequent
#As well, votes which do not explain their reasoning should be struck out. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[No explanation provided] --best, kevin <b>[</b>[[User:Kzollman|kzollman]]<b>][</b>[[User talk:Kzollman|talk]]<b>]</b> 03:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''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. [[User:Xaosflux|<
#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. [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]] <font size="-3">[[User_talk:Jamyskis|Whisper]], [[Special:Contributions/Jamyskis|Contribs]]</font> [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 12:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#I believe this would help the process substantially. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 14:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes this can help the process a lot. Also reasons should be given for opposing. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<
# As above. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 19:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#I would
#Bad faith votes are not contributing to the process; tone them down with a strikeout. --[[user:tomf688|<
#Strike and comment, and don't forget to sign the comment. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 22:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Strike out. This will be easier to gain
#[[User:Werdna648|Werdna648]]<sup>[[User_talk:Werdna648|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sup> 01:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#Strike out with a comment as to why it has been done. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 16:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. However, I think votes without a comment - on either side - should still be assumed to be in good faith. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#Strike and comment on why it was rejected. --[[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">Kantari</font>]] [[
# Strike + comment. -- [[User:Nyenyec|nyenyec]] [[User talk:Nyenyec|☎]] 18:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Prevents RfA abuse. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User:Ian13|Ian13]]|[[User talk:Ian13|talk]]</span> 09:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
# — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# Sure. -- [[User:Water Bottle|WB]] 08:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
# If people are being dicks evidence should stay but yeah strike out and ignore the vote. If people want to be dicks, let them and ignore the vote. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 20:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
# Yes, definitely. Although it should be striked out and commented on why. --[[User:PS2pcGAMER|PS2pcGAMER]] ([[User talk:PS2pcGAMER|talk]]) 07:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
#Strike out '''and''' comment, yes. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 12:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
# Up to a point: we should treat this with care, since it is entirely reasonable for somebody who feels aggrieved by an editor's handling of something to vote against that person in an RfA; the presumption of good faith should of course prevail. I speak as one whose RfA was opposed by only one editor, who voted against every currently open RfA. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
#This would prevent users from "trolling" rfa and trying to artifically raise/impose their own standards. --[[User:Hetar|Hetar]] 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
#Anyone can read through a strike. This lets everyone know that the vote is there but disregarded. It can always be commented on. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:DarthVader|r]] 01:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
#Strike and comment. We already do this for AFDs, so why not here? --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 05:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
#strike and comment so someone can come back and object in a further comment if they have grounds [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 08:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strike and comment.''' strike out nonsense, but to maintain history of vote do not remove. [[User:Polonium|Polonium]] 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
#Strike out and comment. --[[User:Zoz|Zoz]] ''[[User_talk:Zoz|(t)]]'' 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
===Don't remove, don't strike but comment (bad faith RFA votes)===
Line 388 ⟶ 435:
#Ditto those four guys above me. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 12:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Bureaucrats should comment only with "Possible bad faith" and an opportunity then for the voter to retract or explain. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|(Talk)]] 23:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Strike-out is too strong, and a coment accomplishes the same thing. Oh, and polls are evil. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<
#It's easy enough to just say below "this user has 10 edits", what's the harm in that? [[User:Karmafist|<
#Yes, this goes with the earlier part of the poll on promoting discussion. Keeps everything open and aboveboard. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
#If you feel the need to comment on something, do so. Striking-out provides the impression that that person's vote is either invalid or unworthy; only commenting under the vote makes people aware of your feelings so that they (and bureaucrats) may make a better choice. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
#Don't remove or strike out, but make admins and BCrats should make a clear note of problems with any votes. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#:Striking out a person's comments or votes should NEVER done except by that person ANYWHERE ON THE WIKIPEDIA. Having had it done to me by one particular edit, I considered an extremely disrespectful act, on the par with a personal attack. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#::Strong agreement! But there are some admins who think it's no big deal, who defend the practice by saying "other admins do it, it's a common practice" or "it's my way to keep notes on things as I am trying to determine consensus", and I would really like this practice deprecated in no uncertain terms. Which is partly why I started this choice. I will never comment in favour of anyone who does it, going forward, for any position, ever. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 21:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#Striking out another person's edits is never appropriate, whether done by a b-crat or not. The existing system seems to work fine where anyone can make a comment below the person's vote. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 18:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#As per how VfD voting is done right now. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#Comment. — [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 19:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#Comment as to why the "vote" is not reasonable and indicate disregard.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 01:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
# A comment gives a better impression than striking or removal. [[User:Youngamerican| ''<font color="blue">young</font>''<font color="#CFB53B">american</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Youngamerican|talk]])</small> 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
# Striking out raises tensions rather than lowering them. Comment is better. <span style="font-size: 10px">— [[User:Brighterorange|<span style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #FFE7B0; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #FF9600">brighterorange</span>]] ([[User_talk:Brighterorange|talk]])</span> 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Computerjoe|Computerjoe]][[User talk:Computerjoe|<span style="color:red">'s talk</span>]] 09:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (bad faith RFA votes)===
Line 402 ⟶ 454:
#Admins should never have the right to outright remove votes completely. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#As Android. [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|mrp]]</small> 18:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#We can tell without causing futher conflicts. Add a note if it's that important. — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[
#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 --''[[User:Reflex Reaction|<b>Reflex Reaction</b>]]'' ([[User talk:Reflex Reaction|talk]])• 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Bcrats should be disallowed to unilaterally discard any vote as long as this vote conforms to suffrage requirements articulated above. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 408 ⟶ 460:
#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. [[User:Sreed1234|Sue Anne]] 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#All votes should be available for posterity. [[User:Grue|<
#Agree with others above. Don't alter comments of others, but note possible socks/vandals/whatever. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big><sub>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</sub></big> <sup>[[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]]</sup> 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Even the nearly perfected BCats need accountability. --[[User:Rudolf Nixon|Rudolf Nixon]] 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 414 ⟶ 466:
#Nothing should be removed from the discussion - it should be an accurate record of the process, complete from start to finish. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with the above. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#I'm ok with bureaucrats commenting that they didn't count a vote when closing, but don't delete them. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#I certainly don't have a problem with B'crats ignoring bad faith votes or giving less weight to poorly justified ones--that's part of their job--but the votes should stay on the page for acountability. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 02:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#This is for b'crats to handle. It's part of their job to discount dubious votes and, if necessary, to note this when closing (but not necessarily earlier). --[[User:OpenToppedBus|OpenToppedBus]] - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|Talk to the driver]] 10:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#I don't see why a b-crat needs to comment on this. He can simply not take them into consideration, without stirring up a hornet's nest. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely not. That's like saying "the cabal can strike out the vote of anyone who votes the ''wrong'' way". --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
#Bad faith votes speak volumes about the voter, not the votee. It should be the goal of a responsible Wikipedian to weed out the bullshit. And I'm certain that bureaucrats are responsible enough to take this into consideration when deciding the votes rather than suppressing such information during the vote. -- [[User:Krash|Krash]] <small>([[User talk:Krash|Talk]])</small> 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#I have severe issues with any labeling of a comment as "in bad faith". I have severe issues with meats and anons commenting on RfA, too. Prevent anons and newly registered users from commenting -- it's easy enough, just semi-protect all RfA pages -- and I will assume good faith in ''every'' comment made. '''If''' a closing crat decides to ''ignore'' such a comment and this causes the result to swing then I bloody well want to be notified -- preferably on my talk. [[User:John Reid|John ]][[User talk:John Reid|Reid]] 02:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
#No way. --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 00:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
#Nope. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 02:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
#No.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 23:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#I concur. I've made edits in good faith, which, by Wiki policy on vandelism classifies them as not being vandelism, only to have admins accuse me of vandelism anyway, and no amount of clarification would reverse their mind. Just as bad editing, but done in good faith is not vandelism, a vote that is cast should always being given the benefit of the doubt, which is also Wiki policy. The only time I could see this the other way is if the comments included with the vote were obvious vandelism. [[User:Mugaliens|Mugaliens]] 18:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
===Other (bad faith RFA votes)===
Line 428 ⟶ 488:
* Leave it up to bureaucrats. Don't want any new rigid rule on that matter. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 01:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
* Personally, I am not a fan of completely discounting any vote (other than sockpuppets). But a user who votes against almost every candidate or votes against without providing any reasoning, or votes in favour of almost every user without providing any reasoning, then there's no need to give further consideration to their vote in the event of a close call. Votes should only be struck out if they are sockpuppets, and comments only removed if they are personal attacks. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] ''[[User talk:Warofdreams|talk]]'' 11:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
* Striking out votes requires caution.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] 09:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
=Existing administrators=
Line 437 ⟶ 498:
#I think that maybe 1-2% of current admins are what I would consider rogue, and I have nontrivial disagreements with another 1-2% or so. So, I would think that at least 96% of admins are doing a pretty good job. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 22:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#Definitely. I think that there are some rogues, but as a group, they do a damn good job [[User:Werdna648|Werdna648]]<sup>[[User_talk:Werdna648|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sup> 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#On the whole, I think we're doing pretty well. But one bad apple spoils the batch. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Their performance is very important.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] 09:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
# On the whole doing well. Not always what I'd ''like'', but well. (I'm an admin in a much smaller more homogeneous project and it is celarly much much harder and nastier here. [[User:Midgley|Midgley]] 16:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
# Doing very well for the job put at hand. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
#Color me biased, but I think we're doing a decent enough job. Sure, there are backlogs and the occasional bad apple, but it could be a lot worse. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 05:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
#Don't think I've ever had a run-in with one yet. They operate silently to me, but efficiently! --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 00:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
#What a weird question. Naturally I don't think poorly of myself :-P [[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
# Even though I have been disappointed with the behavior of some admins, I think that overall they are doing a good and respectable job. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 10:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
#As a whole, yes; but not all admins. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
===Disapprove (job performance)===
#Generally because there are several high profile rogue admins and non of the other admins bother doing anything about it until it becomes so out of hand that it threatens the wiki's continued existence. E.g. Kelly Martin. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
#I strongly agree as per above. The vast majority of admins are great but when an admin disrupts something the disruption has to go over the top in order for others to take notice. In hindsight that whole userbox fiasco was just plain silly and disruptive. --[[User:Dysepsion|<span style="color:#0000CC;">† Ðy§ep§ion †</span>]] <sup> [[User_talk:Dysepsion|<i style="color:#0000CC;">Speak your mind</i>]]</sup> 20:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
#From the little I've seen, general attitude looks like 'We can do anything we like, and you can't do anything about it' with little reference to actual policy. [[User:For great justice.|For great justice.]] 19:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
#Most of the admins I have run into are excellent, but a few abuse the position. [[User:Elizmr|Elizmr]] 22:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
#'''STRONG DISSAPPROVE.''' I've been told to "f*** off" by administrators, I've had my ArbCom requests ignored, I've basically been told to shut the hell up. I'm sick of rampant elitism, no morality, and abuse of admin powers. - [[User:Kookykman|Kookykman]]|[[User talk:Kookykman|<span style="color:black;">(t)</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<i style="color:green;">e</i>]] 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
#I would tend to agree. I think most admins do a fine job, but I've seen others who directly violate written Wiki policy, and when you share/link the governing policy, they tell you you're wrong, cite incivility, and threated to ban you. [[User:Mugaliens|Mugaliens]] 18:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ditto.--[[User:Pravknight|Pravknight]] 04:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
===Discussion (job performance)===
#This is kind of vague. There's no way to group 800 or so administrators and rate them as one group; indubitably, there will be people that think certain administrators are "satisfactory" while others are "unsatisfactory". [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
#Almost all of the administrators on the English Wikipedia do a very good job. The problem is that roughly 1% of them cause way more than their share of problems—sometimes from their regular editing on the Wikipedia, and sometimes from their actions as administrators. Eventually every one of the problem admins will do enough that the ArbComm will have no choice but to de-admin them, but until then there will be huge amounts of time wasted discussing those admins at WP/AN, at WP:AN/I, in RFCs, etc. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#Ditto BlankVerse. For every "rogue" admin we hear of, there are probably at least a half dozen out there doing a brilliant job. Are there terrible admins? Yes. But are there also good admins? Hell, yes. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 11:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#Ditto BlankVerse too. The problem is, which 1% is it? I suspect my list of the 8 "worst" isn't going to match anyone else's. But I am in awe of the vast majority of admins who seem to do a lot of thankless and hard work on a regular basis and I'm glad they all care enough to keep doing it. Even if I think there is a need for some change. I'm not sure this is a meaningful question, though. Do we want to list off who we think is bad? I just don't see that as a good idea. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#To paraphrase the above in yet another way, a janitor's work is usually only noticed when done poorly. And it is this exact issue that made me disagree with the "The standards for becoming an admin should be higher than they are now" statement above. ~[[User:Mdd4696 |MDD]][[User_talk:Mdd4696 |46]][[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696 |96]] 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
#I wish people wouldn't just add questions in wily-nilly. That being said, there are good admins and bad admins, so this question is sort of vague and meaningless. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 19:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
# All of them? This question is pointless. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# ''Deadminship'' should be more easy. This will discourage inaproporate usage of admin power such as locking a page and making pov edits (not particularly accusing anyone but such stuff has happened). Having said that, this system should not allow trolls to have another playground. Should be an arbcom-like community determining in my view (how about burocrats making the review? They have the power to deadmin after all right?). This poll (Discussion (job performance)) is flawed. Out of the 800+ some are more than decent, while some sucks or are inactive (why do they still have admin level access? (for security concerns)). --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#Discussion should be individualized per admin. — [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
# We already have RfC for that 1%, isn't it? - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 14:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#Administrators themselves aren't a problem, but policies such as T1 and T2 give almost infinite discretion in some matters that a few admins exploit to enforce their wikiphilosophies. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
# I think this question is kind of poorly set up. The large majority of Admins are fantastic - they go well above and beyond the call of duty and perform admirably - but the bad apples can easily spoil one on the bunch. [[User:WilyD|WilyD]] 18:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
# I hate generalizations. Let's not rate the performance of admins ''as a whole''. Sysop power abuse can lead to bad things - but the many great administrators should not be blamed for this. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
==Admins should be held more accountable for their actions than they are now==
Line 453 ⟶ 536:
#Yes. Admins need to be held to a much higher standard than normal users. --[[User:^demon|^demon]] 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Without a doubt. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#:<s>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').</s> Moved to next subsection. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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 [[User:BlankVerse|talk page]] for more of my opinions on the matter. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#*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). [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#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. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big><sub>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</sub></big> <sup>[[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]]</sup> 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. --''[[User:Reflex Reaction|<b>Reflex Reaction</b>]]'' ([[User talk:Reflex Reaction|talk]])• 18:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#*While I totally understand and respect the difficulties in publicising and documenting facts such as the ones you claimed above, I feel I need to at least make such a request: Can you provide documentation for these claims you make? (Admin accounts uploading copyvio material - this should be easily provable; bad unblocks - this is more vague, but details would help in allowing others to make up their minds; intimidating - I'm sure this is true; intimidation is, while not a good thing, very commmon on Wikipedia - I'm sure accounts with sysop privilages have done it as have logged-in accounts, and ip accounts; wheel wars - also, yes - this has happened, the records are available in the Block or Protection logs; profanity - I suspect you
#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? [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 19:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#I agree that there needs to be an accountability loop. I have yet to hear a mechanism to do this. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 19:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 465 ⟶ 548:
#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. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#They should be as accountable as non-admin users. [[User:Grue|<
#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 [[WP:WHEEL|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). <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''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. [[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 20:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 471 ⟶ 554:
#Agree with [[User:Crotalus horridus|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. – [[User:Seancdaug|Seancdaug]] 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]][[WP:ESP|<
#[[User:Jeandré|Jeandré]], 2006-01-17[[User talk:Jeandré|t]]22:30z
#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 <b>[</b>[[User:Kzollman|kzollman]]<b>][</b>[[User talk:Kzollman|talk]]<b>]</b> 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 481 ⟶ 564:
#Too many admins use their powers as a licence to vandalize. [[User:Quaque|Quaque]] ([[User talk:Quaque|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Quaque|contribs]]) 07:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 12:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup
# Definitely, per Johnleemk, BlankVerse, CBD and others. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 14:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Not an ounce of admin review takes place. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 15:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
# 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. --[[User:Tabor|Tabor]] 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[Spider-Man|With great power comes great responsibility]]. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 17:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 490 ⟶ 573:
# [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin baas]] 20:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC) '''Very strong support.''' And I agree w/The Witch.
# This has probably been said a million times before, but the admins are a more visible representation of Wikipedia than normal editors, and as such we need to be held more responsible for what we do, even if it involves no admin powers whatsoever. Also, I agree that there needs to be a faster way to de-admin people. Right now the admins that are causing problems appear to be doing so because they know that what they're doing is not approved of, but they won't be losing the ability to do it any time soon. [[User:Mo0|Mo0]]<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User Talk:Mo0|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#While Jimbo said it should be no big deal, administrators have authority where other users do not. This position is meant to be given to responsible users that have contributed well to the community, and those users should be held to a higher standard. --[[user:tomf688|<
#Agree totally with The Witch, Tomf688, and all the others--admins ''must'' be held to a higher standard—and be punished accordingly! [[User:Matt Yeager|Matt Yeager]] 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# Sure. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 500 ⟶ 583:
# A de-adminship is absolutely necessary to bring the most obtuse, unfriendly admins to heel in their most consistently brazen behaviors. This is not needed because many admins are bad, but a few bad seeds spoil the bunch. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. I honestly don't know how much of the criticism about admins I've heard is justifiable, but the fact that is exists must mean that admins have to be held accountable to what they do. This does not necessarily mean removing their admin status (though it may do in the worst cases, see my vote below in enforcement section), as this should be a last resort after more gentle methods are used. I came across [[User:Durin/Admin watch|Durin's admin watch]] idea, which seems like a good starting point for the sort of thing I'm talking about. --[[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 18:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
# Yes. While to err is to human, administrators should be held accountable for repeated offenses and such. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
#The best editors should be the most responsible for their actions. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. I expect any leader (appointed or elected) to act as an example for the rest of the organization/community. I´m quite digusted to find that the opposite is too often true here on WP. Admins seems to be given a [[carte blanche]], and not everybody can handle it. It is driving other editors away. [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] 16:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 510 ⟶ 593:
# Most definitely. Any position of power must have accountability. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
# Yes. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#Definitely - anyone holding a position with additional responsibility should also be subject to additional scrutiny. Accountability is an imperative that must accompany those in a more powerful position - checks and balances and all that. --
# Yes. We make people admins because we expect they won't misuse the buttons; there is no need to retain them as admins if it turns out we were wrong. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
# While misuse of admin privileges (including threat of misuse of admin privileges) should be the overwhelmingly most important reason to desysop, if a user seems to become unstable or otherwise loses the trust of the community, they should also lose out for that. —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 04:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# I agree, although there are disagreements about the most appropriate ''mechanism'' for this accountability. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Strongly agree. [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. Unchecked admins are a recipe for tyranny and pov overload. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
# As an administrator at English Wikisource, multilingual Wikisource, Chinese Wikisource, Chinese Wikipedia, and Chinese Wiktionary (but not here yet), I have always endeavor to act positively. I strongly agree.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] 09:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 12:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely. As a relatively new user here I have been disturbed by the degree of anarchy exhibited primarily by admins. This occurs both in official actions as admins and in the editing of articles by admins. Admins need to be held to a higher standard and there needs to be a lower threshold for removing admin privileges. – [[User:Doug Bell|Doug Bell]] <sup>[[User talk:Doug Bell|talk]]'''•'''[[Special:Contributions/Doug Bell|contrib]]</sup> 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
# Of course. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# absolutely [[User:Maclean25|maclean<small>25</small>]] 06:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
# This is kind of a silly poll (no offense intended). Everyone is accountable from their actions and existing admins are also accountable for their actions. HOWEVER this should not give trolls any breathing room. Trolls must suffocate. Furthermore admins are people and hence can make mistakes. Adminship is not the borg assimilation process (borg seek perfection), one inaproporate block by an admin does not mean he needs to be striped from admin ''powers''. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 20:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
# Strongly agree. If you're an admin, you should know the ins and outs. --[[User:Dysepsion|<span style="color:#0000CC;">† Ðy§ep§ion †</span>]] <sup> [[User_talk:Dysepsion|<i style="color:#0000CC;">Speak your mind</i>]]</sup> 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
# Strongly agree. Admins '''must''' be accountable for all their actions. Receiving the position of admin comes with certain expectations from the Wikipedia community, and these should be lived up to. <font color="#08457E">'''[[User:Chairman S.|Chairman S.]]'''</font> 11:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
#Strongly agree. We don't expect admins to be perfect, but they should set a positive example in all that they do, '''especially''' in the use of administrative powers. [[User:Alphax|Alph]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:Alphax|x]] <sup >[[User talk:Alphax|τ]][[Special:Emailuser/Alphax|ε]][[Special:Contributions/Alphax|χ]]</sup > 14:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. Admins should be desysoped if they do something severe, they should know the rules better than regular users and should be punished just as strictly - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] [[User:Dussst|<font color="blue">'''• | Đܧ§§Ť | •'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Dussst|T]] | [[special:contributions/Dussst|C]]</sup> 18:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strongly agree''' Adminship should be a position of responsibility, NOT a totalitarian position of power. Admins should be subject to the criticism of the community and administrator abuse should not be ignored and those administrators should face de-adminship. --[[User:Revolución|Revolución]] ''([[User talk:Revolución|talk]])'' 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strongly agree''' - a few admins have lampooned and verbally abused other experienced/serious editors on AfD, at the least. THey are supposed to be role models, so civility is very important. Egotistical admins in this regard, should be impeached.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 00:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
#There are principles. — [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 19:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Agree''' [[User:86.10.231.219|The Invisible Anon]] 16:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
#:'''Comment''' (not the same person as the one above) On the whole the admins do well. Esprit de corps is a more powerful and sustainable force than regulation. [[User:The Invisible Anon|The Invisible Anon]] 14:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
#Yes, admins should be held more accountable than they currently are, for both admin and non-admin actions. Admins should be held to higher standards than average users. --[[User:PS2pcGAMER|PS2pcGAMER]] ([[User talk:PS2pcGAMER|talk]]) 07:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
#I agree. We pull the ''I'm an admin'' card enough (even if implicitly) to deserve others finger wagging ''shame shame, you're an admin.'' <span style="font-size: 10px">— [[User:Brighterorange|<span style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #FFE7B0; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #FF9600">brighterorange</span>]] ([[User_talk:Brighterorange|talk]])</span> 17:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree - there doesn't seem to be any sort of accountability right now. [[User:For great justice.|For great justice.]] 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Term Limits''' -- Admins should requite periodic re-election, to serve as a review of their behaviour. -- [[User:Gnetwerker|Gnetwerker]] 19:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. In retrospect, I think I've gotten away with things I probably shouldn't've. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 06:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
#I agree. Each admin should have their actions scrutinized, and be '''subject to reelection'''. There is frequent abuse of adminship: blocks out of procedure (even indefinite ones), incivility etc. Less than 2% of admins were stripped from adminship for violations. There is practically no accountability and what should be a technical matter, becomes too often matter of abuse of power. Reelection should be a procedure, and wrong decisions should be made transparent, and a basis for denying reelection - that will ensure accountability, like in any democracy with free election. Only dictatorships have unlimited terms. [[User:BabaRera|BabaRera]] 04:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
#It's terrible when admins become more lax once they pass their request for adminship. Under the current system, it's almost impossible to get an admin desysopped, even temporarily. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 20:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strongly agree''' - Admins who block editors, because they disagree with them in a content dispute, should immediately loose their admin privilege. [[User:Raphael1|Raphael1]] 03:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
#'''Agree''' – To become an Admin, most users can’t have 3RR violations or being banned for any reason is pretty much going to end in that RfA failing. The rules shouldn’t change after becoming an admin. If any admin is in or acts that are deemed, an atrocious act that clearly demonstrates the lack of civility (clear cut 3RR comes to mind) then I would go as far as saying that admin should be desysopped and require RfA a week later if that former admin desires. First the admin clearly shows that lack of negotiation skills and would rather be involved in shouting matches then resolutions. --[[User:Supercoop|Supercoop]] 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
#'''Agree''' - The '''vast''' majority of admins are doing a great job, but there needs to be a clear way to hold admins to the highest possible standards, without diminishing their ability to do their job. I've certainly seen one admin use their admin status inappropriately fairly recently, with the apparent support of (some) other admins; time will tell if the person concerned has been 'spoken to quietly' and/or will improve their behaviour.
#We need a balance here; on the one hand, admins must be empowered to make difficult decisions for the good of the community, but on the otherhand some may need to be reminded that it '''is''' a community, and one in which the vast majority, doing the vast majority of the work, are ordinary editors who are volunteers working for fun. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 15:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
#Definitely. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. --[[User:Zoz|Zoz]] ''[[User_talk:Zoz|(t)]]'' 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
#Strongly agree. Users must be able to disagree with an admin, and if the user is right, the admin should be held accountable and his statements immediately reversed. [[User:Mugaliens|Mugaliens]] 18:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
===Yes, but only to their ''admin'' actions (admins held accountable)===
Line 521 ⟶ 636:
#[[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Per Carbonite and Aaron -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Uh-huh. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[
# Editors aren't marked as Admins, so they only need to behave as admins when doing admin actions. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
# 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. [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 04:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]] <font size="-3">[[User_talk:Jamyskis|Whisper]], [[Special:Contributions/Jamyskis|Contribs]]</font> [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 12:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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
# Mostly admin actions unless they start vandalizing. [[user:Anonymous editor|<
#I agree with Aaron. It's one thing to edit badly another to threaten. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|(Talk)]] 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#I agree with Aaron. I moderate on a fairly large set of forums, and even though I get into arguments, I don't use my status as a threat. If I feel they did something wrong, I'll wait for a neutral party to step in. This doesn't always seem to be the case here.--[[User:Toffile|Toffile]] 17:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#<s>From above: "''Adminship is no big deal, but abuses of power should be. There ought to be a much clearer, more streamlined way to deadmin someone.''"</s> Changed my mind, slightly. Any "abuse of power" that occurs is tied directly to the enhanced abilities of an admin. Even if they are making POV edits, there is no abuse of power until they use blocking/page protecting/threats of such to enforce their editorial will. Rollback may fall into this category, but I'd prefer to see that become a full-user priv, not an admin "power". -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 17:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#There should be accountability of the mis-use of admin tools, particularly as non-admins cannot revert. I would definitely include rollback in that category. Speedy deletion seems adequately catered for at the moment, it is less hard to get something speedy undeleted. Some of the other actions though are too hard, slightly more subtle in terms of whether you esclate the issue or not, so the answer tends to be not to escalate or query becaause you (the non-admin) would rather just edit and add info.--[[User:AYArktos|A Y Arktos]] 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes, for admin tools like reversion and blocking. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 17:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#:Or, as Aaron said, threatening same. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 14:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
# Right. It's kind of strange judging the adminship for nonadmin related things -- <small> ( [[User:Drini|drini's page]] [[User talk:Drini|<big>☎</big>]] )</small> 20:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Agree'''. There should fairly obviously be repercussions for abusing admin powers. However, an admin shouldn't be held to higher standards on simply editing an article. As stated around wikipedia, admins have no more or less power than other editors for simply working on articles. Adminship isn't a trophy, and it shouldn't be a liability. When an admin is simply working out in the mainspace without using any of the extra powers or mediating, they should be held to the same standards of normal users, not higher. --[[User:Mathwizard1232|Mathwizard1232]] 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with everyone above, and note its corollary: Admins should have no more power in editing disputes. And they should not imply that they do. [[User:Moink|moink]] 00:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
# Why punish an administrator for what he does as a mere editor? That's like firing your secretary because he/she gets into shouting arguments with his spouse in his house.[[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
#I don't think I agree with this. I'm not even entirely sure what this is getting at; is it trying to suggest that admins who engage in vandalism, revert wars, personal attacks, etc., things that non-admins can do, should not suffer any consequence for it? I mean, an admin who engages in a personal attack isn't doing anything "as an admin," but if a regular editor could be blocked or warned for it, they should face the possibility of losing administrative privileges for it. --[[User:Cheapestcostavoider|Cheapestcostavoider]] 02:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
# Alternative is to allow admins to have hidden sockpuppets for their non-admin controversial edits. --[[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] 11:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC).
#Support as per above. [[User:Polonium|Polonium]] 00:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
#While an admin should be as accountable as an editor for their editorial actions (not less), this need not be more accountable. But they need to be accountable to the point of losing their mop for their <s>administrative</s>janitorial actions. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 16:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
#We shouldn't treat admins as "super-users" that are more responsible in general, but they should be held much more responsible for their administrative actions. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
#Admins are users who have been entrusted with extra tools by the community. If they abuse those tools, they abuse the community's trust. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 11:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
#Abuse of admin powers is excessively annoying, otherwise admins should be free to <s>troll</s>behave like any other user. -- [[User:Omniplex|Omniplex]] 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#Of course, Admins should be given as much freedom to edit as anyone else - we wouldn't want Adminship to become a burden on editors, so that our best and brightest are lost as editors upon promotion, or decline advancement just so they can remain effective editors. But at the same time, those few admins who do abuse their admin powers need to be reined in. I know an admin's abuse of power almost caused me to leave wikipedia - partially because there was essentially nothing I could do about it. [[User:WilyD|WilyD]] 18:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
#Admins make mistakes - just like the rest of us. However, they should certainly think twice before performing something as significant as blocking or deletion. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (admins held accountable)===
Line 542 ⟶ 670:
#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. --[[User:Rudolf Nixon|Rudolf Nixon]] 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#:This user is a suspected [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet|sockpuppet]] of [[User:Zephram_Stark]]. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 21:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
#What Gamaliel said, this is unconstructive and vague to say the least. [[User:Alkivar|<
#I can't agree to this unless you explain what you mean. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#*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. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
# Current processes are sufficient. We don't need more red tape. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 01:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 14:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 551 ⟶ 679:
#Everything is find now, why is there a need to make such a change. It is currently sufficient. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:Terenceong1992|nc]][[User talk:Terenceong1992|e Ong]] 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
# This is all too vague to mean anything. Admins who break the rules are already held accountable for those actions; admins who abuse admin-only powers tend to accrue more attention in that regard than the rest of us. I'm not exactly opposing the idea of increased accountability, but without knowing what that would mean in practice, I'm not supporting it either. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
# This is not even rulecruft; it's politicking. "Vote for me; I'll hold admins accountable!" [[User:John Reid|John ]][[User talk:John Reid|Reid]] 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
===Other (admins held accountable)===
#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. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#*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. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#*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. --[[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. [[User:Natalinasmpf|Elle <small><sub><font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse</font></sub></small> <small><font color="blue"><sup>à jamais</sup></font></small>]] ([[User talk:Natalinasmpf|Be eudaimonic!]]) 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 565 ⟶ 694:
:*It's a weird system, where it's fairly easy to become an admin but then it's "tenured" in that admins are very seldom de-adminned. In most organizations, if its easy to get hired its easy to get fired, or else if its hard to get fired (tenure) its hard to get the position.
:*Saying "admin is no big deal" doesn't make it so. People go WHO-HOO I MADE ADMIN. They should be saying "Oh damn they made me be an admin" and there should be more turn-downs of admin nominations, maybe. Maybe new admins should be forced to work on articles that need work but are really boring and no one want to work on them, or something.
#Admins should be held accountable ''by their peers''. Regular users shouldn't get a say. I know a few admins who are rather unpopular amongst the "rabble" because they get their hands dirty with all sorts of ugly but necessary blocks and interventions. But they are definitely well-respected amongst their ''peers''. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
==[[WP:WHEEL|Wheel warring]] is an inappropriate use of admin powers==
===Agree (wheel warring)===
# '''Duh'''. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 17:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Probably so, don't ya think? --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<
#Erm, yes. Most certainly. --[[User:^demon|^demon]] 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# Duh. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 575 ⟶ 705:
#of course --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Can we invoke the reverse snowball clause on this one? [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#It takes two to wheel war. Every admin in a wheel war should temporarily lose admin ''
#:So what should I have done when 172 pulled the block I had placed on him?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#::If you are in a mutual wheel war, then you ''both'' should lose admin
#:::How about a "timed admin block" which removes admin powers from one user and the one issuing the block? For 24 hours? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 04:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
#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).—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)]] 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#This needs a vote? — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[
#Agree with the comment, and with android79. Sheesh. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Major league agreement'''. --[[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 589 ⟶ 719:
#—[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC). Tricky one. Not.
#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. [[User:Avriette|Avriette]] 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Grue|<
#[[WP:WHEEL|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''. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 20:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# Per [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]]. [[User:Alerante|æle]] <small>[[User talk:Alerante|✆]]</small> 20:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 598 ⟶ 728:
#Of course. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 23:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Duh''' [[User:Alkivar|<
#This is fairly obvious tbh -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Damn right. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[
#Needless to say. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 01:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#--best, kevin <b>[</b>[[User:Kzollman|kzollman]]<b>][</b>[[User talk:Kzollman|talk]]<b>]</b> 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. To combat this a special AN or other type of notice board to report wheel warring may be helpful. [[User:Xaosflux|<
#[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] <sub>.</sub> <small>o</small> º<sup> O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]])</sup> 04:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''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 [[WP:3RR|3RR]]? [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 04:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 615 ⟶ 745:
# Any type of reverting save simple vandalism is typically counter-productive. Learn to discuss. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Can you say "stating the bleedin' obvious"? -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Thought it already was one'''. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#Duh. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 17:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Clearly.--[[User:Alhutch|Alhutch]] 18:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 19:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Wheel warring is worse than edit warring. While both may damage one's faith in Wikipedia as an editor, the former damages the belief in Wikipedia's faith in the entire dispute resolvement system, not to mention the disillusionment in the administrative system here. Once the faith in the administrative system begins to go, simply put, it's going to be bad if that will begins to solicit.--[[User:Toffile|Toffile]] 21:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Wheel warring reflects poorly on the community. It also reflects poorly on those that are supposed to be controlling issues like these between ''other'' users. --[[user:tomf688|<
#It's bad. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|(Talk)]] 00:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# Yes. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 626 ⟶ 756:
#The idea that wheel warring can truly be 'for the good of the encyclopedia' is ultimately ludicrous. Destabilizing behavior does just that - destabilizes. The encyclopedia does not exist without the community, and the community is not indestructible. Besides, both sides think that they're acting for the good of the encyclopedia, of course. Admins should stop, wait, and bring in the community; acting unilaterally, they're like arrogant gods, fighting with no regard for the lesser beings they step on. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 01:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# I think this may get majority support. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] ''[[User talk:Warofdreams|talk]]'' 11:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#
#'''Agree.''' Wheel warring should be grounds for immediate temporary loss of admin tools, and permanent if repeated enough times. There's simply no good reason to repeatedly do or undo an admin action, because there are few things that need urgent action. If they did, they would be obvious to everyone and there would be no disagreement. Discuss first and don't ever undo another admin's actions without discussion and some consensus first. That's the only way to nip wheel warring in the bud. Workable, not too costly, avoids conflict. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 23:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, per Linuxbeak. Come on, if you don't agree with another admin on something first try and talk it out. If you still can't agree grab another admin to cast a neutral view on the situation. --[[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 18:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
# Note that wheel-warring is ''repeating'' an action multiple times, not just one revert. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
# Impossible to disagree. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''You're joking, right?''' [[User:Werdna648|Werdna648]]<sup>[[User_talk:Werdna648|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sup> 02:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 637 ⟶ 767:
#Absolutely agree. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:Terenceong1992|nc]][[User talk:Terenceong1992|e Ong]] 13:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#...but they're so much fun to watch! It's like Gandalf vs. Saruman vs. Jerry Springer! No, I'm kidding. Wheel wars suck. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely. --[[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">Kantari</font>]] [[
#Agree, self evidently. How not to set an example to others.... --
#Wheel warring is how not to set an example. Adminship may not be a big deal, but [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point|annoying other people]] is. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
#– [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Discussion is a good alternative. -[[User:Feydey|feydey]] 13:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
#In the same way that some people think genocide is a ''bad thing''. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
#It creates very bad images.
# Of course — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# Quite obvious. -- [[User:Water Bottle|WB]] 08:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''D.U.H.'''!? HOWEVER admins can make errors. Any admin action should be reverted if apporoporate however only '''AFTER''' a discussion between the parties "wheel waring"/pre "wheel warring". --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 20:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
# Common sense dictates that this must be so. [[User:Alphax|Alph]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:Alphax|x]] <sup >[[User talk:Alphax|τ]][[Special:Emailuser/Alphax|ε]][[Special:Contributions/Alphax|χ]]</sup > 14:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. Common sense, and common policy - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] [[User:Dussst|<font color="blue">'''• | Đܧ§§Ť | •'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Dussst|T]] | [[special:contributions/Dussst|C]]</sup> 18:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
# Obviously.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
# People are opposed to this? [[User:SFGiants|ςפקι]][[User:SFGiants/Esperanza|<font color="green">Д</font>]][[User:SFGiants|Иτς]] [[User_talk:SFGiants|☺]] [[Special:Contributions:SFGiants|☻]] 05:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Agree''' I can't see any advantage to wheel warring. Nobody emerges from it with any respect and it only damages WP to have public displays of internecene conflict from admins, who are supposed to act in a responsible and reliable manner. [[User:(aeropagitica)|<span style="background:#800080; font-family:Ariel; color:#FFFFFF;">''' (aeropagitica) '''</span>]] 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#Of course. --[[User:PS2pcGAMER|PS2pcGAMER]] ([[User talk:PS2pcGAMER|talk]]) 07:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
#Of course. Fellow admins can be politely challenged and decisions debated, but wheel warring - it's a no brainer that it's bad. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 12:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
# Silly question. Duh. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
# It is, but the [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy|the proposed wheel warring policy]] is too harsh. It doesn't allow for mistakes; admins are people. It's very obvious when there is wheel warring and when there is just a mistake, but that policy ignores that aspect. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 20:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
#Easiest vote ever. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 02:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
# Admins should have a nice, civilized debate, not a power struggle. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (wheel warring)===
#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'''. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#*Since the article would also have been kept if you hadn't wheel warred over it, I fail to see what your point is. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
#*The fact that wheel warring can occasionally end up at a good result, does not make it a good strategy for getting things done. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#** 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. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 21:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 654 ⟶ 802:
#:::::Dude, sock checks are for repeat vandals, not just people who disagree with you. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#::::::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? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#:::::::Well, this page isn't really a vote, per se, it's more like a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant%21&diff=35639684&oldid=35637563 friendly discussion], so commenting twice shouldn't be a problem. Also, I have strong opinions about Nae'blis's comments.
#::::::::Care to elaborate on your opinions, in the name of friendly discussion? It's hard to tell from your comment if you strongly agree/disagree/think I'm made of green cheese. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#:This user is a suspected [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet|sockpuppet]] of [[User:Zephram_Stark]]. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 21:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 660 ⟶ 808:
#:Um, that's not sound logic, no offense. A tool only admins have, if used innapropriately is innapropriate use of admin powers. QED. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 15:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
#:::::::::How about... editors who get caught wheel warring shall be required to take a break and prove their sense of humor by submitting an article to [[Uncyclopedia]]. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 08:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#But wheel warring is such fun! --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 06:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
===Other (wheel warring)===
Line 665 ⟶ 814:
#: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. --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] <sub>.</sub> <small>o</small> º<sup> O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]])</sup> 04:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 04:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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? :-) [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 14:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#::It belongs to [[User:Hipocrite]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll&diff=next&oldid=35679194] -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#I agree with Hipocrite. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 22:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#I think that this is usually wrong, but I believe that it's more important to ensure that users are not unfairly blocked. Also, one undeletion or unblock does not a wheel war make, and punishing people for a single action like some people appear to be suggesting above doesn't make sense. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 01:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
#Clearly admins occasionally do dumb stuff with their powers. If one does such a stupid thing, it should be undone by another admin. If they redo it, that's when I'd say it becomes wrong, and reundoing it wouldn't be wrong. Unless, of course, when there's consensus for the other side. But who decides whether there's consensus?
#There is the possibility to use non-admins to avoid the looks of a wheel war. — [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#I still haven't seen an unambiguous definition of wheel warring. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#Wheel warring is bad, but clearly the problem is more with the policies than with the administrators. There shouldn't be anything in an administrative task that is debatable. When there is, it's a sign there is something very wrong with policy in general. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with Eloquence and Hipocrite. --[[User:Zoz|Zoz]] ''[[User_talk:Zoz|(t)]]'' 14:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
==Ignoring consensus is inappropriate for an admin==
===Agree (ignoring consensus)===
# Yes, almost always. There will always be that .0001% where Admin actions could go against consensus. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<
#What LV said. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#:This is with the understanding that [[WP:Consensus|Consensus]] can not overrule Wikipedia [[WP:RULES|Policy]] (except in a survey on a specific policy), nor can it overrule any legal requirements (such as [[WP:Fair use|Fair use]]). [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#Except in very rare, time critical, 'emergencies' admins should be the ''most'' dedicated to following consensus --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big><sub>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</sub></big> <sup>[[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]]</sup> 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#In most cases, yes. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 688 ⟶ 841:
#::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. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 22:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#By the definition of consensus. [[User:Grue|<
#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. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 20:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''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. [[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#
#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. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Definitely. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[
# 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. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Agree'''- As per blankverse.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# I'm not sure what this part of the poll will
#[[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
#Absolutely(expecting someone on the other side to overbold once again and speedy delete [[WP:CON]].) [[User:Karmafist|<
#Once you realize what the actual consensus is, [[WP:IAR|IAR]] should not be used to go around it. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 04:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]] <font size="-3">[[User_talk:Jamyskis|Whisper]], [[Special:Contributions/Jamyskis|Contribs]]</font> [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 12:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Almost always, but remember, consensus doesn't mean counting votes. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 15:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Duh. We have admins to gauge consensus. That is their bloody job. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 17:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<
# Consensus on Wikipedia too often equates to mob rule. An admin should act according to well defined academic standards and WP policy. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 19:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin baas]] 20:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC) An admin, in theory, does not have an ego/self - an admin is transparent and can only do the will of others; an admin is a janitor/slave, not a master.
Line 711 ⟶ 864:
# Yes, but only where there's a consensus that there is consensus :) [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] ''[[User talk:Warofdreams|talk]]'' 11:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, but equally as important is not '''acting before there is a consensus'''. If something that requires admin powers to do is against policy or no policy exists, the admin should ask other users before making the change (unless it is not controversial in any way). IAR should not be used for actions that only an admin can undo, just regular editing. If there's something that they want to do in the spirit of IAR, they should ask other users first (and not just their friends). If it's truly for the good of the encyclopedia, most editors will usually agree. There are a few cases where an action would be in the best interest of the encyclopedia but doesn't gain consensus. In that case, it should be taken to a higher authority. -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 13:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, ignoring
# Ignoring consensus is wrong for ''every'' Wikipedian. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes, with the obvious exception of copyvio/legal issues, and the core principle of NPOV. And of course this applies equally to non-admins. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
#:These are covered by a community-wide consensus which is much broader than the editor community on any one article - even if 100% of editors on the GWB article agree to replace it with the content of smirkingchimp.com that is still against consensus, isn't it? - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 13:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Yes'''. Admins are facilitators not dictators. Their opinions are no more valuable than normal editors. They should not have special privledges to disregard
# Admins are human. ~[[User:Mdd4696 |MDD]][[User_talk:Mdd4696 |46]][[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696 |96]] 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree - newcomers are repeatedly reminded that Wikipedia works on
# Strongly agree. [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely. This is supposedly '''wiki'''pedia, not '''arrogance'''pedia or '''soap box'''pedia. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
# Strong Agreement. This especially goes for TfD, where several admins are going crazy over ubx's. [[User:WriterFromAfar755|WriterFromAfar755]] 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
# Strongly Agree. --[[User:Revolución|Revolución]] ''([[User talk:Revolución|talk]])'' 20:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
# Agree as per everyone above. [[User:SFGiants|ςפקι]][[User:SFGiants/Esperanza|<font color="green">Д</font>]][[User:SFGiants|Иτς]] [[User_talk:SFGiants|☺]] [[Special:Contributions:SFGiants|☻]] 05:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
# Agree. [[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 01:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Agree.''' The point of a consensus is to get the people's sense of direction and then make a final decision, not make the decision on what the admin deems appropriate! --[[User:JP06035|<font color="blue">J</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/JP06035|<font color ="D06000"><small>@</small></font>]][[User:JP06035|<font color="blue">red</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:JP06035|<span style="color:green;">[T]</span>]]</sup>/<sub>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JP06035&action=edit§ion=new <span style="color:#DC260C;">[+<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>]</sub> 03:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
# Per JzG, only if it's stipulated that the community wide consensus over NPOV and Vandalism etc. trumps any article-wide consensus over a certain version. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strongly Agree.''' It's difficult to deal with an admin who ignores consensus, and some of them need to work on this. Being an admin doesn't mean you get to ignore policy. [[User:Nortelrye|Nortelrye]] 02:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. suspected violations should shorten their terms. Incivil and intimidating attitude towards users should give rise to speedy reelection and deadminship. Limiting term to 12 months would give rise to 2-3 admins reelected daily - this can be shortened by every user being able to cast an objection, and then the admins with few objections could have longer terms, while particularily abusive admins would have their terms shortened. [[User:BabaRera|BabaRera]] 04:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
#Strongly agree, and believe that administrators who knowingly take actions that wouldn't receive community consensus have gone "rogue" and should be stripped of their power. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
#Admins are almost never in a position to ignore consensus. [[WP:IAR]] shouldn't apply to use of administrative powers. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 11:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
#Good luck getting half the admins to stop, though. - [[User:Kookykman|Kookykman]]|[[User talk:Kookykman|<span style="color:black;">(t)</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<i style="color:green;">e</i>]] 18:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
#Yep. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 03:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
===Yes, but copyvio/NPOV concerns trump consensus===
Line 726 ⟶ 893:
#Consensus does not trump policy. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 03:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Concur with Guettarda. Core policy is nonnegotiable, and given that consensus does not matter on it, no polls or similar are relevant to acting on it. For other things, dodging consensus is at least highly questionable. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with Guettarda. If a group of users came up with the "consensus" to reveal IP addresses of everyone, does that mean we should, against foundation policy? [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
#It can sometimes be difficult to draw enough attention to a possibly NPOV or similarly inappropriate article to gain consensus over the devoted POV-pushers. This tends to happen on highly fancrufty articles, where most sensible people will stay away and the only discussion will occur between two or more parties of intensely devoted, highly opinionated nerds. Without admin interference, such non-discussions can and do damage Wikipedia. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 04:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#:'''Comment:''' Copyright & NPOV concerns are also covered by consensus, per my argument above. There is an overriding community-level consensus that these are not allowed, and that is much broader than the editor community on any single article. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 13:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
#In an AFD discussion, if there are 10 keep votes, and then 1 delete vote saying that it violates copyright, then the admin can check and then close the discussion as delete. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of Hearts]] | [[User talk:King of Hearts|(talk)]] 00:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
#— [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# per [[User:Hipocrite]]'s comments above. --[[User:Hetar|Hetar]] 03:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
#Consensus can't override policy. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 14:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
#But consensus is all we have! Well, except for policy. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 20:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
# Wikipedia can't ignore copyrights laws --[[User:Supercoop|Supercoop]] 19:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC).
#Agree with [[User:King of Hearts|King of Hearts]]. --[[User:Zoz|Zoz]] ''[[User_talk:Zoz|(t)]]'' 14:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
# Administrators are not monarchs. Their opinion is not law. Copyright status, though, is. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (ignoring consensus)===
#'''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. [[User:Alkivar|<
#Only if [[WP:IAR]] is deleted. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#:Then let's delete it already. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 00:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#::You cannot delete policy. But you can ignore it... --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 02:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#:::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. [[User:Karmafist|<
# 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. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 05:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. - [[User:FrancisTyers|FrancisTyers]] 15:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Consensus can be wrong, and cannot be used to override considerations like copyvios. -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Go against consensus if and only if it is The Right Thing™ to do. -- [[User:Nyenyec|nyenyec]] [[User talk:Nyenyec|☎]] 18:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Please dont talk about consensus as if it is a solid structure. I had a ''consensus'' (from 2,3 users) following me around practically everywhere I was going including straw polls and for one of them that was his entier contribution. This is called wikistalking. If their ''consensus'' was me getting blocked... and an admin followed consensus... Well I wouldn't be here and it is pretty clear I am a good user, maybe flawed but overal good. there is a thing called "Artifical Consensus" when forumers infest a spesific topic. This applies to all topics weather its controversial or not. Also another thing is sockpuppet consensus. so there are times where "consensus" is inaproporate. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 20:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#"Consensus" is often dubious (small votes or armies wheeled in). The point about consensus is it shows something should be taken seriously. --[[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] 11:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
#[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia|Fundamental mission]] > Policy > "Consensus" --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
===Neither should non-admins (ignoring consensus)===
#It's inappropriate for anyone in certain conditions. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Depends on the situtation, I certainly agree that admins shouldn't have a "policy" of ignoring consensus, but nor should anyone else. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>([[User_talk:Pgk|<
#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.. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 22:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Ignoring consensus is innapropriate for any editor. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 22:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#What Linuxbeak said. [[User:Werdna648|Werdna648]]<sup>[[User_talk:Werdna648|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sup> 02:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#Wikipedia is founded upon and sustained by consensus. (Although obviously, the Foundation gets the final say.) —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Nor should the Foundation or Jimbo ignore or bypass consensus. [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#The value of a "consensus" between three users against one is of course somewhat limited. Otherwise ACK. -- [[User:Omniplex|Omniplex]] 14:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
===Other (ignoring consensus)===
Line 769 ⟶ 949:
#Consensus is a rare beast, but when it's here, you shouldn't ignore it. But it should be always remembered that there are things more important than consensus, such as copyright law and technical restrictions. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 10:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#Just about every place Wikipedia uses the word consensus in its process, it isn't actually consensus. usually, it's a vote gauged on a super-majority. we need to either stop using the word consensus or start living out the meaning of the word. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#Per fuddlemark and John Leemk. [[User:
#This depends on the situation. I can't say myself that I have seen many invocations of [[WP:IAR]] that I'd disagree with. Of course, consensus plays [[second fiddle]] to copyright, legal issues, or the like. I would strongly agree that admins and non-admins should be bound by consensus. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 09:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
# Consensus should not be ignored - but neither should it be controlling in all situations. Specifically if the vote goes against widely accepted policies. Admins not following consensus should identify thier reasoning. [[User:Trödel|Trödel]]•[[User_talk:Trödel|<span style="color:#FF00FF;">talk</span>]] 02:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
==The rollback button should only be used in cases of clear vandalism, or reverting oneself==
===Agree (rollback)===
# --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<
# [[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# Agree, while keeping Geni's note about userpages in mind. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#— [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[
# --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big><sub>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</sub></big> <sup>[[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]]</sup> 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 802 ⟶ 983:
# '''Agree'''. Only rollback vandalism. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
# Vandalism and self reverts are really the only clear cut cases. ~[[User:Mdd4696 |MDD]][[User_talk:Mdd4696 |46]][[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696 |96]] 02:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely - pure vandlism or self reverting only. Any other use is unacceptable and discourteous to the previous editor. That's why there is an edit summary box! --
#Absolutely agree. Edit summaries are very important. In addition, because rollbacks are marked as minor edits, admins misusing the rollback utility are often not noticed. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
#Blatant vandalism doesn't need an explanation. Self-reverts don't need an explanation. Everything else (including edits to other people's user pages, for instance) may confuse people who aren't specifically familiar with Wikipedia customs, i.e., [[Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies|newbies]]. The same, of course, applies to any reversion, or indeed any edit: if the reason is obvious, you don't really need to bother using a summary. Otherwise, you should. —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#:Although, to be clear, I take this as including "newbies not really understanding what the buttons do" under blatant vandalism, which it definitely shouldn't. The question should have been clearer, so I'm going by what I think is its intent. —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, the rollback button is so easy and so convenient that I find myself tempted to use it often instead of manual reversion. I'm sure this is true of other admins, but I don't think it's generally appropriate. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Take time to explain reverts. [[User:Dan100|Dan100]] ([[User talk:Dan100|Talk]]) 20:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. Using it for edit warring is a ''bad thing'' (TM). --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
# ONLY For malicious activity such as vandalism and spam. Revert your own self manually. There should be diferent rollback buttons which adds "Reverting Vandalism" or "Reverting Spam" as well as perhaps customazible ones for other malicious activity. It is VERY HARD to deal with the RC feed when there are people rolling back "POV" for example. This is not a very serious problem at the moment but I really hope rollbacks are ONLY used to revert malicious activity. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#<code>// '''[[User:Paroxysm|paroxysm]]''' [[User talk:Paroxysm|(n)]]</code> 19:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] [[User:Dussst|<font color="blue">'''• | Đܧ§§Ť | •'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Dussst|T]] | [[special:contributions/Dussst|C]]</sup> 18:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. It hurts to see your good-faith edit reverted by rollback button and no explanation why. --[[User:Alvin-cs|Alvin-cs]] [[User talk:Alvin-cs|✉]] 17:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. Some admins use rollback simply for a casual edit which may be POV or soapboxing or inappropriate external link.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 00:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. If there's even a slight chance someone's going to revert your rollback, you need an edit summary. ~ [[User:PseudoSudo|PseudoSudo]] 16:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
#Isn't this how it has always been? [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 20:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
#And rolling back your bots and sockpuppets. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#Clearly. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. All too often it's used when someone simply disagrees with your edits, and that's wrong. [[User:Mugaliens|Mugaliens]] 18:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (rollback)===
Line 816 ⟶ 1,010:
#: A newbie being reverted for a good-faith edit might care. :) Use commnon sense. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 03:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#: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." [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#::If rollback is offensive, reverting the "long" way with an edit summary of ''rv'' is just as offensive. It just takes longer. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#::: Disagree. You must at least explain the user (on the user talk page or article talk page, if not in the edit summary) ''why'' you reverted; especially if it is a good faith edit. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 03:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with Android79 and jpgordon. I prefer to leave a short message on the relevant talk or user talk pages. --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] ([[User talk:Idont havaname|Talk]]) 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Alkivar|<
#There are exceptions. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Fully agree with Alkivar. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[
#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. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
#: The user being reverted may be offended. Any good faith edit deserves an [[edit summary]] if reverted. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 03:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# This a stupid question. Use the tool when its useful. [[User:Freestylefrappe|freestylefrappe]] 01:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 829 ⟶ 1,023:
# 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. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 02:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#You can get it now in God Mode Lite anyway, so why bother legislating it? There are far bigger problems to deal with. [[User:Karmafist|<
# Per Antandrus. I am hoping some of the other users disagreeing see avoiding needless bad feelings as "useful". - [[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 15:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Some things that aren't "clear vandalism" can and should be quickly reverted. Content disputes however, deserve an edit summary with comment. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 15:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#So long as its used for the betterment of Wikipedia, it shouldn't matter.--[[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] | [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|talk]] 15:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#Agree with making
#There's no difference between three or four clicks and one. Net effect is always the same. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 21:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 21:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Use with discretion, or don't use at all. There are plenty of situations that aren't vandalism but where the [rollback] is handy. --[[user:tomf688|<
#[[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Instruction creep. The only differences between rollback and manual reversion are speed and the ability to leave a comment. Speed can be tempting, of course, but obvious reverts are not limited to these particular cases. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 847 ⟶ 1,041:
#I think the problem is that there is no detail in the edit summary; I think it's fair to require a Talk page comment in more complex cases, but perhaps it would be easier just to have a two-click process with an edit summary, like for deletes. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Use your common sense'''. There are exceptions as Zoe says, as NSLE and other pointed, there's Godmode-light, unless we enforce not using godmode-light to revert only blatant vandalism, enforcing the same for the rollback button is kinda strange (since the netresult of godmode-light is exectly the same), ah and I also forget the popups assisted reversions. -- <small> ( [[User:Drini|drini's page]] [[User talk:Drini|<big>☎</big>]] )</small> 20:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with Alkivar and Drini. Use it when needed. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
# Disagree; the main problem is that rollback as currently designed is inflexible. Nontrivial reverts should have proper edit summaries, just like page moves. [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Obviously admins shouldn't rollback changes with abandon, but there are plenty of non-vandal reverts that don't necessarily require an edit summary. Rollbacks aren't somehow special as compared to regular edits, they're just faster (and a little less personal). If there's a big issue about a specific edit, resolve it with talkpages. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Snurks|Snurks]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Snurks|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Snurks|C]]</sup></small></font> 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
# I disagree. I'd prefer a standard something like ''only for obviously uncontroversial rollbacks.'' I use it for more than just vandalism. <span style="font-size: 10px">— [[User:Brighterorange|<span style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #FFE7B0; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #FF9600">brighterorange</span>]] ([[User_talk:Brighterorange|talk]])</span> 18:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
# Everyone should have rollback - no worse than any edit without a useful summary --[[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] 00:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
# Spend some time vandal fighting with god mode light.... there are a vast number of edits that are obvious and warrant a rollback. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
# Strong disagree. There are a number of articles such as [[Evolution]] and [[Abortion]] which get massively POV edits every day, but are good faith edits that aren't intrisically vandalism. It is unreasonable to prevent Admins from rolling such edits back. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 06:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
#Too sweeping a policy as shown by JoshuaZ. --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 00:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
#Let everyone have rollback --[[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] 11:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
#Guilty as charged. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 03:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
=== Rollback should never be used in content disputes ===
Line 853 ⟶ 1,057:
#: Jeez, that's ''smart''. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 17:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#:: Why, thankyou! :) [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 17:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#:::It's a good definition, too, but I think it only differs much from "only use it for vandalism" if you interpret them as legal codes. Which, admittedly, we have plenty of people willing to do. [[User:Demi|Demi]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sub> 16:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 01:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
#Of course. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 11:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
# yes that's '''use of common sense''' -- <small> ( [[User:Drini|drini's page]] [[User talk:Drini|<big>☎</big>]] )</small> 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
# More like uncommon sense. =) —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 08:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
# Here.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 01:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#Exactly. --[[User:Zoz|Zoz]] ''[[User_talk:Zoz|(t)]]'' 14:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
# Agree. Rollback is a tool for restoring articles to the way policy says it should be, not the way ''you'' think it should be. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
===Other (rollback)===
#The rollback tool should be redesigned to allow leaving a comment.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)]] 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#*'''Note:''' I created (two months ago) a customized version of [[User:Sam Hocevar|Sam Hocevar]]'s "god-mode light" script that achieves this very effect, contact me if you are interested in it, which you probably are if you are reading this comment. — '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/|<font color="006000" title="User:Freakofnurture">F<small>REAK OF</small> N<small>UR<sub>x</sub>TURE</small></font>]]'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} <font color="006000" title="User talk:Freakofnurture">TALK</font>]</span>)</small>''' <small>10:16, Feb. 8, 2006</small>
#*If this were to happen (do we have a mediazilla bug filed?) then I would change my agree vote above to disagree. The only problem with rollback as far as I can see is the inability to leave summaries. — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">p</span>]][[User talk:Ilyanep| <span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:#808080;">(Talk)</span>]] 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#**Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the rollback button? If you're willing to type something in, why not do a manual revert? --best, kevin <b>[</b>[[User:Kzollman|kzollman]]<b>][</b>[[User talk:Kzollman|talk]]<b>]</b> 03:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#***If one could get the rollback one-click functionality and the ability to leave a custom comment, wouldn't that be a good compromise? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 04:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 869 ⟶ 1,079:
#Rollback should come with optional comments. --''[[User:Reflex Reaction|<b>Reflex Reaction</b>]]'' ([[User talk:Reflex Reaction|talk]])• 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Mostly agree, but there are some caveats. [[User:Grue|<
# Per Ëzhiki. —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Plenty of exceptions. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]][[WP:ESP|<
#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. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree that Rollback should only be used for obvious cases where no explanation is
#Ditto the others. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 13:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Mostly agree, but there are some exceptions. Per Dragonflight, others. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 14:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#A rollback button with checkboxs to allow you to indicate why you are using it. Some possible examples, "vandalism", "copyedit", "linkspam", etc. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|(Talk)]] 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#There are always exceptions to everything. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
#I've suggested this idea a few times. there should be an Edit Summary box right beneath the rollback button. this way rollbacks wouldn't just say "Reverted edits". [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#Rollback should definitely not be such a big deal. It's just an interface, and it should be improved (and made available to more people!) But the '''current''' rollback, with no comment, should only be used for vandalism. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
# I've longing for this a long time -- <small> ( [[User:Drini|drini's page]] [[User talk:Drini|<big>☎</big>]] )</small> 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
# A redone rollback with categories seems appropriate; if it doesn't change, I think non-vandal rollbacks are inappropriate.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Instead of forbidding useful functionality, the functionality should be expanded: There should be a small text input box next to the rollback button. If you enter something and press rollback, it is used as the edit summary and it is the same as a regular manual revert (not marked minor). If you don't enter anything, it uses the standard edit summary and behaves like the current vandalism rollback. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 03:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
# The rollback feature should be modified to accept edit summaries and a list of checkboxes to pick the most common reasons for rollbacks (vandalism, newbie edits, copyright vios, etc). Having both of these options would allow for more explanations and still keep the advantage of speed that the rollback button has. --[[User:PS2pcGAMER|PS2pcGAMER]] ([[User talk:PS2pcGAMER|talk]]) 07:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
==Admins placing blocks should be contactable via email==
Line 886 ⟶ 1,099:
#A blocked user should be able to easily contact the blocking admin. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Aye, of course. All admins should be. —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, all admins should be email contactable. [[User:
#Agree with Nightstallion: one of my personal requirements for adminship is that the potential admin provide a valid e-mail address. – [[User:Seancdaug|Seancdaug]] 21:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# Yes Yes Yes a million times yes. This should be a requirement for adminship. — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[
#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. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 21:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 895 ⟶ 1,108:
#Yes. It is now a requirement at the RfA nomination stage.
#:who wrote this, and is it true? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#::I don't
#'''Agree''' although I really wish users (blocked for 24hrs) who sent threatening emails could have their blocks increased to indef. [[User:Alkivar|<
#[[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 906 ⟶ 1,119:
#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. [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]] <font size="-3">[[User_talk:Jamyskis|Whisper]], [[Special:Contributions/Jamyskis|Contribs]]</font> [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 12:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Why the hell not? [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 13:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
# d'accord [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Admins should always be available via email even if they don't block. Feel free to delete flames. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Agree. All admins should be contactable by email. -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#Absolutely, otherwise, blocked users have no (good) way of contacting the blocking admin. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Just in case.--[[User:Alhutch|Alhutch]] 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes just in case of collateral damage. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<
# Any admin not willing to check their email shouldn't have access to the block scripts. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 19:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Admins should have an active and accessible email anyways. --[[user:tomf688|<
#Agree and it's easy to set up a webmail account to handle any problems. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|(Talk)]] 00:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# Yes. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 927 ⟶ 1,140:
#Why not? - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 18:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes, '''and''' they should actually check e-mail at that address. I've recently read the talk page of an unjustly blocked user who eventually got his block overturned, but was dismayed at the directions that told him to e-mail someone with no e-mail address. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, and Administrators should regularly check it. --[[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">Kantari</font>]] [[
#Communication is key. Flames are easily deleted and ignored... if not, then how could an admin possibly handle adminship? ~[[User:Mdd4696 |MDD]][[User_talk:Mdd4696 |46]][[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696 |96]] 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree - a bit like a judicial system having no appeals process otherwise. All part of the accountability issue IMO. --
#Yep. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Strongly agree.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] 09:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# Of course. Any admin who's too high-and-mighty to read complaints probably shouldn't be one. <font face="Georgia">[[User:Snurks|Snurks]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Snurks|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Snurks|C]]</sup></small></font> 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''DUH?'''. Furthermore all admins '''must''' have an email for alternative communication. Admins can get a hotmail/gmail account just for wikipedia if they dont want to use their own email. If an admin is unreachable aka if I am blocked ''accidentally'' by the autoblocker (has happened to me for example), I wan't to be able to contact the blocker.
#'''Every''' admin should be contactable by email. --[[User:Revolución|Revolución]] ''([[User talk:Revolución|talk]])'' 20:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong agree'''.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#All admins should be contactable by e-mail by any registered user, blocked or not. --[[User:PS2pcGAMER|PS2pcGAMER]] ([[User talk:PS2pcGAMER|talk]]) 07:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
#Of course. [[User:For great justice.|For great justice.]] 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 06:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
#Admins who aren't accessible by email are seriously missing out on some ''hysterical'' messages. This should be mandatory, if for no other reason than to spread the humor around. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#I thought it was aleady a requirement! It certainly should be, yes. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 15:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
#Sure. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
#It's a bunch of pixels on a monitor. It's not like getting some flame mail is a life or death issue. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 03:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. I was surprised to say the least when I found out this ''wasn't'' the case. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (admin emails)===
# Admins should not have to regularly check their email for flamemail. The admin's talkpage should be open to edits by the blocked user. [[User:Freestylefrappe|freestylefrappe]] 01:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#:Last time I saw it, the block messge only directs blocked users to email the admin. Blocked users can also edit their own userpage, but I don't think
#:My impression was that the built-in MediaWiki e-mail doesn't give out the recipient's e-mail address. It just lets you send via a form, and gives the recipient your e-mail. So you could be bombarded by hatemail through Wikipedia, but you couldn't be signed up to spam lists unless you respond via e-mail (you could always respond on their talk page). —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#: Mediawiki doesn't show them your address. As long as you don't reply to them, they would have to send their annoyances through the Mediawiki contact form. If you're that worried about it, get disposable email accounts. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# as per Freestylefrappe and DESiegel--[[User:AYArktos|A Y Arktos]] 20:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# I agree with Freestylefrappe, and this method of redress should be mentioned in the block message.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 23:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Disagree. It's an easy enough modification to Mediawiki to allow banned users to post on say "Wikipedia:Unblock me please" or on the talk page of the admin who issued the ban (with the obvious problem that it would result in admins' user pages being vandalised even more than they are already). I get well over 100 spam emails per day and I don't need flames added to that. I'm not paid to be an admin, after all. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 13:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
# Disagree. I do have my e-mail link active because of current community standards, but I only block for non-controversial reasons (obvious spamming, repeat vandalism in the face of warnings) and don't see any reason to read flame mail about it while at work. Blocked users should be able to leave messages on admin talk page(s); that's fine. <span style="font-size: 10px">— [[User:Brighterorange|<span style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #FFE7B0; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #FF9600">brighterorange</span>]] ([[User_talk:Brighterorange|talk]])</span> 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
#I don't see any reason why admins should be required to provide their email addresses. The current method of requesting an unblock on one's talk page is sufficient, and after the block expires any issues with a specific admin can be taken up on their talk page. --[[User:Hetar|Hetar]] 03:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
#Just what we need: more admins leaving because IP's spam and harass them. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
#It's not an obligation they should have to make. --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 00:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
===Other (admin emails)===
#Or some other reliable mechanism but blocked users should be able to talk to their blocker somehow. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Blocked users should have a clear method of contesting their blocks, besides their own talk pages, email may be the best method. [[User:Xaosflux|<
#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. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#It would be an easy enough software fix to have the "block" button check if the blocking admin has e-mail enabled, and fail if he doesn't. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
#A few things. Firstly, I would appreciate some sort of equivalent to "you have new messages" if I get a private email through Wikipedia, at least telling me to check my email, ie. "A Wikipedia user has emailed you". Secondly, I remember there were plans to selectively ban users from certain articles, but not others - when will this be implemented? An inverse could hold true - ban a user from all articles except talkpage, blocking admin, noticeboard, etc. which could be selected as necessary. Some people (ie. anons) also abuse their talk page
#[[User:Natalinasmpf]] has had a brilliant idea here with regard to the "new messages" equivalent for email. Full support.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
#The "new email" thing is a [[Good Thing|Good Idea]]. Also, while I agree with the statement, I'm a bit
# As long as there is a reliable mechanism for contacting the admin (or admin noticeboard) email is not ''necessarily'' required - I suspect this clause is the result of there being no other obvious mechanism. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
# Some way of contacting, definitely. But not necessarily e-mail. Being allowed to edit [[WP:AN]] and the blocker's talk page might be the way to go (with links added to the "blocked" system message), but of course it would then be necessary to have a mechanism for blocking someone from those too if they vandalize them. —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Novel idea''': I do have an e-mail address attached to my username, and I used to have it freely displayed on my userpage, but I don't check it as often as I probably should, even though it is my only e-mail address. What might be useful, especially for me, is a feature that triggers a "you have new e-mail" notice, similar to the one for talk page messages. This could let me know whenever somebody (incapable of posting to my talk page due to a block) has used the "Email this user" feature and remind me to check it. — '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/|<font color="006000" title="User:Freakofnurture">F<small>REAK OF</small> N<small>UR<sub>x</sub>TURE</small></font>]]'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} <font color="006000" title="User talk:Freakofnurture">TALK</font>]</span>)</small>''' <small>10:23, Feb. 8, 2006</small>
#Actually, I have no problems with users being able to email me ''on Wikipedia'', as per Freakofnurture above but with the message being stored on the Wikimedia servers not in my inbox. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 13:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
#Support [[User:Natalinasmpf|Natalinasmpf]]'s idea. --[[User:Zoz|Zoz]] ''[[User_talk:Zoz|(t)]]'' 14:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
#There should be a page where blocked users can complain/discuss, now it is to slow to notify the admin blocking, it is to slow to put tag on user talk page, just make ONE page editable for all, here collateral damage blockees and similar can be discussed, where all admins can read. [[User:Stefan|Stefan]] 06:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
# There should be a way for the blocked user to communicate - but this would bring up privacy issues with admins who do not want to make their e-mail address public. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
=Suggested enforcement=
Line 955 ⟶ 1,196:
#Absolutely. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Lack of oversight is part of what has led to the current issues being bled forth across the wiki. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#Wholeheartedly. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong''' agreement. --[[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 961 ⟶ 1,202:
#'''Strong support''' If it's reached the arbcom, there is generally reason enough to de-admin --''[[User:Reflex Reaction|<b>Reflex Reaction</b>]]'' ([[User talk:Reflex Reaction|talk]])• 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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''. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree arbcom should be fully prepared to do so for consistent misuse of admin facilities, editors can always put themself through RFA again. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>([[User_talk:Pgk|<
#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. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#—[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#See earlier comments on admin accountability [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Easy come, easy go. [[User:Grue|<
#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.) <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''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. [[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 20:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 975 ⟶ 1,216:
#Checks and balances. Adminiship should be easier to lose than it is to attain.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Definitely. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[
# --best, kevin <b>[</b>[[User:Kzollman|kzollman]]<b>][</b>[[User talk:Kzollman|talk]]<b>]</b> 03:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# probably. though I'm not sure the Arbcom is the right body to take on this responsibility. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 981 ⟶ 1,222:
# 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. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Perhaps not the ArbCom, but ''someone'' should do it. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 04:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# If this is Arbcom's responsibility they need to uphold policy and sanction the admins who abuse their
#Ditto Rossami and NightStallion. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 13:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely true. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:Terenceong1992|nc]][[User talk:Terenceong1992|e Ong]] 14:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely. Would prefer it was the ArbCom, rather than having to create another bureaucracy or submit completely to mob justice. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#Yes, but only as a remedy for ''accepted'' arbitration cases. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# As I noted above, there are likely dozens of admins who should have been sacked before now. However, arbcomm itself is no bed of tulips. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 19:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Not thinking of any specific cases, but I regularly come across criticisms that admins can get away with ''anything''. Whilst a lot of accusations against admins are probably false, the ones that really have done something really wrong (as ruled by ArbCom or another as yet to be discussed suitable alternative) should certainly be stripped of admin powers. [[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 20:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin baas]] 20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Hair-trigger desysoping. One rule broken, you're out. No questions, no appeals.
#Absolutely. If a case is accepted to arbcom they already have any and all appropriate options available to them. They should simply be less hesitant about de adminning if need be. If adminship is no big deal then removing it should not be either. But abusing admin
#No point in having neutered authority. --[[user:tomf688|<
#Totally. Bad admins need to GO! [[User:Matt Yeager|Matt Yeager]] 00:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree but only where the admin has abused their privileges and not for regular editing. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|(Talk)]] 00:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 998 ⟶ 1,239:
#Yes, this should be done quite often. At the moment they tend to feel that they have been granted membership of an elite caste for life. [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 17:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agreed. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—[[User:Quarl|Quarl]] <sup>([[User Talk:Quarl|talk]])</sup> <small>[[2006-01-20]] 08:56[[ISO 8601|Z]]</small></i></span>
#Yes. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
#Some procccess needs to be in place for de-adminning. The ArbCom has ordered this once or twice in the past. I'd rather it have it in their hands, rather than a lynch mob.--[[User:Toffile|Toffile]] 00:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. No big deal. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 10:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,007 ⟶ 1,248:
#Definitely. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Yes'''. De-admining should be "no big deal". [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 01:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Wholeheartedly'''. No big deal. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">The Minist</font></u>]][[
# This is the most effective way to make admins accountable, and I guess ArbCom is currently the group qualified to do this. I'd like to see this in the hands of a different group eventually, though. What if the admin in question is (like the appointed ArbCom members) a friend of Jimbo, or a member of the ArbCom itself? [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#Massive support. We have only ever had seven de-adminships in the history of WP and I have seen quite a number of admins - check out [[WP:RFC]] - who are on dodgy ground. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 09:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
#Oversight other than the ArbCom would be best (ideally votes for desysopping with less than 80% support being grounds for success), but adminship should be removed at the slightest hint of abuse, given that it can always be restored later by community vote. —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Sure. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely. -- [[User:Nyenyec|nyenyec]] [[User talk:Nyenyec|☎]] 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Dan100|Dan100]] ([[User talk:Dan100|Talk]]) 20:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# No doubt.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 23:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely. Adminship is supposedly "no-big deal", so why isn't de-adminship? --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
#Completely and totally. Adminship is not something that should be taken lightly, and a poor admin is a liability. —[[User:Cuivienen|<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b>]] <span style="font-size:x-small;">([[User Talk:Cuivienen|<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>]])</span> 04:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 12:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Maclean25|maclean<small>25</small>]] 06:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree completely. --[[User:PS2pcGAMER|PS2pcGAMER]] ([[User talk:PS2pcGAMER|talk]]) 07:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
# I'd say that whenever an admin's powers are used in a way that ends up in RFAr, ''at the very least'' they should be required to reapply for adminship (with the normal RFA threshold) [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 11:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
# Agree strongly. De-adminship should be no big deal, as there are plenty of competent and responsible people to take their places. <span style="font-size: 10px">— [[User:Brighterorange|<span style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #FFE7B0; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #FF9600">brighterorange</span>]] ([[User_talk:Brighterorange|talk]])</span> 18:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
#Strongly agree. Breach of wikipedia policy more than once or twice should be enough to justify de-admining. [[User:For great justice.|For great justice.]] 19:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
# De-adminship shouldn't be no big deal, but it shouldn't be a super huge one either. Basically, de adminship can't be a big deal until adminship in the FIRST place isn't a big deal, which currently is not the case. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
# Agree. It should be easy to lose adminship through misconduct. -- [[User:Gnetwerker|Gnetwerker]] 19:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
# Agree. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:DarthVader|r]] 01:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
# Reelections; Each admin should have a complaint page, that can be filled by those noticing abuse, and admins with a lot of complaints (incivility, abuse of powers etc) should have prompt reelection. Power to the people, not arbitration comitee (who can at best just moderate the thing); [[User:BabaRera|BabaRera]] 04:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. Adminship is no big deal, so de-admining should also not be a big deal. [[User:Polonium|Polonium]] 00:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, they should be less hesitant (but not too liberal). [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 20:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
#Easy come easy go. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#I agree. ArbCom can be expanded if necessary. [[User:Grandmasterka|<font color="red">Grand</font>]][[User talk:Grandmasterka|<font color="blue">master</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grandmasterka|<font color="green">ka</font>]] 03:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. It's easier to tell a bad administrator when they've been at it for a while than at the time they're given the status. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. Yes. YES! - [[User:Kookykman|Kookykman]]|[[User talk:Kookykman|<span style="color:black;">(t)</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<i style="color:green;">e</i>]] 18:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
#Strangely I was about to say "yes. yes. yes!" but someone's already beaten me to it ;) [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. However, de-admining should just be for intentionally and continually violations, not making many mistakes. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (ArbCom de-adminning)===
Line 1,016 ⟶ 1,282:
#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. --[[User:Rudolf Nixon|Rudolf Nixon]] 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#:This user is a suspected [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet|sockpuppet]] of [[User:Zephram_Stark]]. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 21:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
#Its not arbcoms job... make another body to handle this. [[User:Alkivar|<
#[[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Would support, but since arbcom is totally unreliable and lazy, no. [[User:Freestylefrappe|freestylefrappe]] 01:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#*Um, since we just got eleven new arbcom members, I don't see how you can make such a definitive negative statement about the group. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 01:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#The Arbcom System doesn't work, particularly in regards to this issue -- for a perfect example of how it failed in this regard before, see [[WP:RFA/SV1]]. [[User:Karmafist|<
# Absolutely agree, but this shouldn't be ArbCom's job. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
#<code>// '''[[User:Paroxysm|paroxysm]]''' [[User talk:Paroxysm|(n)]]</code> 20:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
#Judge everything on its merits. Consider it as an option. Deadmining users can lead to losing the contributor, something far more grave. The justification for deadministration would weaken too --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 00:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
===Other (ArbCom de-adminning)===
# Some body, not
# 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. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# I would prefer a community based solution to reassessing and removing adminship. A more
# 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. [[User:Avriette|Avriette]] 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#*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. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 05:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,036 ⟶ 1,306:
#Someone should make problematic admins hand in their extra buttons but I'm unconvinced that Arbcom is that someone. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 18:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Not the arbcom, but we need a de-adminning process that the community gets to affect. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# I don't know if ArbCom is the correct body to enforce this or not, but I think the threshold for de-adminning an admin needs to be much lower. The process needs to be open and accessible to non-admins, as they are often the ones at a disadvantage in disputes with admins. I think there should be a particularly low threshold to de-admin an admin that abuses their powers to control the content of the encyclopedia, either through blocks, rollbacks or (un)deleting pages or that uses their powers to circumvent process. – [[User:Doug Bell|Doug Bell]] <sup>[[User talk:Doug Bell|talk]]'''•'''[[Special:Contributions/Doug Bell|contrib]]</sup> 19:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
#I have my doubts about arbcom/some arbcomers since my case, however I agree deadminship should be a simple process. However since arbcom is overwhelmed with much more serious cases (admin abuse is not a serious problem, at very worse a burocrat can end the misery of an admin out of control) maybe burocrats should vote among themselves like arbcom. Again this process(es) should NOT give trolls any breathing room. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
==Someone should have the authority to temporarily de-admin problematic admins==
Line 1,041 ⟶ 1,313:
===Agree (temporary de-adminning)===
#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. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#: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. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#Badly needed. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree per all three above. --[[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# Agree and propose that a blocked admin should lose access to sysop powers for the duration of the block as well as
# [[User:MegamanZero|Zero]]<sup>[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]]</sup> 21:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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 <b>[</b>[[User:Kzollman|kzollman]]<b>][</b>[[User talk:Kzollman|talk]]<b>]</b> 03:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Agreed. Admins should be held accountable and if removing their sysop
# '''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. [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]] <font size="-3">[[User_talk:Jamyskis|Whisper]], [[Special:Contributions/Jamyskis|Contribs]]</font> [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 12:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 18:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Yep, this should be a standard task of some bureaucrats. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Stewards already have it, it should just be easier and used more often as needed. I would even be fine with bureaucrats being able to do this. Wheel war and you lose admin
#Agree as per prior section. Should only be done to stop admin privilege abuse. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|(Talk)]] 00:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 01:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,063 ⟶ 1,335:
#Yeah, this is a good idea, but I'd like us to be more strict (permanent de-adminship a lot more often). - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 22:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes, although I'd call it "suspension" and I'd give the power to any two admins, with an additional 12 hours for each additional admin above 2. It would be for at least 1 day, and at most 1 week (14+ admins are unlikely), and could not be re-invoked within a "probation" period of the same length (the next step during such a probation period would always be permanent). Goes along with my earlier comment: observe, give a little power, observe. Easy to understand and implement. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 23:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
#Without question. I've always found it odd that a
#Yes - this should be a fairly automatic response to abusing privileges, such as unblocking oneself, just like the fairly automatic blocks for 3RR. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#Since this poll is only to
#Agree, sounds fair. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of Hearts]] | [[User talk:King of Hearts|(talk)]] 00:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
#I agree with this, temporary suspension is definitely fair. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 09:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, but the devil is in the details. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 16:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strongly agree'''. There has to be a middle ground for minor infractions to be addressed. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold;">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 17:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely. And kind of obvious. If the ability to de-admin an admin exists, then someone has it. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely. Losing your magic powers for a few days is no big deal. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# Agree. — [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 19:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
# Strong Agree. A suspension will give a good intermediary step, as people will be reluctant to strip admin powers, as such an admin will be permanently ruined in any attempt to clear their name. It will keep WP more dynamic I feel.[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Agree.''' While an admin should be responsible enough for his/her self to be an admin, there are some times where it would be appropriate to do this. --[[User:JP06035|<font color="blue">J</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/JP06035|<font color ="D06000"><small>@</small></font>]][[User:JP06035|<font color="blue">red</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:JP06035|<span style="color:green;">[T]</span>]]</sup>/<sub>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JP06035&action=edit§ion=new <span style="color:#DC260C;">[+<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>]</sub> 03:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
#Probaly the best way forward. Should be no big deal. --[[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] 00:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. Give bureaucrats the ability to do this. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:DarthVader|r]] 01:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. This really should be for emergency issues though, like an admin running a bot on their account which goes around history merging or deleting or block various peoples/articles/whatever. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 06:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
#I can't imagine we would need it too often, but it would be a good think to have as a reserve —[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Mets501|ts501]]<small><sup>[[User_talk:mets501|<span style="cursor:help;">talk</span>]]</sup></small> 12:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
#Good idea. Burocrats should have this power. Burocrats, that are few, should have shorter terms, and more power. They should be able to place de-adminships (temporary) or force elections; admins should fear burocrats, and burocrats should be accountable to the people. We need checks and balances on power. Admins are too often abusive, incivil, not curteous and do not help the community. [[User:BabaRera|BabaRera]] 04:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, just like using short-lived blocks to cool down problematic users. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (temporary de-adminning)===
Line 1,076 ⟶ 1,363:
#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. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#The ArbCom is perfectly capable of handling this via injunction. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Wikipedia runs best on consensus. We vote for the ArbCom members, they decide on admin
#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. --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] ([[User talk:Idont havaname|Talk]]) 23:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''No''' I would not trust anyone to not abuse this power. [[User:Alkivar|<
#*Point of order: "Someone" (stewards) already possess the power to take away adminship. It's not a technical question, but a process one. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Someone does. But Bureaucrats should be given this authority, as well. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# I'd say give it to the bureaucrats. We don't need more bodies set up. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 01:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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
#Let arbcom handle it. This ability requires deliberation. If an admin is being disruptive, they can be blocked. Unblocking oneself is heavily frowned upon already. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 15:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#No. If immediate action (rouge admin vandalising main page, etc.) is needed, a steward can de-sysop someone. Otherwise, if it isn't urgent, the ArbCom will take care of it. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
#When there's a real problem of abusing admin powers, they should be just removed. Go to RFA again when you think you can handle the power. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 10:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#Lets say there is a vandal attack and I make ''one'' inaproporate block, in the midst of "battle" you want to remove my gun and handcuff me? Bad idea, really bad idea. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#<code>// '''[[User:Paroxysm|paroxysm]]''' [[User talk:Paroxysm|(n)]]</code> 20:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
# Pointless. It should be permanent, or not at all. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
#Like taking a bone away from a dog only to give it back again. --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 00:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
#This already happens, don't it? No need for instruction creep. If someone is going batshit insane (or their account is compromised), they are already deadminned. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
===Other (temporary de-adminning)===
#For now, no vote. I need to think on this one. Leaning to agree on this though. --[[User:^demon|^demon]] 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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
#Stewards already have this power. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Not a problem, it can be done already in clear-cut cases. Whether the given admin is "problematic" or not can be controversial. [[User:Grue|<
#Not quite sure yet, and per Tony Sidaway. —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#: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? [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#::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. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
#:::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. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Per Grue -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,119 ⟶ 1,411:
#Yes, at the moment they feel like they belong to an elite caste and they are almost untouchable. There is almost no accountability. [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 17:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, I like the notion it applies to all, no criteria required to identify "problem admins", if not a problem admin then there won't be any trouble being recertified. Suffrage should be an issue with recertification.--[[User:AYArktos|A Y Arktos]] 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes, but it should be periodic reconfirmation by
#Yes, it should be periodic reconfirmation by the community. The threat of an admin who pretends to be a safe user, and goes on a rampage once they get admin powers needs to be dealt with. This is also the best way to avoid a cabal. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree --[[User:Revolución|Revolución]] ''([[User talk:Revolución|talk]])'' 20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, [[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 01:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Agree.''' Not even a formal reconfirmation, but a "checkup" every few months to see how that person has been editing and if they've been abusing their powers. --[[User:JP06035|<font color="blue">J</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/JP06035|<font color ="D06000"><small>@</small></font>]][[User:JP06035|<font color="blue">red</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:JP06035|<span style="color:green;">[T]</span>]]</sup>/<sub>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JP06035&action=edit§ion=new <span style="color:#DC260C;">[+<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>]</sub> 03:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Agree''' for-life adminship, can cause rouge "war lords". A term of six months or so would be good, and would improve the image of admins. But admins should be automatically re-elected unless there are users/admins who oppose, that way we don't end up "torturing" the good admins needlessly with an inquisition every term. [[User:EivindFOyangen|Eivind]][[User talk:EivindFOyangen|<sup>t</sup>]][[Special:Emailuser/EivindFOyangen|<sup>@</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/EivindFOyangen|<sup>c</sup>]] 11:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
# Agree - six months to a year, with a period of non-eligibility before re-application. [[User:For great justice.|For great justice.]] 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
# Agree -- adminship should have a fixed term (e.g. 1 year), with a requirement for re-RFA. -- [[User:Gnetwerker|Gnetwerker]] 19:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. If not that, then at least empower burocrats, and let burocrats be reelected with short terms. Absolute power that admins have spoils absolutely. [[User:BabaRera|BabaRera]] 04:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
#While I'll admit it has its problems, I think all admins should go through review. Maybe to avoid it being bureaucratic, there could be a one day window for each review process before it closes? [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 03:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (periodic reconfirmation)===
Line 1,125 ⟶ 1,427:
#No automatic "votes of confidence" every X months/years, but improve the enforcement options for temp/permanent de-adminning. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i>
#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. [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|mrp]]</small> 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#I don't think that this is necessary at this time. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#Bad idea. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 19:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,132 ⟶ 1,434:
#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. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Performing admin tasks doesn't necessarily lead to being popular... "Bad" admins should be desysopped by other means --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>([[User_talk:Pgk|<
#Soft disagreement. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#I'm opposed to beauty contests anyway. Good admins do what is right for Wikipedia, not what will keep them sweet with the groupies. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Because no one would elect me the second time ;) [[User:Grue|<
#Per the above. —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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 --[[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Aranda56|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,152 ⟶ 1,454:
#[[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] | [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|talk]] 15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Maybe, just maybe in the case of an admin who's abused the tools, otherwise it'll just feed the trolls. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 15:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Waste of time, would be incredibly disruptive. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#'''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. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Disagree. This option will just make a longer process. Agree with Titoxd. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<
#This would be a morass of vandals voting against admins and other troublemaking. It should be easier to de-admin, such as by arbcom and stewards/bureaucrats above, but reconfirmation would be a mess and a huge waste of time. And no I'm not saying this because I'd be afraid to go though it myself. I think I'd be fine. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 23:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Too aggressive. [[House Un-American Activities Committee|Wikipedia Un-Administratorlike Activities Committee]], anyone? --[[user:tomf688|<
#Disagree. POV pushers etc would have a great time with this. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|(Talk)]] 00:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# As above. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 03:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# Sorry, no. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[
#Instruction creep, and a huge waste of time. --[[User:OpenToppedBus|OpenToppedBus]] - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|Talk to the driver]] 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Admins should be subject to recall - to desysopping - but if there's no problem, there's no need to revote. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] ''[[User talk:Warofdreams|talk]]'' 12:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,167 ⟶ 1,469:
# A '''huge''' waste of time. Checks like this should only be performed if/when something comes up (such as an alleged misuse of admin powers). - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 22:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# Make it easier for Arbcomm (or Bcrat) to de-sysop, but don't hold monthly polls. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—[[User:Quarl|Quarl]] <sup>([[User Talk:Quarl|talk]])</sup> <small>[[2006-01-20]] 08:58[[ISO 8601|Z]]</small></i></span>
# [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
#There are too many admins. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 10:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#Nice Idea, but, for example, if [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] was up for readminning now, she'd be voted out by all the userbox lovers who have never seen her work - and we'd lose one of our best Admins. [[User:Werdna648|Werdna648]]<sup>[[User_talk:Werdna648|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sup> 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#Disagree, not necessary as they have already been through RfA. --[[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">Kantari</font>]] [[
# While I agree admins should have the threat of de-adminship to keep them accountable, a 'conformation' process would just bog down the best users of wikipedia and keep good admins worrying too much. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
# Disagree, unless admins keep abusing their powers continuously. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of Hearts]] | [[User talk:King of Hearts|(talk)]] 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
#This is not really a good idea, it opens a route for people who are pissed off to strip an admin of his powers. If you needed something like an 85% supermajority I might consider it. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 09:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
#Not a good idea at all. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
# Too much trouble and would lead to a popularity contest. Use only in the case of problem-admins. -- [[User:Nyenyec|nyenyec]] [[User talk:Nyenyec|☎]] 18:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Tedious waste of time. [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# It would create more problems than it would solve. Ex-admins would likely feel alienated by the community.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Time is better used editing. [[User:Feydey|feydey]] 13:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
# This will just waste good admins' time. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
#Mmmm... Periodic reconfirmation is a very bad idea, we are trying to reduce burocracy here. Last thing we want is '''adminship expiring'''. If there is a problem, get person deadmined. Dont wait till exparation date. Admins are not [[dairy product]]s with exparation dates... :P --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
# If an admin is doing a bad job, they can be removed by the arbcom. I don't see a good reason to reconfirm admin status. --[[User:PS2pcGAMER|PS2pcGAMER]] ([[User talk:PS2pcGAMER|talk]]) 07:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
# I'd rather see it come up for a specific incident (like via arbcom) rather than some periodic reapproval. It's not as if there are sleeper cells of admins just waiting to unleash a distributed wheel-war attack or something. <span style="font-size: 10px">— [[User:Brighterorange|<span style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #FFE7B0; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #FF9600">brighterorange</span>]] ([[User_talk:Brighterorange|talk]])</span> 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
#No need for this, would result in a lack of bold edits because everyone would be too afriad of the next pending rfa.
# No. If you were good the first time, you're good until ArbCom kicks you off. (Which should be more often). [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
#Disagree for some of the reasons already stated. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:DarthVader|r]] 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
#Disagree. This would solve little, and would only burden us with another process. (In addition of course to the possibilties of abuse). --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 06:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
#A rfa-style reconfirmation would open up the door to bad-faith votes anyway. Not necessarily a bad thing, but they would attract more bad-faith voting than usual. --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 00:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
# per Tony Sidaway. Admins can block; this makes enemies. Admins can protect pages; we always protect [[m:The Wrong Version|the wrong version]]. Etc. The better the admin the more likely you've stepped on someone's toes. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 22:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
#Handing over the keys to Wikipedia to disgruntled blocked users is a terrible idea. Only the ArbCom or some equivalent body or person should be deadminning, not the "rabble". --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#I feel that ArbCom should be expanded to deal more effectively with bad admins. This, however, would add tremendously to the bureaucracy and instruction creep in Wikipedia, and could be a logistical nightmare. It ''is'' an interesting idea, though... [[User:Grandmasterka|<font color="red">Grand</font>]][[User talk:Grandmasterka|<font color="blue">master</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grandmasterka|<font color="green">ka</font>]] 03:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
#Not a good idea, wastes a lot of time. A community-based process would be better. --[[User:Zoz|Zoz]] ''[[User_talk:Zoz|(t)]]'' 14:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
#Only admins who didn't do anything would be reconfirmed. [[WP:ITSALLGREY]]. [[User Talk:DissidentAggressor|The Dissident Aggressor]] 04:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
===Other (periodic reconfirmation)===
#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. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#*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. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
#I like the idea that admins should be periodically reconfirmed, but don't have a suitable mechanism in mind. Using RFA would swamp that process.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
# Support in principle, but would be a logistical nightmare to do so. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#I don't support periodic reaffirmation because it is periodic. I think admins should only have to be reaffirmed with good reason or justification, i.e. after having broken policy and such. ~[[User:Mdd4696 |MDD]][[User_talk:Mdd4696 |46]][[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696 |96]] 02:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree and disagree (call me a floating voter) - if there is a strong system in place for dealing with problematic admin behaviour (see section below) then there would be no need for this and I would disagree. In the absence of any such system, then this would be a defacto "review board" and I would support. I note that there was recently an admin (can't remember who) who resigned and stood for re-election. I applauded his stance at the time. --
#: [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sarge_Baldy|His voluntary re-affirmation of adminship]]. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 06:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#::Thanks for the info. --[[User:Cactus.man|<span style="color:#2B7A2B;">Cactus<b>.</b>man</span>]] [[User talk:Cactus.man|<span style="font-size:large;">✍</span>]] 12:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#I think that having a process a certain period of time after receiving adminship, and additionally on trigger conditions is a good idea. But I'd like to see this one evolve into being through people just doing it.[[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 16:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
#Depends on the process envisioned. Admins could be reRfA'd for cause but not automatically every $TIME_PERIOD. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
#Not exactly another "RfA", but rather more of an editor review-like process to confirm that the admin is not causing problems. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
===Abstain===
#As a serving admin I abstain from thispart of the vote. [[User:
==A community-based process should be created to de-admin problematic users==
Line 1,198 ⟶ 1,522:
#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. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#If overwhelming amounts of people are citing that a admin has a problem, then there's a problem. its become
#Wikipedia moves through consensus, not mob rule and beauty contests. [[User:
#If arbcom was handling this efficiently, we wouldn't be voting on this. If sysoping is no big deal, neither should desysop. [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] [[User_talk:Tintin1107|Talk]] 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#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." [[User:Demi|Demi]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sub> 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,208 ⟶ 1,532:
#ArbCom is swamped most days, so perhaps this should be the solution. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]] <font size="-3">[[User_talk:Jamyskis|Whisper]], [[Special:Contributions/Jamyskis|Contribs]]</font> [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 12:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#ArbCom's not doiing it, and when they ''do'' do it they send 'em back to the masses anyway *cough*
# 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. [[YUser:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 18:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin baas]] 21:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Ofcourse. The admins are the janitors of the community. If a janitor is hitting people with their mop, it should be the employer's right to fire them. If there's mob-rule or vendetta campaigns, so what? So we lose a janitor. They're a dime a dozen, and if any janitor has some kind of unique trait that's irreplacable, well then that janitor should be desysoped ipso facto.
# The entire Wikipedia community should have some sort of process for reviewing, and potentially de-sysoping, specific members of the admin club that censor, bully, or otherwise abuse their admin
# If the community at large is responsible for "electing" admins, why are they not allowed to realize they made a mistake and correct it? [[User:Mo0|Mo0]]<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User Talk:Mo0|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Agree per Mo0; It's like a recall; if someone isn't doing the community good, then take their power tools away. -- [[User:Jjjsixsix|Jjjsixsix]] <sup>([[User talk:Jjjsixsix|talk]])</sup>/<sub>([[Special:Contributions/Jjjsixsix|contribs]])</sub> <small>@</small> 01:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,219 ⟶ 1,543:
#It would be very nice to have. Surely it'll be problematic, but I think there's no reason to take every problem to arbcom. Easy come, easy go. Maybe such a decision should be taken by fellow admins only? [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 10:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
# Yes. ArbCom has too many conflicts of interest. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree - there needs to be some mechanism in place to deal with problematic behaviour, admins or otherwise. The current mechanisms seem to be ineffective when a problem user also is an admin. The community elect the admins, and should be empowered to remove the granted powers when there is a serious problem. Accountability again.
#Yes, although the devil is in the details. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 16:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, but with properly laid out rules. -- [[User:Nyenyec|nyenyec]] [[User talk:Nyenyec|☎]] 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely. Admins need something like 70% support now, so Admins who, after having admin powers for say a year, only retain, say, 40% support, clearly shouldn't have been elected admins. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely, but needs to be done in a way that doesn't waste our time. We shouldn't be de-adminnable every time we block some lamer. The judgement could be based purely on contrib history and not on a personal defense of our actions? — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# Absolutely. --[[User:Revolución|Revolución]] ''([[User talk:Revolución|talk]])'' 20:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
# The community giveth; the community should taketh away. There's enough people in support of admins who deal with vandals harshly that there should be no problem with spurious de-admins. Especially if we make the process a little complicated. [[User:Moink|moink]] 04:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
# Yes. Blocks are against open content, so every block is questionable. This is a resolution for excessive blocks. Perhaps, like a 3RR, there should also be a 3BR (Three block rule). It would show admins that rather block than intervene and try to mediate. — [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 19:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#Of course. [[User:SFGiants|ςפקι]][[User:SFGiants/Esperanza|<font color="green">Д</font>]][[User:SFGiants|Иτς]] [[User_talk:SFGiants|☺]] [[Special:Contributions:SFGiants|☻]] 05:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
# Of course. [[User:For great justice.|For great justice.]] 19:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
#Term limits? [[User:Elizmr|Elizmr]] 01:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
#Strong agree. Much better than the current RfAr deadminning process. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
#+1. -- [[User:Omniplex|Omniplex]] 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 03:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
#Yes, but it should be relatively difficult to nominate someone for de-adminship (so that only the most problematic admins would have to go through this) and the process should not be a community ''vote''. --[[User:Zoz|Zoz]] ''[[User_talk:Zoz|(t)]]'' 15:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (community based de-adminning)===
# Take it to Arbcom. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#arbcom. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 19:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# Agree, Arbcom --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>([[User_talk:Pgk|<
# A beauty contest judged by a mob. Not the kind of Wikipedia I want to see. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Please no. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,235 ⟶ 1,573:
#***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." [[User:Demi|Demi]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sub> 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Arb com --[[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Aranda56|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#We need a specific body to handle this... not arbcom (which is already overworked), and not a public mauling. [[User:Alkivar|<
#Easily abused, so no, leave it to ArbCom, or as Alkivar says, some other panel. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[
#Not unless problems are identified with the current process for deadminship. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,246 ⟶ 1,584:
#Don't feed the trolls, we need a body to do this, possibly ArbCom. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Take it to Arbcom. -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 17:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Arbcom. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#There be ARR-bcom ahead maties! --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Arb. We don't need vandals and other enemies of an admin to do this. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<
# Nope, too tempting for mob rule and vendetta campaigns by juvenile trolls. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 19:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#disagree. This would be a mess. As others said mob rule would make this a huge waste of time. But again, do make it easier for arbcom and stewards, etc to de-admin. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Arbitration committee. --[[user:tomf688|<
#Far to easy to abuse. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|(Talk)]] 00:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Let's just give trolls a "De-admin" button and be done with it. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 03:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,257 ⟶ 1,595:
# [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 03:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# ArbCom or similar is the appropriate way to handle removal of administrator rights.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 23:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
#ArbCom - there aren't that many cases that NEED deadminning [[User:Werdna648|Werdna648]]<sup>[[User_talk:Werdna648|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sup> 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
# Arcbom. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 18:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
# Acrmob. Too much community based voting as is :-) - [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">The Minist</font></u>]][[
# That's what ArbCom is for. --[[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">Kantari</font>]] [[
#Lynch mobs? No thanks. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
# Ditto [[User:Doc glasgow|Doc glasgow]]. [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Hmm... Mob deadminship is like capital punishment for attempted suicide, fundemetaly illogical. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
# We need bold admins - who notify other admins when they take controversial actions, and should not be punished for upsetting a group of users. [[User:Trödel|Trödel]]•[[User_talk:Trödel|<span style="color:#FF00FF;">talk</span>]] 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
#It's all too easy for a '''good''' admin to wind people up. Definitely a mob justice scenario could arise. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 13:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
# Fix arbcom instead, if needed. <span style="font-size: 10px">— [[User:Brighterorange|<span style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #FFE7B0; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #FF9600">brighterorange</span>]] ([[User_talk:Brighterorange|talk]])</span> 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
# good god no! we all know about the tyranny of the majority. Can you imagine a sockpuppet mob de-mopping a good admin? [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
#Arbcomm. One has to hope that the arbcomm will do the right thing if there is a problematic admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:DarthVader|r]] 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
#Handing over the keys to Wikipedia to disgruntled blocked users is a terrible idea. Only the ArbCom or some equivalent body or person should be deadminning, not the "rabble". --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#block a large number of users not indefinitely and your anti-fan base can cause a desysop. WTF? [[User Talk:DissidentAggressor|The Dissident Aggressor]] 04:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
===Other (community based de-adminning)===
#If there was a procedure that for temporarily removing admin ''
#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.) --[[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Not decided. There are pros and cons that seem balanced. [[User:Grue|<
#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. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#I agree that something needs to happen. If the
#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. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 04:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:Karmafist|<
#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. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
#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. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 13:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#This is fraught with difficulty (e.g. possible mass sockpuppetry to kick back after a block). It needs to be easier to get people demoted from sysop if they cause problems, it needs to be an open community-based process, I'm just not entirely convinced it needs to be ''this'' suggested process. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 20:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
# I say Wikipedia is based on consensus, but frankly, the current methods for gauging consensus are largely just bad. They either a) give excessive authority to the closing admin/bureaucrat or b) promote unexplained or generally stupid votes. A community-based solution is what we should aim for eventually, but with a number of added rules to turn it into more of an informed discussion than a blind vote. For instance, clear criteria could be set by genuine community consensus (as opposed to consensus of a tiny handful), and every vote would have to justify itself according to those criteria, in ten words or more. Maximally clear and narrow criteria would be devised, e.g., "repeatedly blocking users without giving sufficient notice", in the manner of [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|CSD]]. If anyone disagreed that a vote conformed to the criteria, they could post their criticism of its rationale, and if the original vote's poster didn't respond within two days, it would be discounted. The poll would close to new votes after a certain number of days, then end two days after discussion finished.
#How about recall voting style? If a good number of people want a recall vote (say five or ten or so), then a <s>vote</s> discussion for consensus occurs. If about a simple majority think the admin should be de-adminned, the admin ought to be. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 20:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
=Miscellaneous=
Line 1,284 ⟶ 1,632:
===Agree (bureaucrats on ArbCom)===
#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. --[[User:^demon|^demon]] 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#*Admins have important tools, such as seeing deleted revisions of pages, etc. — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[
#Agree per demon. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#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. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#per Derex. [[User:Grue|<
# Agree, have one or the other. Spread the roles around. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree about being a bureaucrat at the same time. The concentration of power is too great. We should be able to find enough people to serve as both. However, there are some useful tools that admins have that could help with their job and their everyday contributions. I would rather have them have limited powers, like not being able to ban or block users or create or undelete pages/images outside of ArbCom decisions, but still being able to roll back and view deleted pages. -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 12:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# Too much concentration. I'm sure we can find lots of interested people for both jobs. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 22:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# Of course. Just because There Is No Cabal doesn't mean we should '''create''' one. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree in the sense that Bureaucrats on Arbcom is a bad thing (the wording above isn't clear what "Agree" refers to). There are 1000s of editors in wikipedia, I don't see why we shouldn't make sure that the committees are broader based rather than a cabal. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
# Somewhat agree. Conflict of interest/power too concentrated. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
#Arbcomers should only deal with arbcom, Arbcom is an '''indecent process''' (arbcomers have to deal with other peoples incivility and disputes as well as other goodies). Arbcom is like suicide with overwhelming workload. Arbcomers neither have time to use checkuser privilages or admin powers nor burocrat powers. A checks and balances must exist. Diferent bodies should regulate each other. Arbcom should not be a group of ''[[The Almighty (Oh My Goddess!)|Almightys]]''. Arbcoms only responsibly is to resolve disputes, any other problem should have their own process. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, but for another reason. If someone is a beaucrat, an admin, ''and'' an Arbcom member, that is quite simply too much work for any sane person with a life. They either start shirking their duties, or begin burning out, and if they've been entrusted with that much, then they are users we really don't want to burn out. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 06:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (bureaucrats on ArbCom)===
Line 1,302 ⟶ 1,654:
# 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. --''[[User:Reflex Reaction|<b>Reflex Reaction</b>]]'' ([[User talk:Reflex Reaction|talk]])• 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Disagree, per above. I don't see why it would be a conflict of interest. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# 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) --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>([[User_talk:Pgk|<
#Bureaucrats are pretty much the same kind of people who make good arbitrators. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 20:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,309 ⟶ 1,661:
#Agree with Geni --[[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Aranda56|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 22:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#I disagree that there is a conflict of interest. [[User:Sreed1234|Sue Anne]] 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Disagree, arbcom needs these powers to do their job. No way to check user, look at deleted pages, etc... otherwise. [[User:Alkivar|<
#Why not? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#I don't see a conflict of interests, personally. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,321 ⟶ 1,673:
#Not a good idea, I'm sure it won't interfere with their other duties. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:Terenceong1992|nc]][[User talk:Terenceong1992|e Ong]] 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Tasks don't conflict. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Wikipedia doesn't need separation of powers, because [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not a democracy]. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#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. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# No conflict for anyone who's truly qualified. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 19:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,327 ⟶ 1,679:
# [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 03:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# Don't see a problem.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 23:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
# I see no conflict. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
# I don't really see a conflict of interest. I would see a conflict of interest if an ArbCom member didn't recuse himself in case involving himself or herself. --[[User:Toffile|Toffile]] 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
# bureaucrats don't have any particular powers that would given them a conflict of interest. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
# But bureaucrat-arbitrators should not use bureaucrat powers to enforce arbcom rulings. —[[User:Guanaco|Guan]][[User talk:Guanaco|aco]] 02:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
# There's nothing wrong with someone having both power and authority. It's giving one person too much power ''or'' two much authority that you have to watch out for. —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#I see no conflict. Furthermore, as far as adminship goes, I think it should be ''compulsory'' for arbcom members. They need to access deleted articles for a start. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 13:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
# Will have no conflict. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]][[User:Terence Ong|nc]][[User talk:Terence Ong|e Ong]] 11:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
# I see no conflict, and a problem with the concentration of power. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
# There is no conflict of interest. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:DarthVader|r]] 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
#No problems, no conflict of interests, nothing wrong with it. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 14:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
#Wha.....?! --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
# Bureaucrats are Wikipedia's most highly valued and trusted editors, we should not need to worry about them! '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]] [[user talk:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Boheme</font>]]''''' 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
# One's status as a Wikipedian (unless they're a banned user, of course) should not cause them to be denied the right to membership of a group. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
===Other (bureaucrats on ArbCom)===
Line 1,345 ⟶ 1,705:
#Myself. RFC's main problem is that it doesn't have any actual teeth to it. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. I have suggested RFCs with remedies in the past; it was considered very unpopular. [[User:Demi|Demi]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sub> 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#Linuxbeak hit it on the head. That's especially true for article based rfcs, which are basically just "go to the talk page". [[User:Karmafist|<
#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. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
#Strongly agree. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#It's seen as a necessary bit of paperwork before full arbcom imo -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. Those in power need to learn that community opinion matters here.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree as per Linuxbeak and Karmafist. — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[
#Agree per Radiant. [[User:Nifboy|Nifboy]] 02:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#We need some way to make the subject pay attention to them. --best, kevin <b>[</b>[[User:Kzollman|kzollman]]<b>][</b>[[User talk:Kzollman|talk]]<b>]</b> 03:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,359 ⟶ 1,719:
#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. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 08:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree per [[User:Titoxd|Tito]]. [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]] <font size="-3">[[User_talk:Jamyskis|Whisper]], [[Special:Contributions/Jamyskis|Contribs]]</font> [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 12:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Francs is on the money.... <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup
#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. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 13:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 14:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,373 ⟶ 1,733:
#It seems that way, aye. —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 12:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#RFC as it is now is completely useless. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 22:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
# Duh. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
# I've seen little evidence of the RfC process being effective. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
# Yes. This may involve giving RfCs some teeth, not quite as pointy as ArbCom's. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
# Agree. What's the point of wasting time on something that isn't enforcable. --[[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">Kantari</font>]] [[
# If people didn't respond to a slap on the wrist before, RfC, with it's complete lack of authority, won't have any more success. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 03:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
# User RFCs are just dress rehearsals for RFArbs. -- [[User:Nyenyec|nyenyec]] [[User talk:Nyenyec|☎]] 18:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Agree. Some elements in arbcom frequently refuse to '''severely''' reprimand certain users who have frequently been the subject of RFC, e.g. Snowspinner. Often refusing to even take the case, despite the obvious fact that there is an RFC co-signed by several parties. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
# — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
#My RFC against Davenbelle and Seteriotek had one solid thing that the users were problematic and were stalking me. What was the point? Everyone ignored it including arbcom. And an arbcomer suggested a year long block on me over THAT. Also some RfCs cant be deciving as RfCs can be troll heavens. RfC must be fixed.
#:Let me elaborate. Currently the dispute resolution process '''expects both parties to cooperate'''. Well, on many occasions that ''can't'' happen, especially if one party is wikistalking another. RfC must have teath.
#: I do not see why we are having second thoughts in blocking problematic users. I would be better of if obviously problematic behavior by Davenbelle and Steriotek (to the point of opposing me receiving barnstars or voting oppose on RfA before the nominator ''after'' the arbcom case.). I had oppose votes on my RfA due to the RfAr case filed to get rid of my stalkers. (I dont understand the logic (that I am not admin worthy because I was harassed/stalked) ''but'' I guess people were playing "safe")
#:--<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. --[[User:Revolución|Revolución]] ''([[User talk:Revolución|talk]])'' 20:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. They seem to be rather pointless. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 13:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]][[User:Terence Ong|nc]][[User talk:Terence Ong|e Ong]] 11:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #09F">Sceptr</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color: green">e</span>]]''' <sup>(<em>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #606">Talk</span>]]</em>)</sup> 13:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. It's really frustrating. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. It seems that RfCs are rather seen as some kind of sympathy contest, where admins get the possibility to defend each other. Instead allegations should be taken seriously and claiming to follow policies "in spirit" is sometimes just a cheap excuse. [[User:Raphael1|Raphael1]] 03:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
#RFCs are worthless. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 23:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 03:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (RFCs)===
Line 1,391 ⟶ 1,766:
# 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. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 04:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#* Fubar Obfusco is wise. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 05:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#Agree with both Lar and Fubar. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 22:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
#See my statement above at [[#Other (community based de-adminning)]]. All current votes we have at Wikipedia are badly flawed. Community opinion should be respected, and thus so should RFCs, but the process tends to turn into a pile-on-fest rather than a process of carefully reading through all sides before making up your mind. —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#They should probably be limited to articles, not users.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 23:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#:True - user RFCs just descend into pointless flamewars [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 22:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
#In the context of admin accountability, an RfC should sometimes be viewed as a warning akin to a vandalism warning. If the RfC receives broadly spread comment indicating complete or partial agreement, the admin should be deemed to have been fully and adequately warned about that behaviour. Subsequent such behavior should be treated like vandalism when brought to the attention of a bureaucrat, with appropriate temporary actions. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
#Per JYolkowski. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
==Rather than letting the ArbCom or the community deal with de-adminning, some other panel should deal with that==
===Yes, the bureaucrats (other de-adminning)===
#I'm fine with the arbcom, bureaucrats, or a specially empowered group doing this as need be. As I've said above stewards can already do this, but we should simply ask them to use it more often as needed. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 23:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#People responsible enough and are truetsed to adminise people should also be trusted in deadminising people. Burocrates are decent members of wikipedia who deserves no less than this level of access. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
===Yes, create a new group of functionaries for this (who deals with de-adminning)===
#Absolutely, and have them rotate frequently so nobody can blackmail others with this power. [[User:Karmafist|<
#Agree per [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]] <font size="-3">[[User_talk:Jamyskis|Whisper]], [[Special:Contributions/Jamyskis|Contribs]]</font> [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 12:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Someone has to do it. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# This, or a subset of bureaucrats. I cannot emphasize enough that one of Wikipedia's biggest systemic problems is that there are dozens of admins who, behaving as role-players and trolls, should likely be de-adminned. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 19:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# I've expressed this elsewhere. If de-adminning is entirely in the hands of ArbCom, you get conflicts of interest. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes, we need to make sure they are independant of Bureaucrats, and Arbcom, so that we can de-admin problem Arbcom members (e.g. Kelly Martin) or problem Bureaucrats (e.g. Ed Poor). --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 03:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (other de-adminning)===
#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? [[User:Harro5|Harr]][[
#No more stuff. --best, kevin <b>[</b>[[User:Kzollman|kzollman]]<b>][</b>[[User talk:Kzollman|talk]]<b>]</b> 03:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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 ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Why? There's enough bureaucracy as it is. — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[
#Then we would have another cabal to blame. With consensus everyone is responsible.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 05:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#No need to multiply panels. Leave it to ArbCom as per votes cast above. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 08:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#Arbcom is fine for this. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#The Stewards can act in an urgent case and arbcom can also order the sysop bit removed if necessary. Some people volunteer for the snip. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,419 ⟶ 1,801:
#Arbcom is doing quite well with this at the moment, no change is needed. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#There should be a community-based de-adminning process. Like RFA, but the other way round. It's the community that gives admins the power, so it should be the community's choice whether or not to take it away. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 22:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
#ArbCom is fine. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 13:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
===Other (other de-adminning)===
Line 1,427 ⟶ 1,810:
#So far we have "The ArbCom should be less hesitant about de-adminning admins who violate Wikipedia rules", "Someone should have the authority to temporarily de-admin problematic admins", "A community-based process should be created to de-admin problematic users" and now this. It's all a varation on the same question and should be rolled into one. I wonder if anyone managed to disagree with themselves trying to answer. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|(Talk)]] 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#I probably would have, had I voted something else on this question. ;) —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 12:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#ArbComm should continue to handle permanent de-adminship, but bureaucrats should be given the power to temporarily de-admin problem administrators who are involved in wheel wars, revert wars, etc. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#See my comments at [[#Other (community based de-adminning)]] above. It should be a community process, but a more rigidly-controlled and sensible one. —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Permanent de-adminning should remain the purview of the ArbCom, but suspensions of admin powers for (say) up to two weeks should be available more widely. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
#ArbCom, Danny, and Jimbo. The status quo. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 00:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
==More users should have [[m:checkuser]] rights==
Line 1,436 ⟶ 1,821:
#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. [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]] <font size="-3">[[User_talk:Jamyskis|Whisper]], [[Special:Contributions/Jamyskis|Contribs]]</font> [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 12:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#:depending on the ISP that isn't completely true.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Your IP address is extremely
#:If someone is editing from [[America Online|AOL]], they will go through a [[proxy server|proxy]], and you won't even be able to tell from which city they are editing from. On the other hand, I've seen editing from corporate IPs that suggest which department they are working in, and from university IPs that suggest which building they are editing from. I know that there have been at least two threats to inform employers about a person's edits on the Wikipedia, and I'm sure there have been more threats that I haven't read about. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#I'd like to see some people independant of the arbcom have it. [[User:Dan100|Dan100]] ([[User talk:Dan100|Talk]]) 20:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''DUH!''' See the [[WP:RCU|backload]] of checkusers. I have got vandals on line 1, 2, 3, 4, and even 5. They are perhaps in reality same person posing as 20 but as a user or even as an admin one cannot tell. RC patrolling is a time soncuming process. Existing checkusers are inadequate as there are too many requests. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strongest possible support'''. ''Please'' read over [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5149 http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5149], one single example; there are so many situations in which vandals can use sockpuppets to abuse the current system and damage the encyclopedia. This needs swift change. ~ [[User:PseudoSudo|PseudoSudo]] 02:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
# Admins should have checkuser rights, going on the assumption that they are not stalkers. Why do editors need to be anonymous, if we are supposed to be editing with [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] and [[WP:V|verifiable]] material? IP addresses are sprayed all over the place when using the internet, anyway. As a privacy-preserving compromise, providing some kind of hash of the IP address (so that one could compare two hashed IPs to see that they are the same, but not know what specific IP it is) would at least help a little with sockpuppet tracking. <span style="font-size: 10px">— [[User:Brighterorange|<span style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #FFE7B0; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #FF9600">brighterorange</span>]] ([[User_talk:Brighterorange|talk]])</span> 18:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
# Admins should have checkuser rights as part of the admin process. Or, alternatively, it could be a sub-position between admin and crat.[[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
# We clearly can't give checkuser to all admins, but it would be highly reasonable to give it to a few very trusted ones as an additional post adminship step. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree...all admins should have checkuser access. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:DarthVader|r]] 02:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
#Not all admins should have it, but more people than currently have it should have it. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 00:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
#It's a useful tool, and one that should be more available. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 03:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (checkuser rights)===
#Don't see a real need for it. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 13:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#No friggin' way. When the expansion of checkuser
#No way. This would encourage admin abuse and controversial blocks, and we have too much of this crap already. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 15:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Not sure why more users would need this unless some sort of backlog exists that I'm not aware of. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 16:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,451 ⟶ 1,846:
#This one is so obvious I don't think many people will bother to vote. The legal issues surrounding following the privacy policy alone require that checkuser is limited to a select few. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 03:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
# I don't see any good reason for this. --[[User:OpenToppedBus|OpenToppedBus]] - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|Talk to the driver]] 11:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Can't see the justification. If it is to identify potential sock-puppets, then wrong conclusions can easily be drawn. This seems to be a breach of privacy and negate some of the privacy promises made when you get a log on, for example ''"You are actually more anonymous (though more pseudonymous) logged in than you are as an "anonymous" editor, due to the hiding of your IP."'' or at [[Wikipedia:Privacy_policy#Private_logging]] : ''Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the
#Should not be widespread: too much potential for abuse. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 23:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Disagree - dangerous potential for abuse of privacy. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—[[User:Quarl|Quarl]] <sup>([[User Talk:Quarl|talk]])</sup> <small>[[2006-01-20]] 09:00[[ISO 8601|Z]]</small></i></span>
#disagree without a) special "real world" selection procedures with proper security checking including background checks and b) full strict paper legal agreements to protect privacy. IP addresses can be ''very'' useful in stalking. [[User:Mozzerati|Mozzerati]] 15:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
# Disagree --[[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">Kantari</font>]] [[
# Strongly disagree. [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 22:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Even if IP information is easy to come by in other contexts, that doesn't mean WP shouldn't protect the privacy of those who want their ___location to be anonymous.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 00:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
#Absolutely not. This would be a total violation of privacy. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
# Disagree. I see no reason. --[[User:Alvin-cs|Alvin-cs]] [[User talk:Alvin-cs|✉]] 18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
#Disagree with expanding it frivolously. Some IP addresses can't be traced even to city level, but there are some which - with proper snooping - can be traced down to a particular ''room''. I'd imagine we also have a legal obligation to protect peoples' privacy. Of course one or two more very trusted users could be given the privilege to help speed up the process. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 13:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
# It is very difficult to even justify the ''existence'' of checkuser 'rights', extending them is just not on [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 21:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
# disagree. per privacy issues - it is important that checkuser be used by a small and trusted group, who will not abuse it or reveal personal info. [[User:BabaRera|BabaRera]] 04:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
# I believe this would surely deter some users due to privacy issues. Users may want to be more anonymous and their ___location unknown to prevent any discrimination by vandals or other nasty users. The current process is fine as it is.--<span style="background:white;">[[User:Andypandy.UK|Andeh]]</span> 09:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
===Other (checkuser rights)===
Line 1,463 ⟶ 1,866:
#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. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#: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. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#::Indeed, it often takes me half
#:::You might want to take a look at my proposed implementation below. —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 06:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#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. --[[User:Tabor|Tabor]] 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Only if the checkuser log is opened up to all users. Otherwise there's bound to be some abuses of power. Even then I'm not totally sure. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#:You should read all the discussion at meta about [[m:CheckUser Policy]]. Opening up the checkuser logs to everybody would be a very, very bad thing that could lead to all sorts of abuse. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup
#Per Carbonite. —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 12:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#I agree with JYolkowski. The log should be made available to all users, but the IPs should not be shown. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,473 ⟶ 1,876:
#No, checkuser shouldn't ''necessarily'' be extended to others, but sockpuppet-checking should be easier. In the long term, make a checkuser-lite that would either confirm or disconfirm a proposed match, and tell you how many addresses they matched on and how many of each user's edits were made on each of the accounts for each address, without telling you what the actual address is. Maybe then give this power to all admins, but log each use and require legitimate suspicion before running it, with oversight as any admin process. Until then, extend checkuser a bit, but not too much (maybe give it to all bureaucrats). —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#:To clarify what the output would look like, based on above discussion, it would be something like<br><div class="messagebox">Users matched on 2 IP addresses.<br><br>Address 1: 17 edits by [[User:Account 1]] ([[This link goes nowhere!|click for list]]), 2 edits by [[User:Account 2]] ([[This link goes nowhere!|click for list]]).<br><br>Address 2: 1 edit by [[User:Account 1]] ([[This link goes nowhere!|click for list]]), 1 edit by [[User:Account 2]] ([[This link goes nowhere!|click for list]]).</div>This would be easy to produce with an automated check. And the log would just be of the form<br><div class="messagebox">11:55, 28 January 2006 Bob compared the IPs of Sam and Jane</div>—[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 06:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#::I originally proposed something like this with ideas from Francistylers. and yes this is an excellent idea. I do not mind al admins having this kind of access and dont get me wrong I am paranoid enough to hide details such as my age or place of residence. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#::This is just a summary of the full checkuser information, right? How about giving MediaWiki an additional mechanism to check for sockpuppets, e.g. a fifth persistent cookie which identifies the machine being used? Obviously the user could delete it or use a separate machine, but chances are they wouldn't. Maybe privacy concerns too, but it's no sneakier than using IP addressing. --[[User:Cedders|Cedders]] 20:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
# Support a "checkuser lite" that only identifies socks. No personally identifiable information should be available, and it should replace the current IP lookups in many cases. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with Omegatron, although I don't think this is easily coded. Rather dangerous as well to keep in compliance with WMF's privacy policy. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
#I like Crotalus horridus' idea. This kind of tool would be efficient in sockpuppet checks, while eliminating privacy concerns. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
==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. <!-- as suggested by Interiot on my talk page -->
:'''Comment''' As of now, image undeletion is working. [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-June/044482.html] This affects the result, for many voets where done before this. This means (as far as I know) there are no admin actions that cannot be reverted by another admin. [[User:Polonium|Polonium]] 21:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
===Agree (intermediate user layer)===
#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). [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#Agree with [[User:the wub|the wub]]. If this was implemented, I would want to see stricter standards for admins.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
#Strongly agree - any concerns about a potential admin's capacity to use the big tools can be brought to light by seeing how they use little tools. [[User:
# Agree. Images can't be undeleted, so the standards for that ability should be stricter than for other abilities. I'd like to see an intermediate layer, "admin without image delete". [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 18:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# People are not certain if I am adminworthy. My RfA had a lack of concsnsus. There should be a layer of semi-adminship that people are given access to for example block people, etc... (all revertable stuff) while still dont have access to lets say deleting images (which cant be reverted). One should only be adminised after a trail period. As much as one suggests they are admin worthy, are they really? Allow people to demonstrate how worthy they are. This layer should be a temporary test period for all admin candidates. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
# Agree with Cool Cat but not only for admin candidates. [[User:WriterFromAfar755|WriterFromAfar755]] 02:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
# An intermediate layer could establish that one would have to revert a user at least twice before the power to block that user appears as an option. (hint: software change) — [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 20:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
# Strongly agree. If a potential admin has a lack of consensus on their RfA, but everyone agrees that they should have one particular admin tool, then they should have it. [[User:SFGiants|ςפקι]][[User:SFGiants/Esperanza|<font color="green">Д</font>]][[User:SFGiants|Иτς]] [[User_talk:SFGiants|☺]] [[Special:Contributions:SFGiants|☻]] 05:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. Rollback. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:DarthVader|r]] 02:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. There are many users who might not want to go for RFA, or might just be a wee below RFA standards who I would not hesitate to give rollback to. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 06:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
#Strongly agree. I see the best policy is to move toward a system in which users rate each others' contributions and their editing power reflects the number and quality of their ratings. Such a system would not be perfect, but users rating other users works well for eBay. [[User:Kitteneatkitten|Kitteneatkitten]] 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, admin is supposed to be no big deal but it is, give users rollback and delete after X edits and X months/years. If abused, admin should be able to block this extra functionallity. [[User:Stefan|Stefan]] 06:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. Maybe RfA candidates could be temporarily boosted to this level to make voter's decisions easier - or maybe there could be a separate process that lets users advance to this level. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 03:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
===There's a difference between tools and powers (intermediate user layer)===
#There are a number of things that are given to admins only because they're things that require some level of trust before they can be accessed, but they don't have to do with enforcing policy. Per [[Wikipedia:User access levels]], some of them are already implemented, like being able to access [[Special:Unwatchedpages]] and being able to view deleted versions of pages for DRV or CSD-G4. I don't have a good sense of the community yet, but if there ''are'' admins who rarely use their blocking powers, but became an admin so they could have access to few extra things, then a lower level might simultaneously allow more users to use these tools productively, provide a longer period for users to prove themselves trustworthy, and also perhaps encourage users to give more scrutiny to admins during the RFA process. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#I definitely think Rollback is a tool, not a power. Of all the Admin tools I'm familiar with, only Viewing Deleted Versions/Deleted Edit Histories/Special:Unwatchedpages seem to be similarly 'non-powered, but trusted'. I'd favor adding these to most users in a similar way to Move. A completely new layer is probably unnecessary, but this WOULD make Adminship "more of a big deal". -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# Agree with the above. [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 23:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Agree. I want access to unwatched pages, but I'm probably a ways away from a successful RfA.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
# Agree with nae'blis. I think like Move, the Rollback tool should be made available to users automatically after they reach some threshold of activity and time. Perhaps at a higher threshold, Viewing Deleted Versions/Deleted Edit Histories/Special:Unwatchedpages should similarly be automatically enabled: [[WP:AGF]]. Like other blocking, these cabilities should be able to be blocked by admins if they are abused. – [[User:Doug Bell|Doug Bell]] <sup>[[User talk:Doug Bell|talk]]'''•'''[[Special:Contributions/Doug Bell|contrib]]</sup> 19:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
# Agree. I originally asked for adminship just to get the rollback button. I don't use the big bad admin powers nearly as much as the janitorial tools. There is room for an intermediate step. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
# Agree very much. Administration has nothing to do with editing. I am not interested in becoming an administrator but I would like some of the tools. [[User:Pietdesomere|Piet]] 08:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (intermediate user layer)===
Line 1,491 ⟶ 1,915:
# per above. - [[User:FrancisTyers|FrancisTyers]] 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Godmodelight already gives "rollback" to anyone, bureaucracy-creep anyone? .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 16:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Too many layers, too much bureaucracy, too much red tape.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you! [[User:Shreshth91|Shreshth91]]
# The rollback button should come with blocking powers (anti vandal). [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 20:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# — [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|talk]] 22:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,503 ⟶ 1,927:
#More layers becomes uneeded feature creep now, especially with pretty effective tools as Godmode Lite and [[WP:AIV]]. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 10:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
#It's hard enough keeping track of who has what powers already without adding another layer. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
# seems like [[m:instruction creep|instruction creep]] - more complexity for little apparent benefit [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 14:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#We're not trying to build a strictly hierarchic society here, are we? [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,509 ⟶ 1,933:
# Complicates process. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
# Too much red tape already. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
# As I commented on the User Rollback poll, I oppose narrowing of the user [[Hierarchy#Social hierarchies|hierarchy]]. (That is, I oppose the addition of another level to the user hierarchy because it
# As an admin, I'd like to stand up and say that adminship isn't a huge deal. We don't get a mass of new powers, and those we do get are far from godlike and untouchable. Therefore, I see no need for something before adminship. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
#Too complicating, as what Mailer Diablo said. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]][[User:Terenceong1992|nc]][[User talk:Terenceong1992|e Ong]] 10:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Either we trust someone with admin rights or not. E.g. if we don't trust them to do blocking properly how can we trust them to do deletions right? -- [[User:Nyenyec|nyenyec]] [[User talk:Nyenyec|☎]] 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#Not needed, anyone can revert, it only takes one more click than rollback. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 14:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
#Complicated. --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 00:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
#No need whatsoever. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 02:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
#No. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
#Lots of work to implement, little or no benefit. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 11:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
#Agree with [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]]. --[[User:Zoz|Zoz]] ''[[User_talk:Zoz|(t)]]'' 15:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
===Other (intermediate user layer)===
Line 1,527 ⟶ 1,959:
::: How recent were his blocks? The bug was closed on [[6 January]] and it probably took a few days for the patch to become live. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 13:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
::::I tested on myself, and it's certainly fixed now. Perhaps Everyking was using god-mode lite, or as Talrias said it hadn't gone live then. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
::::: He would not be able to use god-mode lite if he was blocked. I spoke to Kelly about this and the blocks were placed before the bug was fixed. This particular poll is now rather pointless at this juncture. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 13:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
===Agree (blocked admins)===
#Taking advantage of this loophole is extremely bad form. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
#I agree, with the caveat that admins are allowed to unblock themselves if hit by a "collateral damage" [[Wikipedia:Autoblock|autoblock]]. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree, and change the software to disable admin functions when the user is blocked. Fix the technical problems, don't excuse wheel warring; see below. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Certainly (and the autoblock exception is of course very reasonable). Just because it's technically doable but doesn't mean it should be considered OK. We should not invent social customs based on software quirks, we should fix those quirks instead. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 19:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#I agree. There is one problem that I can see, however, if the bug gets fixed. An admin might be more likely to use an illegitimate block in an editing dispute knowing the other admin would stay blocked. If any admin does a block in an editing dispute, then they should be blocked for abusing their admin
#Of course. Admins should refrain from ''doing anything'' while they're blocked (with an exception for the autoblock problem, naturally). - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 22:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. Admins should retain the ability to unblock, in case caught by autoblock or otherwise blocked by what was very clearly a mistake, but they should not ''use'' admin abilities except in such circumstances. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 23:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#Agree. They shouldn't edit at all, let alone use admin functions. The software should be fixed so that a block on an admin has the same effect as a block on a regular editor. They should not be able to unblock themselves (as long as they have the capability, I don't have a problem with them removing unintentional blocks). -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 04:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#I think that blocking an admin should also block him/her from using admin powers, especially unblock. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of Hearts]] | [[User talk:King of Hearts|(talk)]] 00:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
#Yes, it makes sense to me. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 16:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
# Obviously [[User:Dan100|Dan100]] ([[User talk:Dan100|Talk]]) 20:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
#In fact, blocked admins should be completely blocked, i.e. '''unable''' to do anything, not just choosing not to voluntarily. Bureaucrats would still be able to use the system if they are locked out, so there isn't a risk of a rogue admin blocking everybody else. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
#Duh. [[User:For great justice.|For great justice.]] 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
#I would completely agree with that.If an admin is blocked, he should lose his powers also.[[User:Doctor Evil|Doctor Evil]] 21:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
===Disagree (blocked admins)===
#An admin should be able to unblock themselves if caught by the autoblocker (probably by far the ''most common'' reason an admin is blocked). In addition, if the block is clearly illegitimate you shouldn't be ''required'' (advised, yes, required, no) to wait until someone finds out and unblocks you. I have seen too many illegitimate blocks (like some of the ones Ed did, for an example that comes to mind quickly) to support this idea. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 19:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#*If the autoblocker is catching admins, FIX the autoblocker so it doesn't invalidate names that already existed before the block went into effect. This has broad support at [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal]]. Additional names that existed beforehand (sockpuppets-in-waiting) can be blocked shortly thereafter, if they resume the vandalism/disruptive behavior. If an admin is blocked unfairly as apparently happened with Ed Poor, then '''some other admin''' should unblock them. I don't see how anyone could block every admin before one would notice, and if the software allows that through scripting, disallow it. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#**The autoblocker catches admins? Doesn't that mean the admins it catches are using the same IPs as vandals and POV warriors? [Strokes chin and thinks about a new pair of socks] --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
#Blocking someone should not be de-sysopping them. If blocked admins abuse their admin powers, then de-sysop them. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 22:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#I remember when an admin was blocked once, he went on RC patrol and did a fantastic job with his rollback button. I don't think it's right to ask administrators to refrain from good faith actions like this. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,556 ⟶ 1,994:
#::Did you understand the part about IP range blocks, or did you stop reading on the word "autoblocker"? --[[User:Tabor|Tabor]] 02:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
# If I recall correctly, [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] fixed the loophole already. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 04:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
#Well, I guess the point isn't moot anymore now that the bug is fixed. (See the top of this section.) [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
#I think blocked admins should be ''unable'' to use admin abilities (including unblocking). This is quite difficult for me to understand ''why'' a user should have an ability to unblock themselves. In addition, this would make admins more cautious when blocking others. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 10:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#:Admins have the power to unblock themselves to handle the possibility of one or more rogue admins blocking everyone else (which I imagine wouldn't be very hard for even one person to do, given enough tabs in Firefox or a bot). [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 13:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#:They should be allowed to unblock themselves if [[User talk:217.33.207.195|they use a shared IP which frequently gets blocked for vandalism]] '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #04C">Sceptr</span>]][[
#::Thank you, I see. But nobody's going to give regular users ability to unblock themselves on these grounds (they are just as prone to these problems). [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 14:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#:::I've read the top of the section, and now admins seem to have the ability to unblock themselves only after autoblock. That's fine. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 14:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
#:::: That's not quite correct. Admins can block and unblock themselves (or any other user) at any time, including when they are blocked. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 15:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
# Except collatertal damage, otherwise get another sysop to do the unblock. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 19:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
# A block is restriction of "editing". An admin reverting vandalism regardless of the fact he violated 3rr and hence is blocked for 24hrs. No harm done. An admin ''violating 3rr, getting blocked, unblocking self, blocking the person blocking him for 3rr, blocking all other parties, and being the ultimate dick'' is however something worthy of deadminship. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
# In my opinion: For the autoblocker, admins should be allowed to unblock themselves. However, admins that are manually blocked should be brought to the attention of a bureaucrat, who should temporarily de-admin that user. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 17:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
== A Reminder ==
Line 1,570 ⟶ 2,010:
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 boycott the polls. This is just meant as a reminder we
We want to come together rather than make camps. Just my two cents. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">The Minist</font></u>]][[
*I should also point out that the oft-overlooked counterpoint to "Voting is evil" is '''[http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?VotingIsGood mb:Voting is Good]'''. I'd encourage everybody to read that article, it's actually quite good :) [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
Polls and votes are traffic builders and give Wikipedians the illusion that they belong to a community. Most of this stuff should be handled unilaterally by the leadership, WP is not and should not be a democracy. [[User:The Witch|The Witch]] 20:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*We have leadership now? [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
*The Witch: I recommend you read [[m:The_Wikipedia_Community|this.]] [[User:Jamyskis|Jamyskis]] <font size="-3">[[User_talk:Jamyskis|Whisper]], [[Special:Contributions/Jamyskis|Contribs]]</font> [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 06:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
**Letting the leadership control things unilaterally? '''I THOUGHT WE WERE A [[WIKI]]'''. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 20:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
:To keep the wiki-spirit, it would probably be more suitable to have even more admins and to make them less mighty by limiting the executive. Maybe for big decisions two admins should be needed. Having less admins which are neccessarily more powerful will only worsen the situation. --[[User:68.57.216.138|68.57.216.138]] 23:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
----
Whilst each of the questions in the poll seems valid and useful, it seems to me that trying to do all this at once, in one poll, isn't the best way to go about it. I've created [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy matters]] as a possible long-term way of coordinating these meta-policy issues. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
: The only thing wrong with this page is that it's huge. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 04:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Polls are not evil. Discussion and attempts to build consensus are helpful, but having a poll is also a helpful way to get a sense of how different opinions are represented, numberwise. For example, if five vocal users support an idea, and 18 less vocal users oppose it, the fact that one side has a clear majority is more obvious with a poll than with trying to sort out lines upon lines of discussion. A poll is simply an easy way of saying "Ok, so who and how many people support this idea, and who is opposed to it?". Ideally, we can have both polls and quality discussion to go with them. [[User:Evilphoenix|Ëvilphoenix]] <sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Evilphoenix|Burn!]]</b></small></sup> 03:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[[Category:Matters related to requests for adminship]]
[[Category:Requests for adminship reform]]
| |||