Wikipedia talk:Admin accountability poll

I hate edit conflicts >:( — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'll subpage the lot next time :) Radiant_>|< 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  The problem is that users are editing the entire page rather than individual sections. Which means that someone voting for another question is conflicting my edit. Oh well... — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That should not happen. The the section trick to prevent edit conflicts should work even when the entire page is edited.Geni 19:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you do hit an edit conflict with one section, you get booted back to editing the whole page, which increases the chances you'll be in an edit conflict...and round and round we go. I hit three of these in a row earlier. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Are the section edit links broken...or off...or something? Works now, strange. Rx StrangeLove 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This should simplify things: "With power,comes responsibility and accountability". Martial Law 21:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not Spiderman :) Radiant_>|< 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Spider-Man! I'll lose my Project stripes if I let that pass. :) Hiding talk 22:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

All I know is I'm glad that I was like the second or third person to take this, before everyone else started. --^demon 18:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Awwwww

Wow, over 500 responses in less than a day, and nobody has cried VIE yet. I feel so proud :) Radiant_>|< 01:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

VIE! Avriette 02:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I had that one coming :) er... ehm... TINMC! Radiant_>|< 02:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• What do VIE and TINMC mean? I looked them up, but didn't find anything plausible (Vampire Investigations and Exterminations seems unlikely). -- Kjkolb 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • VIE = Voting is evil. Not sure about TINMC... Rossami (talk)
    • TINMC= There is no Mediation Cabal presumably a play on TINC (There is no Cabal) ++Lar: t/c 04:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC) And PS, Well played, Radiant! ++Lar: t/c 04:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (PPS does that make me an admin groupie??)

Haha! I actually started writing a reminder to m:Polls are evil on the main page, and then saw this. Cute prediction! :-) But, hey, what'd you expect with polls on issues like this. You know they're evil right? The Minister of War ^(Peace) 10:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Split page

This page is friggin' huge. Would it be a good idea to split it (e.g. into four pages, one about RFA, one about current admins, one about enforcement, and about misc)? Radiant_>|< 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you do, or even if you don't??? ... consider changing the section headings to be unique... if you make a change (to add a comment) to a section labeled "Agree" after you submit it seems to display the FIRST section that is called "Agree".. Maybe put the title of the question into the text "Agree - There should be suffrage rules for voting on RFA" vs. "Agree - The standards for becoming an admin should be higher than they are now" etc.... yes it makes them longer but may solve that misdisplay problem??? Or maybe it's just me? I run FireFox 1.07 on WinXP. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not just you; because the link is redirecting you to "Admin accountability poll#Agree", it goes to the first one it can find. No browser in the world that I'm aware of can discern your true intent... I run into this occasionally on talk pages, and usually refactor the discussion. -- nae'blis _(talk)

I qwas bold and went ahead and differentiated the subheadings. Amazingly, I ran into 0 edit conficts! -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Cool! Radiant_>|< 21:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For those interested: polling stats as of 2006.01.18 15:17 (not official)

WARNING!!! These are only raw numbers. These numbers are not modified to disclude sockpuppets or "neutral" votes. As such, these numbers are to be taken with a [large] grain of salt (with the exceptions of obvious cases such as wheel warring). Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Er, Alex, while I appreciate you doing this, maybe you could wait until the poll is, you know, more than a day old. Radiant_>|< 15:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. but it certainly shows that there is interest in this topic in the community. ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Hot Page of the Day :) Radiant_>|< 17:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Old statistics removed since there are newer statistics below, to avoid confusing people. Radiant_>|< 15:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

For those interested: polling stats as of 15:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (not official)

WARNING!!! These are only raw numbers. These numbers are not modified to disclude sockpuppets or "neutral" votes. As such, these numbers are to be taken with a [large] grain of salt (with the exceptions of obvious cases such as wheel warring). Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA should be more of a discussion than a vote	35/21/18	62.5% Agree
The standards for becoming an admin should be higher than they are now (NOTE: The majority of votes are not agree or disagree, so take this with a grain of salt)	18/19/30	51.4% Disagree
There should be suffrage rules for voting on RFA	48/17/12	73.8% Agree
Bureaucrats should remove votes that are in bad faith or nonsensical	0/17/18/8	39.5% Disagree
Admins should be held more accountable for their actions than they are now	45/9/15/6	83.3% Agree
Wheel warring is an inappropriate use of admin powers	57/3/5	95% Agree
Ignoring consensus is inappropriate for an admin	35/10/20	77.8% Agree
The rollback button should only be used in cases of clear vandalism, or reverting oneself	23/30/16	56.6% Disagree
Admins placing blocks should be contactable via email	37/3/5	92.5% Agree
The ArbCom should be less hesitant about de-adminning admins who violate Wikipedia rules	46/7/11	86.8% Agree
Someone should have the authority to temporarily de-admin problematic admins	21/12/11	63.6% Agree
All admins should be subject to periodic reconfirmation of their admin status	12/45/2	78.9% Disagree
A community-based process should be created to de-admin problematic users	24/31/10	56.4% Disagree
Bureaucrats should not be on the Arbitration Committee	8/28/4	77.8% Disagree
Requests for comment is not taken seriously enough	30/2/5	93.8% Agree

Reordered in order of most agree to most disagree. Items w/over 80% consensus are bolded.

Wheel warring is an inappropriate use of admin powers	95% Agree	*******************
Requests for comment is not taken seriously enough	93.8% Agree	*******************
Admins placing blocks should be contactable via email	92.5% Agree	*******************
The ArbCom should be less hesitant about de-adminning admins who violate Wikipedia rules	86.8% Agree	*****************
Admins should be held more accountable for their actions than they are now	83.3% Agree	*****************
Ignoring consensus is inappropriate for an admin	77.8% Agree	****************
There should be suffrage rules for voting on RFA	73.8% Agree	***************
Someone should have the authority to temporarily de-admin problematic admins	63.6% Agree	************* (up 1)
RFA should be more of a discussion than a vote	62.5% Agree	************* (down 1)
The standards for becoming an admin should be higher than they are now (NOTE: The majority of votes are not agree or disagree, so take this with a grain of salt)	51.4% Agree	**********
Bureaucrats should remove votes that are in bad faith or nonsensical	39.5% Disagree	********
A community-based process should be created to de-admin problematic users	56.4% Disagree	***********
The rollback button should only be used in cases of clear vandalism, or reverting oneself	56.6% Disagree	***********
Bureaucrats should not be on the Arbitration Committee	77.8% Disagree	****************
All admins should be subject to periodic reconfirmation of their admin status	78.9% Disagree	****************

One more thing: the term "cabal" was used 16 times. There is no cabal, so if you honestly believe there is one, guess what? It doesn't exist. People don't sit around in corners asking each other to plot against those who don't believe there is a cabal. We sit around in corners telling each other that there is no cabal and that everyone who thinks there's a cabal is silly. by the way, that's what we in the cabal call a "joke". There really is a cabal. We are the Knights Who Say "Cabal". Big Wikicabal is watching you. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

For those interested: polling stats as of 15:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (not official)

WARNING!!! These are only raw numbers. These numbers are not modified to disclude sockpuppets (with the exception of one: User:Rudolf Nixon or "neutral" votes. As such, these numbers are to be taken with a [large] grain of salt (with the exceptions of obvious cases such as wheel warring). Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA should be more of a discussion than a vote	35/22/21	61.4% Agree
The standards for becoming an admin should be higher than they are now (NOTE: The majority of votes are not agree or disagree, so take this with a grain of salt)	18/20/34	52.6% Disagree
There should be suffrage rules for voting on RFA	55/17/12	76.3% Agree
Bureaucrats should remove votes that are in bad faith or nonsensical	0/15/19/12	32.6% Disagree
Admins should be held more accountable for their actions than they are now	48/9/15/7	84.2% Agree
Wheel warring is an inappropriate use of admin powers	59/2/5	96.7% Agree
Ignoring consensus is inappropriate for an admin	35/11/21	76.1% Agree
The rollback button should only be used in cases of clear vandalism, or reverting oneself	23/31/18	57.4% Disagree
Admins placing blocks should be contactable via email	38/3/7	92.7% Agree
The ArbCom should be less hesitant about de-adminning admins who violate Wikipedia rules	49/6/11	89.1% Agree
Someone should have the authority to temporarily de-admin problematic admins	22/14/11	61.1% Agree
All admins should be subject to periodic reconfirmation of their admin status	13/47/3	78.3% Disagree
A community-based process should be created to de-admin problematic users	26/33/10	55.9% Disagree
Bureaucrats should not be on the Arbitration Committee	8/30/4	78.9% Disagree
Requests for comment is not taken seriously enough	31/2/5	93.9% Agree

Amazing

You know, it amazes (and baffles) me that people would actually create sockpuppets for a simple poll such as this... Rudolf_Nixon (talk · contribs) and FriendlySockpuppet (talk · contribs). Actually this may indicate that people are afraid of retaliation for voicing their opinion (even if quite a bunch of others already voiced similar opinions). It may be a joke, or it may be disturbing... Radiant_>|< 23:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it either. What's the point of skewing results in a nonbinding poll? This is merely to gauge public sentiment. --^demon 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Some people are crazy. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Everyone is crazy. It's just more obvious in some than others. Hdtopo 08:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A note about blocks

I've noticed a few people mulling over blocking admins who are going off the rails. Note that blocking an admin does suspend their editing ability, but does not prevent them adminning. Whilst blocked, an admin can still block others, unblock, delete, restore, protect, unprotect, etc. Which is to say that, if it's admin powers they're running amok with, a block won't do anything. -Splash^talk 18:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think we should clearly establish that, if an admin is blocked, he should not use their admin abilities. The only reason that this is enabled in the first place is to prevent a theoretical rogue admin from blocking all the others and running rampant. Taking advantage of this loophole is extreme bad form. Radiant_>|< 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added that as a new question. Radiant_>|< 18:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Actually see http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3801 - this was recently fixed by Rob Church. The only ability remaining for blocked admins is to unblock themselves. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 11:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC enforcement

Regarding the suggestions that RFC is not taken seriously enough, I've created a draft proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement. Opinions welcome there. Radiant_>|< 14:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• And similarly, because of the suggestions that admins should be more accountable, I've created the draft for a Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct. Radiant_>|< 13:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. Thanks for taking the lead on this. - Taxman ^Talk 15:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

We've had a bit of a lull. I made the smallest possible start to archiving. But any thoughts as to what next?
brenneman^{T}{L} 12:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the original thought was the WP:ACC (see above), however that doesn't seem to have widespread support. The last comment made on Wikipedia talk:Administrator Code of Conduct, by Taxman, suggests making sure that existing policy pages should be clarified rather than adding more. I think that's a good point, so it might be a good idea to see if the ideas in this poll that have gained widespread consensus can be incorporated formally into existing policies. Petros471 12:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Barring opposition I will close this out later today. It's pretty clear which ideas were popular at the time of the poll. If it's desirable to reassess feelings now, an entirely new poll would be better. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd like to see the results from this forwarded to any relevant written policies/guidelines that seem to be out of touch. -- nae'blis 21:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrectly used hyphen(s)

This project page has one or more incorrectly used hyphens, which editors can find by searching on the page for "ly-".
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, sub-subsection 3, point 4. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)