From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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. Radiant_>|< 17:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Requests for Adminship 1.1 RFA should be more a discussion and less a vote 1.2 The standards for becoming an admin should be higher than they are now 1.2.1 Agree (admin standards) 1.2.2 Personal standards should be higher (admin standards) 1.2.3 It's about accountability, not promotion (admin standards) 1.2.4 These are expectations, not standards (admin standards) 1.2.5 Disagree (admin standards) 1.2.6 Other (admin standards) 1.3 There should be suffrage rules for voting on RFA 1.3.1 Agree to the principle (RFA suffrage) 1.3.2 Agree, suggest something very low (RFA suffrage) 1.3.3 Agree, suggest 1 month, 100 edits (RFA suffrage) 1.3.4 Agree, some intermediate suggestions (RFA suffrage) 1.3.5 Agree, suggest 3 months, 1000 edits (RFA suffrage) 1.3.6 Agree, only admins should vote (RFA suffrage) 1.3.7 Agree, only NON-admins should vote (RFA suffrage) 1.3.8 Disagree (RFA suffrage) 1.3.9 Other (RFA suffrage) 1.4 Bureaucrats should remove votes that are in bad faith or nonsensical 1.4.1 Agree (bad faith RFA votes) 1.4.2 Don't remove, but strike out (bad faith RFA votes) 1.4.3 Don't remove, don't strike but comment (bad faith RFA votes) 1.4.4 Disagree (bad faith RFA votes) 1.4.5 Other (bad faith RFA votes) 2 Existing administrators 2.1 Current Admins' job performance? 2.1.1 Approve (job performance) 2.1.2 Disapprove (job performance) 2.1.3 Discussion (job performance) 2.2 Admins should be held more accountable for their actions than they are now 2.2.1 Agree (admins held accountable) 2.2.2 Yes, but only to their admin actions (admins held accountable) 2.2.3 Disagree (admins held accountable) 2.2.4 Other (admins held accountable) 2.3 Wheel warring is an inappropriate use of admin powers 2.3.1 Agree (wheel warring) 2.3.2 Disagree (wheel warring) 2.3.3 Other (wheel warring) 2.4 Ignoring consensus is inappropriate for an admin 2.4.1 Agree (ignoring consensus) 2.4.2 Yes, but copyvio/NPOV concerns trump consensus 2.4.3 Disagree (ignoring consensus) 2.4.4 Neither should non-admins (ignoring consensus) 2.4.5 Other (ignoring consensus) 2.5 The rollback button should only be used in cases of clear vandalism, or reverting oneself 2.5.1 Agree (rollback) 2.5.2 Disagree (rollback) 2.5.3 Rollback should never be used in content disputes 2.5.4 Other (rollback) 2.6 Admins placing blocks should be contactable via email 2.6.1 Agree (admin emails) 2.6.2 Disagree (admin emails) 2.6.3 Other (admin emails) 3 Suggested enforcement 3.1 The ArbCom should be less hesitant about de-adminning admins who violate Wikipedia rules 3.1.1 Agree (ArbCom de-adminning) 3.1.2 Disagree (ArbCom de-adminning) 3.1.3 Other (ArbCom de-adminning) 3.2 Someone should have the authority to temporarily de-admin problematic admins 3.2.1 Agree (temporary de-adminning) 3.2.2 Disagree (temporary de-adminning) 3.2.3 Other (temporary de-adminning) 3.3 All admins should be subject to periodic reconfirmation of their admin status 3.3.1 Agree (periodic reconfirmation) 3.3.2 Disagree (periodic reconfirmation) 3.3.3 Other (periodic reconfirmation) 3.3.4 Abstain 3.4 A community-based process should be created to de-admin problematic users 3.4.1 Agree (community based de-adminning) 3.4.2 Disagree (community based de-adminning) 3.4.3 Other (community based de-adminning) 4 Miscellaneous 4.1 Bureaucrats should not be on the Arbitration Committee 4.1.1 Agree (bureaucrats on ArbCom) 4.1.2 Disagree (bureaucrats on ArbCom) 4.1.3 Other (bureaucrats on ArbCom) 4.2 Requests for comment is not taken seriously enough 4.2.1 Agree (RFCs) 4.2.2 Disagree (RFCs) 4.2.3 Other (RFCs) 4.3 Rather than letting the ArbCom or the community deal with de-adminning, some other panel should deal with that 4.3.1 Yes, the bureaucrats (other de-adminning) 4.3.2 Yes, create a new group of functionaries for this (who deals with de-adminning) 4.3.3 Disagree (other de-adminning) 4.3.4 Other (other de-adminning) 4.4 More users should have m:checkuser rights 4.4.1 Agree (checkuser rights) 4.4.2 Disagree (checkuser rights) 4.4.3 Other (checkuser rights) 4.5 There should be an intermediate layer between "user" and "admin" 4.5.1 Agree (intermediate user layer) 4.5.2 There's a difference between tools and powers (intermediate user layer) 4.5.3 Disagree (intermediate user layer) 4.5.4 Other (intermediate user layer) 4.6 A blocked admin should refrain from using admin abilities 4.6.1 Agree (blocked admins) 4.6.2 Disagree (blocked admins) 4.6.3 Other (blocked admins) 4.7 A Reminder

[edit] Requests for Adminship

See also User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform.

[edit] RFA should be more a discussion and less a vote

Moved to Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll/RFA should be...
No clear consensus.

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

[edit] Agree (admin standards)

1. Absolutely so, up to and including taking past "official" conflicts into account. --badlydrawnjeff 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I agree with a weak form of this, primarily I think there should be a requirement for a minimum number of support votes, but also see my comments below. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree with the above. violet/riga (t) 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I've recently seen an admin with 2,000+ edits ousting from Wikipedian an editor with 50,000+. This is just inacceptable. It's very easy to amass several thousand edits, posting flattering messages on talk pages, get promoted to adminship and start to intimidate those wikipedians who really write this encyclopaedia. Currently admin expectations are too lax. --Ghirla | talk 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Standards should be a lot higher, and perhaps official minimums (time, number of edits) should be instituted. Gamaliel 18:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. very much so. i don't think we are particularly short of admins. and it is a big deal, if not used judiciously. good admins are no big deal, bad ones are. there are too many nominations of buddies. there are too many nominations as a "reward" for hard work by newcomers. Derex 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. A pack mentality is developing amongst admins and few are willing to make personal decisions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Indeed. How many incompetents must wikipedia hand the mop and bucket to..? -Zero^Talk 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   I feel this is a personal remark on all Admins. It's at least fairly uncivil. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   I believe Zero's comment speaks against incompetent admins, both present and potential. No specific person was attacked, nor admins as a group. --Ryanrs 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

9. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Too many admins haven't been here long enough. There should be easily-pointed-to standards, such as length of time, edits, etc. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. freestylefrappe 01:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Yes, we need higher standards. Well, we need some standards first. (SEWilco 04:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
13. Agree with Katefan about the need for a minimum number of support votes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Of course. We need this more. A certain number of months, edits and votes. Having 3000 edits of fighting vandalism are very good but not enough. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Yes, please. Too many admins seem to take their status as a license to role-play (which is much easier than writing articles to academic standards) and there is no doubt many are elected by groups of friends who approach Wikipedia more as a community website for social interaction rather than an encyclopedia. Personally, I don't think admins should be elected by the online mob, but should be appointed by bureaucrats, according to academic reliability and trustworthiness, who've been carefully selected for the task by Wales. The Witch 19:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Kevin baas 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Yes. Yes. Yes. Please.
17. I would support raising the standards, but I'd like to ensure that the standards do not cause any current admins to be de-adminned. Myself and plenty of other great vandal-fighters, policy people, etc. clearly do not meet the standards that are being bandied about by a group of people. I'd rather not see a bunch of great admins lose their powers because all of a sudden we need to be more strict about who has the power. Mo0[talk] 22:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
18. 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. --Improv 15:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
19. --Thorri 14:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
20. The statement that "adminship should be no big deal" was made when Wikipedia was a tiny fraction of its current size. It needs updating. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Absolutely, after all, the current standards let through Kelly Martin and Snowspinner. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
22. skill testing questions? maclean25 06:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
23. 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? --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Agree. Some sort of suffrage should be in place: whether to be nominated, or to vote.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Higher standards, more scrutiny.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
26. 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. youngamerican (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Higher standard, but more objective and quantifiable ones -- Gnetwerker 19:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Absolutely; different standards are applied to different people. One day, people will shout hosannas 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. joturner 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
29. Agree unless it were made easier to remove them. I don't see why being an admin - or being de-adminned - need be final.Timothy Usher 23:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
30. 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. Mugaliens 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal standards should be higher (admin standards)

1. Not higher "official" standards, but I think many of the regular RFA voters need to have higher "personal" standards. Currently, if you have 1,000 edits, have been here for three months, and you haven't fucked up yet, you'll get approve votes from one to two dozen RFA regulars. ^BlankVerse 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I agree with BlankVerse. Carbonite | Talk 18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Agreed with BlankVerse. Personally I was promoted in my second month on Wikipedia — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Clarification: I'm saying that there shouldn't be official standards because of good users that have been promoted early. However, people can do what they want (and personal standards can have expemptions easier). — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree in principle. —Nightstallion (?) 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Agree, high personal standards would be better than anything "official".  ALKIVAR™ 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree, especially with BlankVerse's sentiments. Official standards aren't the issue, since there actually aren't any (the standards written in the main RFA page are suggestions only). --Deathphoenix 16:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree. Jonathunder 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
8. 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. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Agree in priciple, but it's impossible to quantify. I think this is more of a principle statement, not a suggestion for a change. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
10. 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. WriterFromAfar755 02:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Agree.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Agree. I don't think I'd like to see clear official standards, however people who vote should have much higher standards. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
13. 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. --maru (talk) contribs 05:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
14. 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.Timothy Usher 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
15. 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. --Cyde↔Weys 23:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
16. 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. - Kookykman|(t)e 18:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's about accountability, not promotion (admin standards)

1. There is no real need to mess with the standards of promotion. We get plenty of good candidates and most of them go off to benefit the encyclopedia. The real problem is that it is too tedious to deal with that small minority who after becoming admins fail to adhere to community standards for someone in that position. Hence standards keep going up to try to avoid those problems, but ultimately that's like trying to cure a hangnail by cutting off one's hand. If admins were more accountable for their behavior, it would be much easier to regard promotion as "no big deal". Dragons flight 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. What he ∧ said, and for that reason am in favor of the temp de-admining concept down the page. Rx StrangeLove 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. I think this should be a separate issue. And I don't see anything defining this. It's all very warm-and-fuzzy, but can't be useful without defining "accountable". Avriette 20:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Sure. If standards would be higher we would lose many good potential admins. But accountability should also be higher for administrators.  Grue  20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Absolutely. If we didn't have to worry that we were effectively promoting administrators for life, there wouldn't be as much concern about the possibility of a bad promotion. A sensible, community-oriented de-adminship process is necessary to ensure that adminship remains "no big deal". Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. I hesitantly agree. I'm concerned that a de-adminship process is likely to be a beacon for abuse, but I still think that there needs to be some increased form of accountability. – Seancdaug 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. I think this is a better view of this part than standards per se. 1000 edits and 2 months are enough, if they are GOOD edits and if the person was REALLY paying attention. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Adminship should be no big deal, and a person who has proven him- or herself responsible can be trusted with the tools. But they must not abuse that trust. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Ditto Sjakkalle. Adminship should be no big deal, and it should be as easy to deadmin as it is to admin. Johnleemk | Talk 12:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Agree with this viewpoint as well, though I think the requirements for starting a deadmin process should be non-trivial. I wouldn't want an army of sockpuppets being able to deadmin someone who blocked a POV-pusher for borderline incivility, for example (this example is not as clearcut as, say, blocking a blatant vandal). --Deathphoenix 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Precisely what DF said. The vast majority of admins are unobjectionable, and many who are objectionable probably could not have been weeded out early on. Easier de-adminship is much more important than harder adminship. ~~ N (t/c) 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
12. I entirely agree with the posters above. Adminship should be no big deal, and de-adminship should be possible, with a clear procedure, but also non-trivial requirements to prevent trolls targeting the process. Warofdreams talk 11:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Agree. Standards are high enough but for the few that cause problems, it needs to be easier to deal with. - Taxman ^Talk 17:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Definitely need more accountability. It should be easier to put an admin on probation, and easier for a user to see who is an admin, and where to complain. Perhaps a required link on each admin's home page? --William Allen Simpson 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Yep, definitely. Most Admin actions are undoable anyway, and so long as you think you can trust a user to do the right thing, I see no problem with promoting very liberally. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Agree with Nickptar. Easier de-adminship is more important than harder adminship. Stifle 16:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
17. It is how the powers are used, that matters. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Definitely. It's sometimes hard to play a psychic in discerning whether someone would make a great admin in the future. If someone's already an admin and shown he's currently not suitable for it, de-adminning someone shouldn't be a big deal either. - Bobet 15:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Exactly. We need more admins, if anything we should be lowering standards. Raising demands only contributes further to the perception of admins as an elite class. We just need a better mechanism for deadminning the small number of troublemakers :) - Haukur 09:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
20. nod at Haukurt, this also would deal those seeking admin for power, honor or recognition -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
21. 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. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
22. And I agree with this as well, basically. I think stardards should be higher, but that accountability is a more important issue. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Dan100 (Talk) 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Ditto Dragons flight. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Sam Spade 12:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
26. — Omegatron 03:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
27. moink 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
28. — Dzonatas 19:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
29. 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 Cynical 11:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
30. Ditto all above. If they're not abusing the project, they're helping the project and should have admin. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
31. I believe standards should still be raised, but I believe it's time rouge admins actually be held accountable for their actions. It's unfortunate that my thirteenth axiom holds true. joturner 20:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
32. 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.Timothy Usher 23:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
33. Absolutely, a guiding Wikipedia principle is to 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. Cool3 21:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
34. 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. GRBerry 16:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
35. That's certainly true. Madd4Max 20:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Yes. ugen64 02:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
37. Agree. --Zoz (t) 13:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
38. Definitely agree. Accountability is critical to a professionally-run effort such as Wiki. Mugaliens 17:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Strongly agree. --Gray Porpoise 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] These are expectations, not standards (admin standards)

1. I think this should be phrased expectations rather than standards. I think the community as a whole must expect more from its RFA candidates, and vote accordingly; I personally feel the days of "adminship is no big deal" are passed. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree with Katefan0. The bar has been raised and becoming and admin a big deal even if doesn't change what you do. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree with Katefan0 and ^demon, but also don't want to appear to be maintaining exclusivity. ie "Oh yeah, all of you admins just want to keep other users out of your exclusive club!". --Syrthiss 18:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree with Katefan0 --pgk^(talk) 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. As there are no "official standards", it would be hard to make them higher. Personal standards cannot be legislated, but expectations can be. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree with Katefan0: Remember, once you're an admin, you're a public figure of Wikipedia, so you should behave like one. It's expected of you these days. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. I agree with Katefan again that the days of "no big deal" ought to have passed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Also agree with Kate here. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. There are expectations, not standards.--Jusjih 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Agree with this. Alphax ^τεχ 13:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
11. 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. joturner 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (admin standards)

1. Not sure higher standards are needed quite yet. We are promoting good candidates now. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. First, there are no "standards" to be made higher. Second, there's no evidence to suggest that higher standards (or lower standards for that matter) will result in "better" admins. Until you can show that, this is a bad idea. --Durin 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Have seen no evidence that bad candidates are being promoted due to low standards. On the contrary, the evidence I have seen suggests that the bigger problem is perfectly good candidates who are rejected due to unreasonable standards. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Works fine now. Harro5 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. I think standards, if anything, should be much lower than they are now and the value of "administrator status" lowered. It's just a few extra tools for crying out loud. Also, alongside this however, desysopping needs to be made much easier. --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. per Celestianpower --Rudolf Nixon 23:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   This user is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Zephram_Stark. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

7. As has been said before, there's nothing wrong with the standard of candidate that's been coming through right now, and if it ain't broke, why fix it? -- Francs2000 00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Adminship should be no big deal. Rogue admins are the exception not the rule. enochlau (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. I think the solution is not making it harder to become and admin, but easier to cease becoming one. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. It's an interesting experiment to go through the RFAs of the five admins you think are most controversial (it'll be a different five for each person). Some problems were anticipated by oppose voters, but many weren't. You can't really know how someone will use the admin tools until they've done it. Chick Bowen 05:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. By whose standards? Opinions on the direction Wikipedia should be going vary greatly across the board and by imposing "standards" we risk boxing everyone into a single group's set of standards. Their nomination should be based on their ability to do the job and their integrity. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Current standards are excessive. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. If people feel they want to change their personal standards that's fine. But personally I see no problem with the users being promoted at the moment. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. The vast majority of admins that are promoted are doing a good job. Right now, I can think of only four or five that are problematic. Pilatus 17:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. 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. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Disagree with codifying any new rules. Let things be decided on a nominee by nominee basis. Existing informal standards are good enough. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Disagree. Admin is no big deal and standards are already way too high.Gator (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
18. As it becomes more difficult to be an admin, admins will be more separated from normal editors. They will be less representative and also consider themselves more special. Encouraging more "more normal" admins should be encouraged. Most people who are reasonable and safe editors should be allowed admin status if they want it Mozzerati 21:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
19. No big deal. - ulayiti (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
20. 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. --Terence Ong 16:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
21. 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. --William Allen Simpson 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
22. It's no big deal. Hiding talk 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
23. 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." ~MDD4696 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Adminship is no big deal. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Seriously, I think this is no big deal. --Terence Ong 10:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Ditto Celestianpower. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
27. 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. -- Krash (Talk) 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
28. We may ask Collegeboard.com to host SAT (Standarised Admin Test) 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 NOT 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.

    --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

29. Should be easier to become an admin and easier to be blocked. No big deal. --Henrygb 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
30. 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. --Hetar 03:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Agree with Henrygb (ie. disagree). DarthVader 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
32. 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. --Knucmo2 00:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
33. Agree as per Celestianpower. Polonium 00:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
34. Adminship should not be a big deal. Sarge Baldy 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
35. 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. Eluchil404 10:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
36. 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. Yomangani 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
37. Agree per above. Computerjoe's talk 09:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (admin standards)

1. I don't think there should be any official standards for admins. If people want to set their own, sure, but I think that each candidate should be judges based off of his or her personal accomplishments, not off of a list of criteria. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Are there official standards? I've never followed any. android79 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • To my knowledge, there aren't any. Radiant_>|< 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)]
3. 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. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4. 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 privileges of being an admin without causing problems. 2) The should have a broad range of experience editing both the project namespace and the Wikipedia namespace, and will have explored many of the nooks and crannies on the Wikipedia, so that they will have the knowledge of most of the Wikipedia Rules and guidelines, as well as some of the unwritten procedues and traditions, so that they don't get into trouble when they start using their new admin "powers". If they don't meet those two requirements, in my opinion, they aren't ready to be an admin. ^BlankVerse 23:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
5. 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. Conscious 10:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
7. 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. --kingboyk 12:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
8. 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. John Reid 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There should be suffrage rules for voting on RFA

[edit] Agree to the principle (RFA suffrage)

1. Yes. I think that any form of election (ArbCom, and Admin) should have minimum voting requirements. It'll help reduce the risk of ballot stuffing. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I don't want to commit to any specific standard right now, but it's reasonable to have some minimum requirement. Carbonite | Talk 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree with Carbonite on this one. --badlydrawnjeff 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Absolutely. Bureaucrats can discount proven socks, sure, but in reality sockpuppetry is not always easy to prove. Suffrage requirements will not solve the problem completely, but will at least prevent casual sockpuppetry.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Yes. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Yes per Demon and Carbonite. --Aaron 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Absolutely, provided we don't make it harder to vote than to become an admin. ;) Gamaliel 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Small, but yes. Dragons flight 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. The number of edits is important, but also the type of edits. Others have expressed that people need to have experience with every piece of the encyclopedia, including the back-end stuff like C/A/T/IfD, project pages (active participation in a project is an excellent trait in my book). Conversely, people who show up and edit only in those pages can't be good candidates for adminship. These are the "career politicians" others have eluded to. Avriette 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Absolutely what said suffrage standards would be is up for debate however.  ALKIVAR™ 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
11. I very much agree with this idea -- Francs2000 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. To cut down on ballot stuffing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Damn it, yes. NSLE _(T+C) 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. While it's a shame that newcomers to Wikipedia would be locked out for the sake of keeping sockpuppets and vandals off the list, it's probably better that they familiarize themselves with what is expected of an admin before they decide on whether someone is up to the job. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Without question. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Absolutely. I don't fully agree with "admins only", but that suffrage is the easiest to enforce. I'd like there to be some suffrage, but the actual suffrage requires further discussion. --Deathphoenix 16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Yes. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Yes. The Witch 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
19. 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. Mo0[talk] 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
20. 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. --tomf688^{talk} 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Any form of voting probably needs suffrage requirements, but they should not be over-strict. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
22. 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. --Improv 15:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
23. I'd like to see a minimum number of recent edits to keep out users who stopped editing ages ago, but who make a surprise appearance for the sole purpose of voting against someone they had a fight with. Voters should be current, active members of the community i.e. one of the people who may be directly affected if the nominee becomes an admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
24. The German wikipedia has had good experiences with a 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, High on a tree 21:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Yes. Then people will respect it more. --DanielCD 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Of course, then Wikipedians will treat a RFA more seriously. However, I do not really like the idea of blocking newbies from voting. The most if its sockpuppets or vandals is to block them. The admins should be allowed to vote in all RFAs. They are the most active Wikipedians, and the most respected members of the community, they are the best to see whether they meet the admin criteria. --Terence Ong 16:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
27. There should definitely be some minimum standard; I'm not entirely sure what, so I can't categorise my vote into one of the sub-answers that seem to have appeared below. But yes -- Gurch 16:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
28. agree, but the reverse of admin only! --William Allen Simpson 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Yep! Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 00:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Absolutely, but not extremely strict. Stifle 16:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
31. I am shocked that there are no standards for this. Kingturtle 06:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
32. There should be at least some very minimal standards. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
33. Yes, but keep in mind RFA is not a vote ;) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
34. Yes. I also voted for "1 month, 100 edits" below. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
35. Yes. Having no minimal standard encourages someone using multiple user names.--Jusjih 09:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
36. 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). Batmanand 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
37. Definitely. — Omegatron 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Yes. Reduces some sock puppet and "newbie" votes. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 09:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
39. 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. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Yes, definitely.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
42. Yes. --kingboyk 12:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Yes. Midgley 16:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
44. Yes. DJ Clayworth 18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
45. Yes. Should be people who've shown some commitment to the project, not just a casual interest. Metamagician3000 07:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Yes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Per everything above.--HereToHelp 11:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
48. The requirements are fine as they are now. --Gray Porpoise 03:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
49. Of course.That will prevent users who want to become admins thru less respectable methods, from making multiple accounts and extending support for themselves. Doctor Evil 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree, suggest something very low (RFA suffrage)

1. Weak agree. Minimum voting requirements would be fine... but don't be too strict about them. (I.E.: 500 votes or more is ridiculous; make it time based, like 1 week with at least 20 edits) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. It's probably easiest to just semiprotect all RFA subpages. Radiant_>|< 01:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
   • 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. 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%. BD2412 T 00:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Per Radiant. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. 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? -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Per BDA. --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. BD2412 T 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Some minimum standards would be nice, maybe around for two weeks with something around 100 edits or so? --Hetar 03:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
8. I'd say 100 edits or so sounds about right. --maru (talk) contribs 05:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
9. 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. Cool3 21:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
10. 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?Doctor Evil 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree, suggest 1 month, 100 edits (RFA suffrage)

1. 100 edits and/or 1 month --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. 100 votes and/or 1 month is a good cutoff point. Limiting voting to existing administrators is a terrible idea, for reasons obvious enough that I will not bother to explicate them here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree with 100 edits or 1 month. Let's keep RfA as a community thing. I respect Tony Sidaway greatly, but his suggestion screams Wikicabal. Harro5 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I'm with Linuxbeak on this one: a very low threshold, sufficient to eliminate the obvious sockpuppets, isn't a bad idea, but that's all it should be. The frequently cited figure of 100 edits/1 month is just about at the upper extremity of what I would personally find acceptable. – Seancdaug 21:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. In effect there are now, as annons and compelte new uers are likely to be disregarded -- these should be made more explicit. 100 edits and 1 month sounds not unreasoanble to me, but any figure is somewhat arbitrary. However, users without suffferage should be aallowed and encouraged to comment, and particularly to draw attention to any problems that they had with the candidate, or on the other hand any particularly positive interactiosn that they had. This should ideally refer to specific events, for which diffs could in priciple be found (although a relative newcommer might not be skilled at providing diffs so they shouldn't be required). DES ^(talk) 21:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 100-250 votes AND 1-2 months. OR won't do. Tintin Talk 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. I agree that there should be some suffrage amount, but it should be fairly low. I like the 100 edits / 1 month number. That is enough time for someone generally not to be sockpuppet, but not too high to eliminate new editors. Sue Anne 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. I agree provided that it's around 1 month, 100 edits, current and non eligible voters are allowed to comment. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. I agree with Tintin on the requirements for this. - Pureblade | ^Θ 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. This would seem to be a good cutoff point. - ulayiti (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
11. This is low but better than leaving RfA in the hands of trolls. --Ghirla | talk 09:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
12. 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. --William Allen Simpson 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Agree --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
14. 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. Turnstep 17:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Agree - these numbers sound the most reasonable. A cutoff much higher than 100 edits would make RfA quite elitist. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
16. 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Good standard. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Even 200 edits / 2 months would be reasonable. -- nyenyec ☎ 18:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
19. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
20. This is the right range.--ragesoss 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Agree. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Agree, and I would make it 100 edits and 1 month. Reasoning above (in Support for RfA Suffrage section). Batmanand 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Agree; would stop much of the abuse without stopping good votes. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Agree! This is certainly an improvement. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 09:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
25. 1 month and 100edits, else you could hatch lots of accounts and stack the vote.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Agree, as a bare minimum. --kingboyk 12:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
27. 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. youngamerican (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Agree--Looper5920 02:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
29. 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. — brighterorange (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
30. 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. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Agree. DarthVader 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
32. 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 Sandpiper 08:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
33. Agree; potential voters need time to learn how important administrators are and what their purpose is. joturner 20:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
34. Agree; those falling short of this are likely solicited votes (if not sockpuppets) anyhow.Timothy Usher 23:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
35. This way, The voters are not quite too new, but we are not excluding too many. This also takes care of sock puppets. Viva La Vie Boheme
36. 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.Doctor Evil 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree, some intermediate suggestions (RFA suffrage)

1. Agree. Something similar to Arbitration vote requirements would be reasonable: 150 edits, and a registered account for at least three months. Elonka 20:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. As I hardly ever see newbs voting on RFA anyway, a modest suffrage standard (say, 300 edits and 1 month) can't hurt. True, RFA should have a lot of discussion, but people who don't have suffrage will still be able to discuss. ~~ N (t/c) 01:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Yes. I'd say around 500 edits. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Absoluely. I believe 700+ should suffice; article mainspace and talk of course. -Zero^Talk 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Absoultely Yes, Reminds me of my failed RFA, loaded with new users oppose votes, 500 edits and 2 months will be very nice in my opinion. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Same as ArbCom voter requirements. --Cyde↔Weys 23:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
8. If there's already something that works use it. -- Omniplex 14:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
9. I would have to agree with Elonka in this. 150 edits/registered account for 3 months would be just right.Doctor Evil 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree, suggest 3 months, 1000 edits (RFA suffrage)

1. Absolutely. 1,000 edits and 3 months of editing. 10,000 is even better, for it would definitely cut off any troll from voting. From my experience, newbies do not know what RfA is all about. If they come here to write articles, let them do it. If they come here to vote, this is a sure sign of corruption. --Ghirla | talk 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   10,000 would deny suffrage to the vast majority of Wikipedians, wouldn't it? I'd say 250 or 300 is more than enough. --Aaron 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   That's orders of magnitude more than the suffrage requirements on the current ArbCom vote. æle ✆ 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   That's twice as much as I have after 3 years of editing. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   10,000 is way too much. 1000 is a reasonable figure. exolon 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

2. 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.Staffelde 13:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree. 3 months/1000 edits is a level that shows a serious, longer-term commitment. Metamagician3000 07:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree, only admins should vote (RFA suffrage)

1. I'd be in favor of a move to limit votes, if we keep a vote, to administrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes, after all, nonadmins don't know what are promoting people to, and I wouldn't have imagined all the tiring and corrosive environment an admin position brings. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree, only NON-admins should vote (RFA suffrage)

1. Some sort of standard is needed. I like Lar's idea of only allowing non-Admin votes also. (SEWilco 04:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
2. 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. --William Allen Simpson 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Since I suggested it... It's a radical idea to be sure but I'm a big The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress fan and the suggestion made there of one house that only removed laws seems quite parallel. ++Lar: t/c 21:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I like it. I know of a couple organizations that do this -- the Order of the Arrow, for example. Tuf-Kat 04:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
5. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Interesting idea. — Omegatron 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Agreed, this is an interesting idea. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
9. It reflects accountability. — Dzonatas 19:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
10. This would ensure that admins reflect community consensus, rather than each other, and would alleviate charges of cabalism Cynical 11:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Agree; but then I don't think anons and meats should participate, either. John Reid 02:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
12. 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). Cool3 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Agree Administrators have too much power over every process on this site. - Kookykman|(t)e 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Good idea. ugen64 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Interesting idea. Polonium 16:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
16. 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. --Zoz (t) 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
17. I would go with Zoz's idea that Admins could comment and discuss, but their 'votes' would not count.Doctor Evil 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (RFA suffrage)

1. Strongly disagree. First, RfA is not a vote, but a consensus building mechanism. Bureaucrats can, do, and will eliminate votes as they see fit in the pursuit of evaluating community consensus. Second, any attempts at stratifying the community of Wikipedia beyond "editor" leads to significant problems not the least of which is most likely impacting the pool of volunteers...which we ALL are. Third, is there any evidence to suggest that suffrage would "solve" any problems plaguing RfA? I doubt it. --Durin 19:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   Well as I noted above, preventing existing admins from electing new admins would reduce both the occurrence and the perception of cabalism Cynical 20:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Agree with Durin. Bureaucrats can decide whose votes they count and whose they don't. Also requirements for suffrage are instruction creep. RfA shouldn't be more "elitist" than AfD.  Grue  20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   I fail to see a rationale why "RfA shouldn't be more elitist than AfD". Care to elaborate? --Ghirla | talk 08:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

3. No, commenting on RFA's should be open to everyone. If someone is a newly created account it invariably gets mentioned and the 'crats can take such considerations into account. Suffrage restrictions would imply that RFA is a strict vote - not consensus. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • I like CBD's last point here, a lot. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Such rules aide elitism so that only members of the cabal can vote for new admins.--God of War 22:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   There is no damn cabal. -Zero^Talk 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   So let's make sure there never will be.--God of War 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

5. Why would we replace our current solution to this problem -- bureaucrats making individual judgments in each instance -- with an arbitrary blanket rule? It seems the current solution is better. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. per God of War. Only the true Cabal would deny that a Cabal exists. --Rudolf Nixon 23:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   And only a true coward uses a sockpuppet to disrupt a serious poll. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   Please read WP:NPA. Attack the idea, not the person proposing it. Cynical 20:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

   This user is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Zephram_Stark. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

7. Not only should there be no voting requirements, but Bureaucrats should not be allowed to discount votes for any reason other than sockpuppetry or double-voting. Promoting and failing potential admins should be admin-level work based only on percentages so Wikipedia is an actual Democracy and not a PRC democracy. freestylefrappe 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   But Wikipedia is not supposed to be a democracy. --^demon 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

8. Don't fix what aint broke. I have confidence in our bureaucrats to sniff out dodgy voting. enochlau (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Ditto, ain't broke --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Hell no. But obviously we should retain the right for bureaucrats to discount obvious sockpup votes. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, what you mean by "obvious"? We've recently seen controversies as to which votes were obvious sockups and which were valid votes questioned by trolls. --Ghirla | talk 08:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

11. Obviously we should discourage sockpuppetry on adminship votes. But arguments should be presentable by anyone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong disagree. Obviously sockpuppets should be damned to hell. But suffrage rules are bound to center on two things: editcountitis and months of membership. Both have nothing to do with whether you should vote or not. Hell, I've edited as an anon for some time, I knew most of the policies before making an account, but by suffrage rules I probably wouldn't be able to vote!! The problem is not new users; stupid votes just come from stupid people, and any open society has quite a few of those around. We should not repress it, we should just deal with it. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 08:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Per CBD. The 'crats do a fine job as it is, no need for potentially damaging instruction creep. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. The majority of admins that are promoted are doing a good job. Nothing wrong with process, and suffrage won't fix it. Pilatus 17:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. 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. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
16. 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. JYolkowski // talk 03:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
17. as per Jyolkowski.--Me gusta chaquetearlo 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
18. 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. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
19. per others mentioning that it's a crat's job. Hiding talk 23:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
20. 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. moink 03:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Since when was the validity and soundness of someone's beliefs determined by how many edits they have? --Knucmo2 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
22. We should respect the viewpoints of all editors, and besides, this is instruction creep at its worst. Sarge Baldy 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (RFA suffrage)

1. Aren't there already? Don't BCrats typically discount (or take into less consideration) newbie or IP votes? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. There should be clearer guidelines, with the BCrats still making the final determination. ^BlankVerse 18:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Fine the way it is, with no IP voting, and 'crat discretion for new users. android79 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. As an atypical user, I started commenting in project space (AfD, RfA, etc) at around 700 votes. I'd hate to see such a boundary placed at more than 500 votes; hell, ArbCom election isn't requiring more than 150! If RfA becomes a straight 'voting' situation, then suffrage makes sense. Otherwise this is largely opposed to the idea of consensus, especially at any high levels of requirements. WP:AGF. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Per the above. I'd rather see no hard rules, but rely on Bureaucrats discretion. --Syrthiss 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. What LV and the others said. Let the Bureaucrats decide. —Nightstallion (?) 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. If it is decided that AFD should be a vote and not a discussion, then having some voter requirements is a good idea. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. radical idea to think about... limit admin votes to NON admins (of suitable experience level). Then let admins remove from among themselves if necessary. may not be workable but limiting admin votes to JUST admins seems way wrong. I'd rather see it stay a discussion/consensus process though. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Comments are fine for anyone and welcomed from new and experienced users alike, but voting should be only after a certain time, and that time should be fairly uniform and transparent regardless of the bureaucrat. Karmafist 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Let the bureaucrats decide. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Bureaucrats obviously can ignore the vote of someone who clearly has no clue what's going on--a vote by a brand-new user without a comment or with a comment that makes no sense. But there is and should be some consensus element, and if a new user points out something that matters--a key diff, perhaps--then the bureaucrat certainly should take her vote into account. Chick Bowen 05:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Ditto everyone else, especially Chick Bowen and Nae'blis. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Per LV. On bureaucrats' discretion. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Leave it to the bureaucrats to decide. --Terence Ong 10:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
15. I'd be open to forbidding/ignoring anon votes, but think that all registered users should be able to comment. Eluchil404 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucrats should remove votes that are in bad faith or nonsensical

[edit] Agree (bad faith RFA votes)

1. 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. --Cyde↔Weys 23:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't remove, but strike out (bad faith RFA votes)

1. Strike out, but don't remove completely. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree per LV, again. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Strike out, so we have a record of what votes were discounted...but maintain the stricken vote so the process is transparent. --Syrthiss 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Should clear bad faith votes be made, they must be removed immediately by a bureacrat. We trust bureaucrats to act in the interests of Wikipedia and displays of bad faith on RFA are especially damaging. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Per the above. —Nightstallion (?) 21:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Yeah --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Strongly agree. Often, oppose votes are personal vendettas, and nothing to do with the editor's potential ability as an admin. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Agree revenge votes are quite a frequent occurrence, then there are the boothy type voters who oppose everything with no stated reason, and then there are simply straight oppose pileons.  ALKIVAR™ 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. As well, votes which do not explain their reasoning should be struck out. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. [No explanation provided] --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Strike and Comment. These should not be removed, a strike out shows it was removed ex post facto, but a brief comment should be made. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Bureaucrats are human like the rest of us. While most of us would trust a crat to make the right decision, it is possible that they would make the wrong one, and we need to be able to view the decisions they have made to avoid this. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. I believe this would help the process substantially. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Yes this can help the process a lot. Also reasons should be given for opposing. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. As above. The Witch 19:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
16. I would agree. There should be some archive of these comments, however there should also be an indicator of them being thrown out. (I wouldn't expect a note on each one, but crossing out would suffice)--Toffile 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Bad faith votes are not contributing to the process; tone them down with a strikeout. --tomf688^{talk} 23:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Strike and comment, and don't forget to sign the comment. - ulayiti (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Strike out. This will be easier to gain consensus and this is not contributing to the RFA, but basically harassment. --Terence Ong 16:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 01:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Strike out with a comment as to why it has been done. Stifle 16:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Agree. However, I think votes without a comment - on either side - should still be assumed to be in good faith. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Strike and comment on why it was rejected. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Strike + comment. -- nyenyec ☎ 18:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
25. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Prevents RfA abuse. Ian13|talk 09:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
27. — Omegatron 04:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Sure. -- WB 08:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
29. 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. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Yes, definitely. Although it should be striked out and commented on why. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Strike out and comment, yes. --kingboyk 12:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
32. 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. Just zis Guy you know? 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
33. This would prevent users from "trolling" rfa and trying to artifically raise/impose their own standards. --Hetar 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Anyone can read through a strike. This lets everyone know that the vote is there but disregarded. It can always be commented on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Agree. DarthVader 01:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Strike and comment. We already do this for AFDs, so why not here? --maru (talk) contribs 05:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
37. strike and comment so someone can come back and object in a further comment if they have grounds Sandpiper 08:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
38. Strike and comment. strike out nonsense, but to maintain history of vote do not remove. Polonium 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
39. Strike out and comment. --Zoz (t) 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't remove, don't strike but comment (bad faith RFA votes)

1. Strikeout or otherwise comment on them (even to the point of indenting them from being in the numbered count), but removing the vote entirely from the list is poor form. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Striking really just looks bad to newbies, as I remarked way back when. A comment explaining why (perhaps via subst'd template) educates and is perceived as fairer. Strikeouts are a bad practice, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   (the comment should be placed in a way that doesn't impact the numbering, if numbering is used, of course). Note to nose counters, some of the "disagree"s below probably COULD be (virtually) moved here since their comment indicates this approach, and they were placed before I thought to add this choice) ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

3. I strongly agree with Lar on this not just in RFA polls but in all our polling scenarios. Strikeouts are perceived as confrontational and are frequently misunderstood. A comment achieves the same end but does so in a way which is perceived as adding facts to the discussion. The new user may dislike that the comment was added but he/she has a harder time feeling disenfranchised. Rossami (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. A strike-out is bound to cause irritations, so I'm tempted to say that nothing should be done, and to leave it to the bureaucrat, but that would be inhumane. It's perfectly fine for admin to just comment if there's something problematic. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Strongly agree with Lar and Rossami here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Ditto those four guys above me. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Bureaucrats should comment only with "Possible bad faith" and an opportunity then for the voter to retract or explain. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Strike-out is too strong, and a coment accomplishes the same thing. Oh, and polls are evil. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
9. It's easy enough to just say below "this user has 10 edits", what's the harm in that? Karmafist 23:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Yes, this goes with the earlier part of the poll on promoting discussion. Keeps everything open and aboveboard. --William Allen Simpson 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
11. 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. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Don't remove or strike out, but make admins and BCrats should make a clear note of problems with any votes. ^BlankVerse 18:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    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. ^BlankVerse 00:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

    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. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

13. 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. Turnstep 18:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
14. As per how VfD voting is done right now. - Mailer Diablo 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Comment. — Dzonatas 19:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Comment as to why the "vote" is not reasonable and indicate disregard.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
17. A comment gives a better impression than striking or removal. youngamerican (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Striking out raises tensions rather than lowering them. Comment is better. — brighterorange (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Computerjoe's talk 09:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (bad faith RFA votes)

1. If someone makes a vote like this, I want to see it. It should be made clear by the closing 'crat that it's been discounted, though. android79 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Admins should never have the right to outright remove votes completely. --badlydrawnjeff 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. As Android. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. We can tell without causing futher conflicts. Add a note if it's that important. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. I had a "nonsensical vote" and Boothy's vote against my adminship which were duly noted and understood for what they were, but they should not be removed --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Bcrats should be disallowed to unilaterally discard any vote as long as this vote conforms to suffrage requirements articulated above. --Ghirla | talk 18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Errr, does that mean you're in favor or against the proposal? -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree with what people have already said. Who is to judge whether or not something is in "bad faith". Also the practice of noting someone either being a sock puppet or vandal is fine on the first reference, but is annoying when the same person goes through all open RfAs and makes the same note on each one. I think once is enough. Sue Anne 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. No problems with discounting them, but votes shouldn't be removed, only personal attacks or other material that would also be removed on a non-voting page. Gamaliel 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. All votes should be available for posterity.  Grue  20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Agree with others above. Don't alter comments of others, but note possible socks/vandals/whatever. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Even the nearly perfected BCats need accountability. --Rudolf Nixon 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    This user is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Zephram_Stark. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

12. Nothing should be removed from the discussion - it should be an accurate record of the process, complete from start to finish. -- Francs2000 00:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Agree with the above. enochlau (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. I'm ok with bureaucrats commenting that they didn't count a vote when closing, but don't delete them. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. 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. Jonathunder 02:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
16. 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). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
17. 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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Absolutely not. That's like saying "the cabal can strike out the vote of anyone who votes the wrong way". --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
19. 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. -- Krash (Talk) 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
20. 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. John Reid 02:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
21. No way. --Knucmo2 00:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Nope. ugen64 02:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
23. No.Timothy Usher 23:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
24. 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. Mugaliens 18:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (bad faith RFA votes)

• Comment: Policy has been that every vote is left up, but the bureaucrat takes the nature of the vote into account, if necessary. I think maybe we could remove actual feelthy language or open racism or something. I don't think a bureaucrat should generally be deciding what amounts to bad faith or "nonsense" while the vote is ongoing. -- Cecropia 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC) addendum at 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• I generally think that we need to define what "bad faith votes" amount to first. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak, please see: ([1], [2], [3]) -Zero^Talk 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Of course. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak, I think we are going too far down the road of "define this," "define that," "make this rule," "make that rule." Wait until you've made an unpopular decision and you'll find out what voters find wrong with different votes. In a big hurry. -- Cecropia 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think that the votes should be left up, but bureaucrats should discount them when counting. It'd be nice if they point out what they discount. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Striking out other people's words has the connotation of effacing or vandalizing them -- in the real-world sense of "vandalizing", not specifically the Wikipedia sense. Therefore, it's always going to come across as rude and uncivil to me, and I'm likely to revert it if I see it done. --FOo 04:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Leave it up to bureaucrats. Don't want any new rigid rule on that matter. 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. Warofdreams talk 11:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Striking out votes requires caution.--Jusjih 09:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existing administrators

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

[edit] Current Admins' job performance?

[edit] Approve (job performance)

1. (Mostly to fix the section spelling.) Yes, I've seen really spectacular duty by some admins. And I've had disagreements with some that I still think usually do a good job! (Of course, I prefer that they always agree with me.) --William Allen Simpson 23:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
2. 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. JYolkowski // talk 22:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Definitely. I think that there are some rogues, but as a group, they do a damn good job Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. On the whole, I think we're doing pretty well. But one bad apple spoils the batch. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Their performance is very important.--Jusjih 09:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. Midgley 16:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Doing very well for the job put at hand. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
8. 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. --maru (talk) contribs 05:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Don't think I've ever had a run-in with one yet. They operate silently to me, but efficiently! --Knucmo2 00:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
10. What a weird question. Naturally I don't think poorly of myself :-P Cyde↔Weys 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Even though I have been disappointed with the behavior of some admins, I think that overall they are doing a good and respectable job. Eluchil404 10:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
12. As a whole, yes; but not all admins. ugen64 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disapprove (job performance)

1. 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. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
2. 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. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
3. 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. For great justice. 19:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Most of the admins I have run into are excellent, but a few abuse the position. Elizmr 22:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
5. 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. - Kookykman|(t)e 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. Mugaliens 18:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto.--Pravknight 04:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion (job performance)

1. 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". Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
2. 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. ^BlankVerse 00:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
4. 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. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
5. 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. ~MDD4696 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
7. All of them? This question is pointless. — Omegatron 04:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
8. 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)). --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Discussion should be individualized per admin. — Dzonatas 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
10. We already have RfC for that 1%, isn't it? - Mailer Diablo 14:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
11. 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. Sarge Baldy 23:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
12. 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. WilyD 18:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
13. 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. --Gray Porpoise 03:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Agree (admins held accountable)

1. Yes. Admins need to be held to a much higher standard than normal users. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Without a doubt. --badlydrawnjeff 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   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'). Moved to next subsection. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Absolutely agree. This is probably the most important of the proposals on this page. Admins are the public "face" of the Wikipedia, they are some of the most active editors on the Wikipedia, they are the ones responsible for enforcing Wikipedia Rules and guidelines, and they should know better! Also see the comments on my talk page for more of my opinions on the matter. ^BlankVerse 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • The problem that I see right now with the Wikipedia is that exactly the opposite is happening. If you've been here a long time, you've are given lots of slack for any of your misbehavior. Look at User:Ed Poor, for the prime example, who was given enough rope to eventually hang himself (figuratively). ^BlankVerse 19:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I think this is the biggest issue facing Wikipedia currently. Admins should be held to at least the same standards as regular users. When an admin and a regular user both violate 3RR, civility, NPA, harassment, or whatever... but only the user gets blocked (or the admin gets unblocked quickly) it sends a terrible message. Admins should not be required to be perfect, but they must not be held to a lower standard of behaviour than everyone else. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. The name alone implies higher standards which should be maintained, though in practical concerns (1RR, 2RR?) I'm not sure what that higher standard should be. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. The problem is that admins currently may do whatever they want without any fear of being defrocked. I know admins guilty of copyvios, gratuitously unblocking vandals of their own nationality, intimidating other editors, indulging in wheel wars, inserting "fuck off" in every other edit summary, etc, etc. This is a profanation. --Ghirla | talk 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • 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 exaggerate - do you litteraly mean "every other edit summary" - but the general point of profanity use - I also agree that this occurs, by all types of accounts, admins included; "etc, etc" - Can you be more specific?) JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
7. yes, and for non-admin actions as well. after all, admins are promoted in the first place because of non-admin behavior. if you've got the right temperament to be an admin, you'll meet a higher standard in all regards. the system is based on trust. if i can't trust your judgement as an editor, why should i trust your judgement as an admin? Derex 19:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. I agree that there needs to be an accountability loop. I have yet to hear a mechanism to do this. --Durin 19:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Absolutely. Dragons flight 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Totally. And I explicitly disagee that they should only be held to high standards regarding their "admin actions". It was their non-admin actions that were judged when they were RfA'd originally; they should continue to act in a manner compatible with the trust of the community. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
11. I'd like to see the arbitrators more willing to challenge abuse of administrator powers, and unafraid to remove the sysop bit if they think this is in the interests of the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
12. They should be as accountable as non-admin users.  Grue  20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Currently, administrators have no effective accountability to the community following their promotions. It's a bizarre dichotomy: you need over 70% support to become an administrator... and 0% support to keep it. Arbcom is clearly not an effective sanction. We've seen an increasing willingness by a small group of administrators to forget that they act on behalf of community consensus and beginning to think that they are the community. This has to stop, or it will cause very serious problems for Wikipedia down the road. I have to wonder if Wikipedia's IRC channel is a part of the problem. A lot of the wheel warring I see here is exactly like the infantile crap I witnessed on IRC a couple of years back (and is the reason why I stopped using it). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Agree. With increased power, comes increased responsibility. People look to admins to see what a good wikipedia citizen looks like, and what type of behavior is expected. When a admin abuses their position, harasses another user, or makes poor judgment calls in a controversial situation, it reflects badly on them, reflects badly on Wikipedia as a whole, and encourages bad behavior on the part of others. Elonka 20:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Aye. —Nightstallion (?) 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Agree with Crotalus. Moreover, I think that higher accountability for admins would go a long way to correcting the dismaying trend of seeing adminship treated as a mark of social status. Adminship is a job, not a privilege, and anyone unable or unwilling to meet the requirements of that job should not be kept on. – Seancdaug 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Currently unless policy violations are flagrent enough for the arbcom to act (and they are settign a high bar on this) there is nothing that can be done except engage in wheel wars, which is very bad for the project, or let a determined admin have his or her way. DES ^(talk) 21:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Agree but not because of some of the above reasons. I think that though Admins need to be accountable for their actions, I think that their actions are less important than everyone thinks. What sum of loss to Wikipedia is an editor (with dubious edit history - POV, personal attacks, incivility, unco-operativeness) not being able to edit for 24 hours? One or two good edits if that? I think we need some perspective. --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Jeandré, 2006-01-17t22:30z
20. No matter how many times we say the contrary, people see adminship as a big deal. We must be a good example for users and potential users. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Strongest possible agreement. For ALL actions, not just admin ones. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Admins are supposed to be the senior members of the community - steady and reliable in all their actions. Without a doubt, we should be held to a higher standard. Rossami (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Yes, and desysopping should be easier. Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
24. I can't think why we shouldn't be. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Admins are the face of Wikipedia. How can we tell newbies to follow the rules if the admins they look up to break them and are not held accountable for it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Too many admins use their powers as a licence to vandalize. Quaque (talk • contribs) 07:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Ditto Rossami and Titoxd. While I agree with Natalinasmpf that all editors should strive to be as accountable as possible, when we're talking in real terms, let's face it -- admin accountability right now is a bloody huge joke, and admins are the face of Wikipedia to the outside world. We need to be more accountable. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
28. When we have an RfA on someone we expect rather high standards not just of project and policy interactions but of normal edits as well. Why should this change once they become an admin? Abuse of admin functions is even more serious, however. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 12:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Definitely, per Johnleemk, BlankVerse, CBD and others. — mark ✎ 14:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Not an ounce of admin review takes place. Marskell 15:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
31. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
32. As evidenced by Jimbo's recent fiat at Talk:Alan Dershowitz, administrators are being given greater editorial control, not just extra buttons. Thus, I feel it is proper to hold admins more accountable for both editorial and administrative actions. --Tabor 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
33. With great power comes great responsibility. Pilatus 17:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
34. Or to put it another way, there are a few dozen admins who should likely be sacked. They're certainly not following WP policy. The Witch 19:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
35. Kevin baas 20:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Very strong support. And I agree w/The Witch.
36. 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. Mo0[talk] 22:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
37. 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. --tomf688^{talk} 00:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
38. Agree totally with The Witch, Tomf688, and all the others--admins must be held to a higher standard—and be punished accordingly! Matt Yeager 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
39. Sure. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
40. Far, far too many abuses of admin power go by with only the slightest comment and no attempt at retribution. People don't like it, but nobody does anything, and the word "cabal" becomes more and more plausible. ~~ N (t/c) 01:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
41. Yes. Anyone may nominate an editor for adminship, likewise people should be able to nominate an admin for de-adminship. Use the same process to remove admins that we do to place them. 66.35.138.9 09:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) (not logged in Mexcellent)
42. Given the Alan Dershovitz experiment, then yes, both for admin and general editing actions. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
43. Agree. I find a fair proportion of admins arrogant. It should be a lot easier to go about getting them "demoted" - as a second choice to abolishing them altogether. As a group they don't live up to their claim that they don't consider themselves special. CalJW 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
44. Definitely. We need a functioning de-adminship process. - ulayiti (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
45. 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. Xoloz 17:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
46. 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 Durin's admin watch idea, which seems like a good starting point for the sort of thing I'm talking about. --Petros471 18:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
47. Yes. While to err is to human, administrators should be held accountable for repeated offenses and such. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
48. The best editors should be the most responsible for their actions. Conscious 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
49. 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. Huldra 16:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
50. Absolutely. There have been more than a few Admins who have deserved to be desysopped, and very few have been. Admins need to have less wiggle room, not more. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
51. agree Zeq 10:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
52. Absolutely agree. There has only been seven de-adminships in the history of WP and this is rather questionable. Stifle 16:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
53. Absolutely. - Mailer Diablo 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
54. Yes. Kaldari 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
55. Most definitely. Any position of power must have accountability. Kingturtle 06:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
56. Yes. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
57. 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. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
58. 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. -- SCZenz 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
59. 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. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
60. I agree, although there are disagreements about the most appropriate mechanism for this accountability. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
61. Strongly agree. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
62. Absolutely. Unchecked admins are a recipe for tyranny and pov overload. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
63. 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.--Jusjih 09:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
64. Sam Spade 12:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
65. 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. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
66. Of course. — Omegatron 04:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
67. absolutely maclean25 06:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
68. 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. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
69. Strongly agree. If you're an admin, you should know the ins and outs. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
70. 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. Chairman S. 11:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
71. 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. Alphax ^τεχ 14:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
72. 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 - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 18:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
73. 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. --Revolución (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
74. 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
75. There are principles. — Dzonatas 19:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
76. Strong Agree 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. The Invisible Anon 14:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

77. 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. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
78. 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. — brighterorange (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
79. Agree - there doesn't seem to be any sort of accountability right now. For great justice. 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
80. Term Limits -- Admins should requite periodic re-election, to serve as a review of their behaviour. -- Gnetwerker 19:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
81. Absolutely. In retrospect, I think I've gotten away with things I probably shouldn't've. --maru (talk) contribs 06:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
82. 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. BabaRera 04:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
83. 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. joturner 20:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
84. Strongly agree - Admins who block editors, because they disagree with them in a content dispute, should immediately loose their admin privilege. Raphael1 03:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
85. 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. --Supercoop 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
86. 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.
87. 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. --Guinnog 15:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
88. Definitely. ugen64 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
89. Absolutely. --Zoz (t) 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
90. 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. Mugaliens 18:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, but only to their admin actions (admins held accountable)

1. Only when it refers to serious things, such as blocks. violet/riga (t) 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. When I'm editing an article as a regular user, I don't expect to be held to some higher standard, though I always try my best to live up to a higher personal standard. When I'm wearing my "admin hat", I do expect to be held to a higher standard. Carbonite | Talk 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   Most of the comments in this section are claiming that administrators are no different than anyone else in an editorial capacity. See Talk:Alan Dershowitz for a simple demonstration that this is not always the case. When we start giving admins greater editorial control, I think it is fitting and proper to have higher editorial standards for admins. --Tabor 17:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

3. The current problem (with some admins, certainly nowhere near all) is their abuse of power. Anyone can edit, so it's not an abuse of power when an admin gets weird on a certain article. However, if in the middle of an edit war, an admin in any way tries to use his/her adminship as some sort of sword to hold over the head of a "mere" user (i.e. subtly implying on the article's talk page that any user who changes the admin's most recent edit may find themselves blocked a few minutes later), then that should be treated as seriously as if the admin went ahead with an actual abuse of power. In short, threatening users into silence in order to win an edit war (or any other argument on Wikipedia) should be considered an "admin action" whether they actually carry out the threat or not. --Aaron 19:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Per Carbonite and Aaron -- Francs2000 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Uh-huh. NSLE _(T+C) 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Editors aren't marked as Admins, so they only need to behave as admins when doing admin actions. (SEWilco 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
8. Adminship means we trust someone to use the administrator tools, not we expect them to be some kind of senior editor. If they misuse the tools, their misuse needs to be pointed out to them. But they're not a distinct species. Chick Bowen 04:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone writes POV articles once in a while, usually without knowing about it. Even admins have feelings and opinions. When these feelings encroach upon the (mis)use of admin powers though, that is going too far and there needs to be more accountability and more of a consequence for this kind of action. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Admins can make the same silly edits as any random editor and should be treated as an editor in that case. Misuse of admin tools is a different story and there should be some separate accountability. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Mostly admin actions unless they start vandalizing. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. I agree with Aaron. It's one thing to edit badly another to threaten. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
13. 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.--Toffile 17:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
14. 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." 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". -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
15. 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.--A Y Arktos 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Yes, for admin tools like reversion and blocking. Stifle 17:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

    Or, as Aaron said, threatening same. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

17. Right. It's kind of strange judging the adminship for nonadmin related things -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
18. 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. --Mathwizard1232 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
19. 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. moink 00:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
20. 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.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
21. 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. --Cheapestcostavoider 02:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Alternative is to allow admins to have hidden sockpuppets for their non-admin controversial edits. --Henrygb 11:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC).
23. Support as per above. Polonium 00:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
24. 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 administrativejanitorial actions. GRBerry 16:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
25. 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. Sarge Baldy 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Admins are users who have been entrusted with extra tools by the community. If they abuse those tools, they abuse the community's trust. Eluchil404 11:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Abuse of admin powers is excessively annoying, otherwise admins should be free to trollbehave like any other user. -- Omniplex 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
28. 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. WilyD 18:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
29. Admins make mistakes - just like the rest of us. However, they should certainly think twice before performing something as significant as blocking or deletion. --Gray Porpoise 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (admins held accountable)

1. What does this even mean? It's just a vague principle that, when stated, makes everyone nod in agreement (like "politicians suck") but doesn't contribute in any meaningful way to a workable solution or even identify a potential problem. Gamaliel 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. In my experience, problems with administrators are dealt with satisfactorily by the current process. Administrative actions are as transparent as they can reasonably be. Questionable or controversial actions are usually scrutinized quite closely, and reversed if necessary -- we have numerous processes for doing so, e.g. WP:DRV, WP:AN. In that context, I'm not sure what "more accountability" would entail. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   I'll give you an example - I saw a case where an admin threatened to block a user if they again reverted a page the two were disputing, then actually did block the user for reverting, then protected the article to the admin's preferred version, then falsely claimed the user had violated 3RR, then declared that they would block the user indefinitely if the user continued to edit war. Wanna guess what happened when the user complained? The user got threatened with more blocks for 'harassing' the admin. That's what 'more accountability' means... let's start with some accountability. Any accountability would be nice. Right now it is nearly impossible to hold admins to account for anything. Which is incredibly damaging to Wikipedia's image and development. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 21:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   Where did the user complain? If that's all there is to it, I would imagine that the rest of the administrators would quite rightly ensure that the block was removed and the offending administrator admonished by the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps it should be made more clear in the block notice or something how to contact another administrator to get a second opinion if you think you have been unjustly blocked. The admin in question screwed up anyway, there shouldn't be a need to user Admin Powers on an article that you edit for content. There is just too much to go wrong, instead the administrator in question should have requested another admin block the page. - FrancisTyers 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

3. more vague instruction creep used only to de-op admins not loyal to the cabal. If this were a serious proposal, it would be objectively defined. --Rudolf Nixon 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   This user is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Zephram_Stark. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

4. What Gamaliel said, this is unconstructive and vague to say the least.  ALKIVAR™ 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. I can't agree to this unless you explain what you mean. User:Zoe|^(talk) 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. Radiant_>|< 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Current processes are sufficient. We don't need more red tape. enochlau (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Current processes are excessive. Adminship is no big deal. Bad blocks are undone quickly. Page protection is just a time-out. The revert button is already available to all users. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. per Hipocrite. - FrancisTyers 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Current processes are adequate. -- Arwel (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Everything is find now, why is there a need to make such a change. It is currently sufficient. --Terence Ong 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
11. 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. -Sean Curtin 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
12. This is not even rulecruft; it's politicking. "Vote for me; I'll hold admins accountable!" John Reid 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (admins held accountable)

1. I think this conflicts with "adminship is no big deal". Admins can have editing disputes as much as regular editors, and as long as they don't abuse their privileges, I don't care that much. android79 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • The big problem right now is that there is no way to hold a misbehaving admin accountable except through peer pressure or a very long RFAr. If you block them, they can unblock themselves. If you protect an article, they can still edit it. And when they edit war with "regular" editors, there is always the unstated threat that they can block or ban the person they are in conflict with. ^BlankVerse 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Adminship is a big deal, regardless of what the guidelines say. It may not have been a big deal in the early days of Wikipedia, but these days nobody just saunters in, makes a few edits and gets elected as an admin a week later. You have to have a long paper trail (in number of edits anyway, not necessarily time) and a relatively squeaky-clean history to survive a vote. --Aaron 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Normal users should act like administrators, only without the powers. In fact, all members of the community should aspire to become an administrator, just that new users don't have this because we need to make sure we can trust them. So yes, administrators need to be more accountable for their actions, but other users too. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Natalinasmpf stated exactly my feeling on the matter. --Syrthiss 19:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. This is a loaded question. Kind of asking "did you stop beating your wife?". Admins are accountable like any other editor in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Accountability as in equal rules apply to all is good. Accountability as in "this jerk is on a campaign to censor me, I'll make sure he pays for this" is not. We both need more consistency and fairness, and also fewer lynch mobs made up of users who have contributed very little. --Interiot 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
6. All editors should be accountable for their actions, including administrators. What's the point of this question? Is there a concrete proposal to increase accountability? Warofdreams talk 11:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree with Natalinasmpf. Even before I signed up for an account, it was a goal of mine to become an admin (which I achieved), and I would recommend that all other users have a similar goal. And I think that admins should continue to be accountable for their actions even after becoming admins (like the vast majority are). JYolkowski // talk 19:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Right, Natalinasmpf. I don't want to be an admin, I don't see how it would help me, but "editor" is also a position of responsibility. Couple general points:

• 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.

1. 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. --Cyde↔Weys 23:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel warring is an inappropriate use of admin powers

[edit] Agree (wheel warring)

1. Duh. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Probably so, don't ya think? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Erm, yes. Most certainly. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Duh. --Interiot 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Is this a trick question? Carbonite | Talk 18:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. of course --Ragib 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Can we invoke the reverse snowball clause on this one? android79 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. It takes two to wheel war. Every admin in a wheel war should temporarily lose admin privileges. ^BlankVerse 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   So what should I have done when 172 pulled the block I had placed on him?Geni 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   If you are in a mutual wheel war, then you both should lose admin privileges. If you instituted a one-time block that was overruled by the misbehaving admin, then see my remarks in other sections. ^BlankVerse 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   How about a "timed admin block" which removes admin powers from one user and the one issuing the block? For 24 hours? (SEWilco 04:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

9. Hm, a toughie :) I also think that admins should be (permanently) deadminned for wheel warring if they are caught at it more than <insert a number you like> times (I like three).—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. This needs a vote? — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Agree with the comment, and with android79. Sheesh. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Major league agreement. --Aaron 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
13. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
14. But it's so much fun! Errr, it's bad, yes. Friday (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Strongly agreed. Problem is, it's effectively approved of by ArbCom (for refusal to hear a case about it) and Jimbo (who has done it himself). The chances of getting this culture changed are, to say the least, limited. --Durin 19:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
16. No kidding. Dragons flight 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
17. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC). Tricky one. Not.
18. As others have said, this doesn't take a lot of thinking. Anything which makes it fundamentally more difficult to contribute to the encyclopedia should be dealt with. Repeated reverts and blocks impede progress in a serious way. Avriette 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
19. To some degree yes. If an admin starts a wheel war (by doing the action that another admin has to revert) then this action is most likely inappropriate.  Grue  20:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Wheel warring is the admin version of edit warring, but more serious because it involves an abuse of trust, and also because "ordinary" editors cannot easily correct such actions, as they can with normal edit wars. We urge users to discuss rather than blindly reverting, and have WP:3RR to enforce this. It should be even more so with admin actions. If an admin does a deletion/undeletion/block/unblock you find harmful, discuss it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Per Linuxbeak. æle ✆ 20:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Most likely, mh? —Nightstallion (?) 21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Ah... does anyone really dispute this? – Seancdaug 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Obviously. DES ^(talk) 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Yes, except when it absolutely isn't. Demi ^T/_C 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Of course. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
28. Duh  ALKIVAR™ 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
29. This is fairly obvious tbh -- Francs2000 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Damn right. NSLE _(T+C) 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Needless to say. enochlau (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
32. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
33. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
34. Strong agreement. Unfortunately, apparently not a view shared by the current ArbComm. I voted against all ArbComm candidates who wheel war. To Tony's comments below: The end does not justify the means. ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
35. Absolutely. To combat this a special AN or other type of notice board to report wheel warring may be helpful. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
36. Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
37. O RLY? Of course! The community looks at admins as examples, regardless of adminship being a big deal or not, and if we give these kinds of examples, with what face are we going to block editors for breaking 3RR? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
38. Naturally. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
39. But sometimes, you can't avoid it, especially in cases of bad faith blocks/deletions. Shit happens. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
40. Wheel warring is just as bad, if not worse than edit warring. I can think of no excuse to justify wheel warring, and I'm trying to be civil here. I'm tired of all the batshit flying around when it comes to wheel warring. As it stands, editors are more accountable for edit warring than admins are for wheel warring — revert four times and you're blocked, but unblock four times and feel free to keep exercising your powers to defend the 'pedia! What the hell ever happened to m:eventualism and AGF? Johnleemk | Talk 12:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
41. Obviously. — mark ✎ 14:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
42. Speaks for itself. Marskell 15:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
43. Any type of reverting save simple vandalism is typically counter-productive. Learn to discuss. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
44. Can you say "stating the bleedin' obvious"? -- Arwel (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
45. Thought it already was one. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
46. Duh. Pilatus 17:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
47. Clearly.--Alhutch 18:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
48. This happens only because an appalling percentage of admins don't bother to even give the appearance of following Wikipedia policy and behave more like trolls. The Witch 19:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
49. 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.--Toffile 21:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
50. 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. --tomf688^{talk} 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
51. It's bad. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
52. Yes. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
53. Uhm, of course? I've only seen it once, and didn't say anything/about it, but... boy, was it annoying. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 01:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
54. 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. ~~ N (t/c) 01:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
55. I think this may get majority support. Warofdreams talk 11:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
56. Definitely. Jonathunder 23:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
57. 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. - Taxman ^Talk 23:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
58. 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. --Petros471 18:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
59. Note that wheel-warring is repeating an action multiple times, not just one revert. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
60. Impossible to disagree. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
61. You're joking, right? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
62. Of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
63. Agree. Kaldari 01:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
64. another reason why admins need to be held accountable for their actions. Kingturtle 06:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
65. Absolutely agree. --Terence Ong 13:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
66. ...but they're so much fun to watch! It's like Gandalf vs. Saruman vs. Jerry Springer! No, I'm kidding. Wheel wars suck. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
67. Absolutely. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
68. Agree, self evidently. How not to set an example to others.... --Cactus.man ✍ 09:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
69. Wheel warring is how not to set an example. Adminship may not be a big deal, but annoying other people is. Stifle 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
70. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
71. Discussion is a good alternative. -feydey 13:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
72. In the same way that some people think genocide is a bad thing. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
73. It creates very bad images.
74. Of course — Omegatron 04:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
75. Quite obvious. -- WB 08:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
76. 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". --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
77. Common sense dictates that this must be so. Alphax ^τεχ 14:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
78. Agree. Common sense, and common policy - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 18:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
79. Obviously.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
80. People are opposed to this? ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 05:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
81. 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.  (aeropagitica)  20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
82. Of course. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
83. Of course. Fellow admins can be politely challenged and decisions debated, but wheel warring - it's a no brainer that it's bad. --kingboyk 12:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
84. Silly question. Duh. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
85. It is, but the 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. joturner 20:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
86. Easiest vote ever. ugen64 02:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
87. Admins should have a nice, civilized debate, not a power struggle. --Gray Porpoise 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (wheel warring)

1. Existing alleged cases of wheel warring appear to be deletion/undeletion cases and a sign of the ongoing tension between process and content. See recent arbitrator comments in rejecting a case brought by Radiant, and also Warren Benbow for a case where repeated undeletion was required to keep an article in a state where the AfD could proceed. The article was kept unanimously. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Since the article would also have been kept if you hadn't wheel warred over it, I fail to see what your point is. Radiant_>|< 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • The fact that wheel warring can occasionally end up at a good result, does not make it a good strategy for getting things done. Dragons flight 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
     • Gosh lots of comments. I'll register polite disagreement on both points. In fact I challenge the use of the term "wheel war", which implies an abuse of power, when alll that is happening here is a difference of opinion on how that power should be used in the interests of Wikipedia. Sometimes not taking administrator action can be more damaging than taking it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
       • I sympathize but I believe repeatedly redoing admin actions stems from a false sense of urgency. In almost all instances, there is time enough to discuss, and even in cases where something bad sabotages a discussion it can be redone for that reason. Demi ^T/_C 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • I am going to repeat a quote I ran across... it's from an administrator I really admire, even if he's human and sometimes does things I don't agree with. What is this about running out of time? Wikipedia is not a multiplayer game, it's not a time-critical affair. If something needs to be done, it'll wait until tomorrow, or most likely someone else will do it if it urgently needs to be done. I think Tony would do well to heed those words. Which administrator said them is left as an exercise to the reader, at least for now. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. The only alternative to Wheel Warring with administrators like Radiant and Carbonite is subjugation. Instead of telling my kids that they can't fight, I give them Soccer Boppers. --Rudolf Nixon 23:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   ...the hell? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   Regardless of how many rules you make, life finds a balance. You can constantly fight against life, or you can embrace the balance. --Rudolf Nixon 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   Special:Contributions/Rudolf_Nixon Sockpuppet check in order? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   Dude, sock checks are for repeat vandals, not just people who disagree with you. --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? -- nae'blis _(talk) 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   Well, this page isn't really a vote, per se, it's more like a friendly discussion, so commenting twice shouldn't be a problem. Also, I have strong opinions about Nae'blis's comments. ;) --FriendlySockpuppet 22:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   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. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   This user is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Zephram_Stark. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Disagree - you could say that wheel-warring is inappropriate, but it isn't inappropriate use of admin powers, because that supposes that it could be done without admin powers. More importantly, the ability of admins to undo the actions of other admins serves as a check on other admins. Guettarda 03:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   Um, that's not sound logic, no offense. A tool only admins have, if used innapropriately is innapropriate use of admin powers. QED. - Taxman ^Talk 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. Herostratus 08:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

4. But wheel warring is such fun! --maru (talk) contribs 06:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (wheel warring)

1. Of course "wheel warring" (what a strange term) is a bad thing. However, given that blocking a user means revoking their editing privileges, and given that some blocks are indefinite, there need to be reasonable processes in place to review and undo unfair blocks. When an admin is overstepping blocking policy, this needs to be reverted. It is important to have peace and harmony among administrators, but it is equally important to be welcoming and not to bite newbies. Whenever possible, disagreements over blocking should be resolved in discussions, of course, but sometimes it may be desirable to hold a poll. An admin who feels that they are backed up by common sense, process and policy in reverting another admin's block should not be accused of "wheel warring" unless they do so repeatedly.--Eloquence* 02:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   I"d like to mention that the name comes from the user group "wheel" that is commonly found on unix systems. It's between users and root, but actual permissions depend on configuration and file ownership. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Wheel warring is bad. Deciding what constitutes a wheel war, however, is tricky. Who gets to make the call? Certainly, the two parties in the dispute can't make that determination. If they were level-headed enough to be seriously thinking about the consequences of a wheel war, they would be very unlikely to be in such a dispute in the first place. I guess I'm not sure what question this section of the poll is supposed to answer. Rossami (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. It's only wrong if it's not solving anything. If we wheel wared over blocking a rogue admin who was unblocking himself to vandalize the front page, 1/2 of the wheel war would be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs)

   May I ask who's comment this belongs to?  :-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   It belongs to User:Hipocrite [4] -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

4. I agree with Hipocrite. - ulayiti (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
5. 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. JYolkowski // talk 01:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 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?

   Like any wiki-style powers, some degree of reverting is perfectly normal and healthy, it's when reverting takes the place of discussion that things are out of hand. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

7. There is the possibility to use non-admins to avoid the looks of a wheel war. — Dzonatas 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
8. I still haven't seen an unambiguous definition of wheel warring. --Cyde↔Weys 23:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
9. 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. Sarge Baldy 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Agree with Eloquence and Hipocrite. --Zoz (t) 14:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ignoring consensus is inappropriate for an admin

[edit] Agree (ignoring consensus)

1. Yes, almost always. There will always be that .0001% where Admin actions could go against consensus. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. What LV said. --badlydrawnjeff 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Absolutely agree. A huge problem for the Wikipedia currently is that WP:IAR has morphed from a guideline for newbies to not worry about all the rules, to a license for admins and ArbComm members to do anything they damn-well please. IAR should be stricken from Wikipedia guidelines. ^BlankVerse 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   This is with the understanding that Consensus can not overrule Wikipedia Policy (except in a survey on a specific policy), nor can it overrule any legal requirements (such as Fair use). ^BlankVerse 00:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Except in very rare, time critical, 'emergencies' admins should be the most dedicated to following consensus --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. In most cases, yes. android79 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. WP:IAR should be replace with Use common sense and admins should follow the consensus --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Consensus should be overridden only in extreme circumstances. Disagreeing with the result is not an extreme circumstance. Gamaliel 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. I don't believe admins are robots, but ignoring community consensus and worse, ignoring the use of consensus building mechanisms when faced with potentially controversial decisions is antithetical to the community which must be supported in order for there to be an encyclopedia. --Durin 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Agree with Durin. I can understand ignoring a particular vote or the wishes of a small group of people in favor of a broader community consensus, but I have little tolerance for those that blindly ignore and disregard the consensus building mechanisms built into Wikipedia in favor of pushing their own agenda. Dragons flight 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. This really is a tough one. With the constant flood of new users, many of whom seem more interested in other aspects of Wikipedia than building an encyclopedia, consensus can and does get it wrong sometimes. I will say this: going against a consensus of trusted users (roughly speaking, admins), is always wrong, unless you're Jimbo. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Note that Jimbo recently discerned consensus by noting a lack of activity of admins to undo something that had been done. I don't think Jimbo's particularly interested in real consensus. That to me is one of the fundamental issues; the culture being supported is subversion of consensus when common sense thinks you should. Except, common sense isn't the same across cultures, borders, and continents. Thus, dispute. --Durin 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    I don't think Jimbo should be particularly interested in real consensus. Wikipedia needs layers that cut through all the process and bureaucracy. Without it, we become more government than encyclopedia. However, right now the only member of the layer that has the power to cut through the red tape by fiat is Jimbo. My problem is with Admins who self-declare themselves as belonging to that same layer. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

11. Largely agree. There are obvious exceptions, such as implementation of the copyright policy. Determining when consensus has been reached is often a pretty tricky business, too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
12. By the definition of consensus.  Grue  20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Obviously legal issues (copyvio, libel, etc.) can't be based only on consensus, nor can WP:NPOV and a handful of other basic Foundation policies. However, these exceptions should be interpreted very narrowly. In cases where a reasonable, experienced Wikipedian might disagree on the outcome, consensus should be the governing factor. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Strongly agree. I too have seen cases of admins trying to dodge consensus building. For example, proposing a controversial change on an infrequently-visited talk page during the middle of the Christmas holidays (see Talk:List of Polish monarchs), getting a few people into the discussion to agree with them, then ignoring any other objections and rapidly proceeding as though they had a consensus. Elonka 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Consensus is the basis of wikipedia, and IAR is evil. -Zero^Talk 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
16. In general, yes. It depends on what consensus is involved, adn how one determins that consensu has been reached, and whether prior and deeper policy consensus is involved also. But in general, yes. DES ^(talk) 21:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Definitely. NSLE _(T+C) 00:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Admins should wear two hats. When wearing the admin hat, they should put aside their personal feelings on the matter and make a decision based on what has been decided by the community at large. enochlau (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Agree- As per blankverse.--God of War 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
20. I'm not sure what this part of the poll will achieve. What will those admins who think they ought to ignore consensus do when consensus says they should not ignore consensus? Ignore consensus, of course.--best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
21. WP:IAR is vastly overused. When cited as justification, it's a sign that the action wasn't actually justifyable. The only exception is when consensus repeals reality (clearly illegal or impossible things). This needs to be accepted again and ArbComm needs to step up to the plate. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Absolutely(expecting someone on the other side to overbold once again and speedy delete WP:CON.) Karmafist 04:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Once you realize what the actual consensus is, IAR should not be used to go around it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Consensus, or at the very least a majority in a vote, should be the driving force behind any admin's actions. WP:IAR is only intended for those actions whereby a consensus is pretty much guaranteed and calling a discussion would just be a waste of time. I'm tired of seeing WP:IAR abused again and again. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Almost always, but remember, consensus doesn't mean counting votes. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Duh. We have admins to gauge consensus. That is their bloody job. Pilatus 17:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Yes. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
28. Consensus on Wikipedia too often equates to mob rule. An admin should act according to well defined academic standards and WP policy. The Witch 19:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
29. 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.
30. Agree in a particularily brutally strong manner. WP:IAR should never be used by an admin in defense of their actions. Never, never, never. Matt Yeager 00:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
32. Obviously, when admin action based only on personal opinion is tolerated, there are no rules. The world is complicated. Not everyone agrees with you. Nevertheless, you should respect the consensus. Deal with it, or go fork off Cabalopedia. ~~ N (t/c) 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
33. Yes, but only where there's a consensus that there is consensus :) Warofdreams talk 11:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
34. 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. -- Kjkolb 13:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
35. Agree, ignoring consensus is inappropriate for an admin, if a consensus has been sought or established. It may be that there is no consensus existing on the matter, not even a non-consensus, eg in the case of speedy-delete. In AfD discussions, however consensus has been sought and an admin should not act in a way that does not reflect the consensus view--A Y Arktos 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
36. Ignoring consensus is wrong for every Wikipedian. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
37. Yes, with the obvious exception of copyvio/legal issues, and the core principle of NPOV. And of course this applies equally to non-admins. Radiant_>|< 00:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

    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? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

38. Yes. Admins are facilitators not dictators. Their opinions are no more valuable than normal editors. They should not have special privledges to disregard consensus. Kaldari 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
39. Admins are human. ~MDD4696 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
40. Agree - newcomers are repeatedly reminded that Wikipedia works on consensus building, which I believe is essential for any community driven project like this to work. Gratuitous ignoring of consensus by administrators therefore undermines the community and, ultimately, the entire project. It sets the worst possible example to new editors, who we must keep, and is detrimental in the extreme. If it must be done, and there will be situations where it may be justified, it should be done with extreme caution, complete transparency and detailed justification. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
41. Strongly agree. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
42. Absolutely. This is supposedly wikipedia, not arrogancepedia or soap boxpedia. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
43. Strong Agreement. This especially goes for TfD, where several admins are going crazy over ubx's. WriterFromAfar755 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
44. Strongly Agree. --Revolución (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
45. Agree as per everyone above. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 05:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
46. Agree. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
47. 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! --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 03:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
48. 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. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
49. 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. Nortelrye 02:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
50. 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. BabaRera 04:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
51. 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. Sarge Baldy 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Admins are almost never in a position to ignore consensus. WP:IAR shouldn't apply to use of administrative powers. Eluchil404 11:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Good luck getting half the admins to stop, though. - Kookykman|(t)e 18:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Yep. ugen64 03:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, but copyvio/NPOV concerns trump consensus

1. As written above, it's too sweeping a statement. As an example, an AFD discussion may show apparent consensus to keep a particular article but if evidence shows it to be a copyright violation, it has to go. We can't just "vote" to overturn copyright laws. Likewise, a discussion's apparent consensus to delete an article which would result in a violation of GFDL can not be supported.
   I believe that consensus should be respected. Decision-making through consensus-seeking is one of our core principles. But there are some situations where you have to do what's best for the encyclopedia and, if necessary, take the consequences. Overruling the consensus of a particular discussion on a point of principle or policy should be done rarely and is always subject to review. If the deciding admin is found to have been in error, some form of censure may be appropriate. Rossami (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   Don't be silly. Even if it were deleted, it would still be in use. Common sense beats any policy that could ever be written down. And we need to use a hell of a lot more common sense than we do now. But, IAR should never be used as a reason for doing something. If anyone argues about it, either tell them why they're wrong, or apologize. Ever mentioning IAR anywhere is likely to attract IAR lynchmobs, which don't help ANYTHING. They won't get IAR deleted, they won't make the use of it change *at all*. They'll just annoy people. I hate overly bureaucratic crap, such as real life governments. "I made 4 reverts in 25 hours! I did not violate 3RR!" is a perfect example of a complaint from a ruleslawyer that was blocked through IAR. In real life, they put teens that are under the age of consent on sex offender lists and jail them, for having sex with other people under the age of consent, but of very similar age. And if the age of consent is 16, someone 17 could have sex with a 15 year old and get busted for "statutory rape". Do you see a problem with that? Legal crap doesn't tend to use much comomn sense. This post could be shortened to two sentences: IAR doesn't do anything. Common sense, or lack thereof does. Oh, and i'm not against age of consent laws. They just need to be enforced and written with common sense. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Actually, I usually agree here, admins shouldn't just disregard consensus when it doesn't suit them. But Rossami makes a compelling case for some exceptions, and I agree with what he says. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. NOR, V, NPOV and Copyright are inviolate and cannot be overruled by consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Consensus does not trump policy. Guettarda 03:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
5. 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. --Improv 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 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? Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
7. 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. -Sean Curtin 04:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Agree. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 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. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

9. 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
10. — Omegatron 04:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
11. per User:Hipocrite's comments above. --Hetar 03:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Consensus can't override policy. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
13. But consensus is all we have! Well, except for policy. joturner 20:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Wikipedia can't ignore copyrights laws --Supercoop 19:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC).
15. Agree with King of Hearts. --Zoz (t) 14:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Administrators are not monarchs. Their opinion is not law. Copyright status, though, is. --Gray Porpoise 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (ignoring consensus)

1. Disagree consensus is not always clear and is subject to the whim of whoever reads the AFD, RFC, etc... Sometimes a clear consensus can be wrong.  ALKIVAR™ 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Only if WP:IAR is deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   Then let's delete it already. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   You cannot delete policy. But you can ignore it... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 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. Karmafist 04:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Consensus does not mean majority and interpretations frequently contradict each other. The point of consensus is to work collaboratively through discussion not to unquestioningly enforce, or punish those against, the purported majority view. zen master T 05:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Admins should do the right thing, also per Hipocrite and Phroziac. Rules lawyering is retarded. Personally I think WP:IAR is one of the most helpful and useful guidelines we have. - FrancisTyers 15:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Consensus can be wrong, and cannot be used to override considerations like copyvios. -- Arwel (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Go against consensus if and only if it is The Right Thing™ to do. -- nyenyec ☎ 18:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
7. 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. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
8. "Consensus" is often dubious (small votes or armies wheeled in). The point about consensus is it shows something should be taken seriously. --Henrygb 11:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Fundamental mission > Policy > "Consensus" --Cyde↔Weys 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neither should non-admins (ignoring consensus)

1. It's inappropriate for anyone in certain conditions. violet/riga (t) 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Depends on the situtation, I certainly agree that admins shouldn't have a "policy" of ignoring consensus, but nor should anyone else. --pgk^(talk) 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. No one should ignore consensus, period. Consensus is where we get NPOV. That being said, if there is a consensus to go out and lynch an editor because they're from Encyclopedia Brittanica, well.. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Ignoring consensus is innapropriate for any editor. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. What Linuxbeak said. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Wikipedia is founded upon and sustained by consensus. (Although obviously, the Foundation gets the final say.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Nor should the Foundation or Jimbo ignore or bypass consensus. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
8. The value of a "consensus" between three users against one is of course somewhat limited. Otherwise ACK. -- Omniplex 14:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (ignoring consensus)

1. It honestly depends on the situation. Most of the time, consensus should be followed though. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. As a general rule admins don't ignore consensus. More likely they just don't bother finding out what it is before acting.Geni 18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. It depends on what you understand by consensus. In Eastern European topics, we have seen votes rigged in a variety of ingenious ways: sockpuppetry, campaigning in national wikis and outside websites, etc. It takes ArbCom months to discuss the problem and to issue a ruling. I don't want admins stick to such kind of phony "consensus". --Ghirla | talk 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Consensus must be defined here. Are we, as above, discussing only admin actions? What about articlespace edits? Is this saying that if changes are being made that somebody may disagree with that the admin should contact that person? I agree with this on principle, but would like to see it expanded. Avriette 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. If I keep reading, is this going to become more and more a rehash of the Kelly Martin witch hunts? Harro5 20:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Per ^demon. There are situations when policy or common sense overrules consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. It entirely depends on the situation - there are some situations where vote rigging and sockpuppetry needs to be taken into account, but for the whole everyone should be following consensus. -- Francs2000 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. On the one hand, the answer's easy: nobody (especially not admins) should ignore consensus. However, the difficulty lies in what "consensus" is. Too many people on a "don't ignore consensus!" bent assume it means vote-counting. Two examples are AfD ("we have 67% for delete! You must delete now! Don't ignore consensus!"), and the Kelly Martin userbox thing (one of the issues that cropped up in discussions is what sort of user counts towards "consensus", and whether one sort's consensus can overrule another's). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Does consensus trump doing the right thing? (SEWilco 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
10. Ditto fuddlemark. I also think nobody should ignore consensus, but occasionally other factors must be taken in -- for instance, we very well can't break the law. I don't care if everyone on the bloody 'pedia wants to use a fair use image where it would obviously be inadmissible, it's got to go. I also think consensus isn't going to scale for very much longer as a method of decision-making. It should always form the backbone of Wikipedia, because a wiki's nature depends on consensus, but I think at some point we'll need to have other inputs into decision-making, probably from Jimbo/the board or something like that. But that's immaterial. The point is; don't ignore consensus unless you have a bloody good reason to. Johnleemk | Talk 13:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. What MarkGallagher fuddled. — mark ✎ 14:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Many recent events that suggest a small number of admins repeatedly abuse WP:IAR as a tactic to prod the community (e.g. to draw attention to a pet issue, to create a community turmoil that might break up a logjam or deadlock). Typically, the ensuing hostilities are more damaging than the original problem was. For the instigator, a pet issue is addressed, albeit at the cost of harming the community. More and more, the response is, "A mistake was made. Move on and forget about it." There is no disincentive to repeating the charade. We cannot expect that the number of these fiascos will decrease if we do not change our response to them in some way. --Tabor 18:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Consensus should be respected and followed in most cases. However, if it is to be ignored in favour of the right thing then a valid explanation must be given. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
14. The recent fair use thing is a good example of 'consensus' not always being right. - ulayiti (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Context-sensitive. Tintin Talk 23:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
16. It can be difficult to determine what actually is consensus. For example, if a relatively small number of experienced users provide well-argued agreements in accordance with policy for a certain position, and a large number of inexperienced users vote against the position but don't really address the other users' agreements, I would say that, if there is any consensus, it is for the position, not against. JYolkowski // talk 01:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
17. 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. Conscious 10:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
18. 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. Kingturtle 06:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Per fuddlemark and John Leemk. Hiding talk 23:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
20. 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. Stifle 09:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
21. 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. Trödel•talk 02:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Agree (rollback)

1. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Interiot 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree, while keeping Geni's note about userpages in mind. --badlydrawnjeff 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Absolutely. ^BlankVerse 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. In my experience, most admins do not know what Wikipedia:Vandalism is all about. Too often they take any content dispute for vandalism and use rollback button gratuitously just to show off. As an aside, rollback summary with its "block" function may appear intimidating to good faith editors who dare oppose an admin. Anyone who used rollback button to revert non-vandalism and to save time required for an edit summary, say, five times, should be defrocked as a matter of course. --Ghirla | talk 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Agreed. If you're not reverting vandalism, then explain what you are doing in the edit summary (and why). --Durin 19:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Absolutely, once you get past vandalism it becomes too gray of an area just to rollback with no comment. And WP:RFR is probably going to become active at some point so there will be a substantial increase in the number of non-admin editors will rollback power. Some pretty clear guidelines in it's use will prevent issues. Rx StrangeLove 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. On balance I agree with this (not least because my vandalism monitoring tool assumes that rollbacks are mostly for vandalism) but in principle the rollback button is just a nice quick (and accurate) way of reverting. If like most of us you don't revert that much except for simple vandalism, it doesn't make a lot of difference. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Aside from the caveat that "vandalism" needs to be very explicitly defined, I see no reason for the revert tool to be used when a hand-edit and an edit summary will help everyone understand what was done and why. See also, "talk page." People seem to have forgotten that it is possible to edit without the revert button. Avriette 20:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Agree. Other edits require an edity summary. Otherwise is not civil and an abuse of privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
13. It is taken by many users to mean this, so I revert the everyday way and explain the reason why if it's not appropriate. -- Francs2000 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Always explain your reverts has been a basic principle and policy for a long time. Rollback fails to provide an explanation by itself... the edit summary just gives dry information. Obviously, no explanation is needed for clear vandalism, but if rollback is opened up to allow people to do more than what developer Brion Vibber said that it is intended for, people are going to start forgetting to explain reverts, and just push the button. -- Netoholic @ 06:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Admittedly, I'm yet to see a case where rollback has been used as part of an edit war to prevent easy reverts, but the opportunity is just sitting there waiting to be abused. While the definition of vandalism varies (I have a broad definition of it, including seemingly innocuous POV edits as seen on Abortion) there should be checks on what exactly rollback is used for. If there's doubt, revert should be used. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Yes, edit summaries are necessary for cases of non-vandalism. Seeing the standard reversion text is pretty much saying "I am reverting your vandalism" or "Self-revert". --Deathphoenix 16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Obviously. The Witch 19:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Excessive rollbacking, without comment, is a problem. zen master T 19:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Maybe it's just because I only do vandalfighting, but I wasn't aware that that rollback button had any other purpose. I don't see how codifying this would harm anyone. Mo0[talk] 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    Oh yeah, and while I'm thinking about this, every administrator, at one point, had to manually insert all edit summaries. Why does the rollback button suddenly make this too hard? Do admin powers break the fingers of all who have them, or something? Mo0[talk] 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

20. Strong agree. Any well-meaning editor deserves an edit summary when reverted. The rollback button is associated with fighting vandals. Any editor reverted with the rollback button will feel that his/her edits are just as worthless/harmful as vandalism, and not worth an explanation for why the reversion took place. While I don't want any strong rules, I implore admins to not be lazy and give very careful thought and considerte attention when reverting somebody's edits. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    PS There may be exeptions when one must use the rollback button, as in the case of mass reversions of incorrect edits. But please, please, please, use common sense and a human touch. Anybody having a pattern of using the rollback button against fellow editors on a regular basis does not have the necessary sensibility to wield admin powers. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

21. I agree. Conceptually the rollback is not merely a revert to a previous version, it's discarding the contributions of a user. Demi ^T/_C 08:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Strongly agree. Edit summaries are extremely important, and any non-vandal edit deserves one. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Agree, although I have seen this done only once to a good faith user (not me), it was once too often. It wasn't of course just one edit that was being rolled back but many, some of the comments below as to what was the difference between one click and three do not apply - hundreds of clicks (including useful edit summaries) would have been required to do the same--A Y Arktos 20:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
24. That's what rollback is meant for, isn't it? - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Agree. Only rollback vandalism. Kaldari 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Vandalism and self reverts are really the only clear cut cases. ~MDD4696 02:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
27. 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! --Cactus.man ✍ 10:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
28. 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. Stifle 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
29. 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., 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. —Simetrical (talk • 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. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

30. 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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Take time to explain reverts. Dan100 (Talk) 20:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
32. Absolutely. Using it for edit warring is a bad thing (TM). --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
33. 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. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
34. // paroxysm (n) 19:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Agree - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 18:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
36. Agree. It hurts to see your good-faith edit reverted by rollback button and no explanation why. --Alvin-cs ✉ 17:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
37. Agree. Some admins use rollback simply for a casual edit which may be POV or soapboxing or inappropriate external link.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Agree. If there's even a slight chance someone's going to revert your rollback, you need an edit summary. ~ PseudoSudo 16:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Isn't this how it has always been? joturner 20:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
40. And rolling back your bots and sockpuppets. --Cyde↔Weys 23:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
41. Clearly. Sarge Baldy 23:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Agree. All too often it's used when someone simply disagrees with your edits, and that's wrong. Mugaliens 18:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (rollback)

1. If you have left comments on my user page rather than my talk page I'm going to minimise any effort expened in removeing them.Geni 18:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Rollback is fine when used to mass-revert good-faith but bad-result edits, such as a new user altering and breaking most or all instances of a template. I've done this at least twice, with a polite message on the user's talk page first, of course. android79 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. "Clear vandalism" is too restrictive. Newbie tests aren't vandalism a lot of the time, for example; I don't see much of a reason to leave a comment when a first-time editor has inserted '''Bold text''' into an article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I don't see a difference between one click and three clicks. Gamaliel 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   The difference is that the person being reverted (especially if not an admin) may feel offended. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

5. who cares? it just saves a tiny bit of time. if you want to leave an edit summary explaining the reason, don't use it. sometimes a simple statement of the revert is edit summary enough. Derex 19:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   A newbie being reverted for a good-faith edit might care. :) Use commnon sense. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Even without optional comments, I disagree. I dont see the "reverted soandso to soandso" as a "I think you are nothing more than a vandal!1111!!" statement. If there was ambiguity in why I've done it, I usually go explain on the talk page or the user's talk page. --Syrthiss 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   I rollback is even worse than a regular revert because it says "I, as a trusted member of the Wikipedia community, have found absolutely nothing worthwhile in your edit and label it vandalism." ^BlankVerse 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   If rollback is offensive, reverting the "long" way with an edit summary of rv is just as offensive. It just takes longer. android79 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   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. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

7. Agree with Android79 and jpgordon. I prefer to leave a short message on the relevant talk or user talk pages. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Rollback is simply an easier reversion tool, that is its entire purpose... I see no reason the button cannot be used for reasons other than vandalism.  ALKIVAR™ 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. There are exceptions. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Fully agree with Alkivar. NSLE _(T+C) 00:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. As Android said, the net result of the rollback button is that of a manual revert with no summary, or godmode lite. Nobody expects the latter two to be restricted. It's a tool. Use it when you need it. Radiant_>|< 01:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    The user being reverted may be offended. Any good faith edit deserves an edit summary if reverted. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

12. This a stupid question. Use the tool when its useful. freestylefrappe 01:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Use it when you need to use it. enochlau (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. There are significant exceptions: Android79 points out a good example. Also, there's a gray area between POV-pushing and outright vandalism that is rollbackable, but I suspect everyone has a different threshold value, and it's hard to define objectively. However, rollbacking is bad for a content disagreement; I agree with BlankVerse's comment above. Antandrus (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. There's a big difference between clear-cut vandalism and a clear content dispute. In the wide gulf between the two, use whatever makes the most sense in the situation and try to explain yourself soemwhere. JYolkowski // talk 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
16. You can get it now in God Mode Lite anyway, so why bother legislating it? There are far bigger problems to deal with. Karmafist 04:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Per Antandrus. I am hoping some of the other users disagreeing see avoiding needless bad feelings as "useful". - BanyanTree 15:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Some things that aren't "clear vandalism" can and should be quickly reverted. Content disputes however, deserve an edit summary with comment. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
19. So long as its used for the betterment of Wikipedia, it shouldn't matter.--cj | talk 15:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Should never be used in content disputes, but half the stuff I use it for I would class as newbie tests rather than vandalism. If it's followed up by a message on their talk then I see no problem. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Agree with making discussion instead if used to revert, but the button is used for vandalism and self reverts mainly. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
22. There's no difference between three or four clicks and one. Net effect is always the same. FeloniousMonk 21:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Ambi 21:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Use with discretion, or don't use at all. There are plenty of situations that aren't vandalism but where the [rollback] is handy. --tomf688^{talk} 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Rhobite 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
26. 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. ~~ N (t/c) 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Instruction creep. Give me a way to distinguish vandalism from non-vandalism that will be acceptable to everyone before I can support an idea like this. Without that, this will only encourage borderline vandals. In addition, I see nothing wrong with using rollback on my own edits if I screw up an edit. Guettarda 03:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
28. This is desirable but not essential. It would be great to get Ezhiki's idea below implemented, then the button's use could be uncontroversially extended. Warofdreams talk 12:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Instruction creep. In some cases you clearly don't need to explain a reversion, and this may not always qualify as vandalism. Use common sense. - ulayiti (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
30. "The rollback tool should be used only in cases where an edit with no edit summary would be acceptable." - punt the issue to when is an edit summary optional... JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
31. It's OK to rollback an erroneus edit. Conscious 10:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
32. 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. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
33. 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
34. Agree with Alkivar and Drini. Use it when needed. --Terence Ong 10:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
35. Disagree; the main problem is that rollback as currently designed is inflexible. Nontrivial reverts should have proper edit summaries, just like page moves. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
36. 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. Snurks ^{T C} 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
37. I disagree. I'd prefer a standard something like only for obviously uncontroversial rollbacks. I use it for more than just vandalism. — brighterorange (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Everyone should have rollback - no worse than any edit without a useful summary --Henrygb 00:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Spend some time vandal fighting with god mode light.... there are a vast number of edits that are obvious and warrant a rollback. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
40. 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. JoshuaZ 21:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Agree. --maru (talk) contribs 06:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Too sweeping a policy as shown by JoshuaZ. --Knucmo2 00:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
43. Let everyone have rollback --Henrygb 11:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
44. Guilty as charged. ugen64 03:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback should never be used in content disputes

1. Rather than saying where it can be used, how about we say where it cannot be used. The current wording at WP:RFR defines misuse of rollback as using it in content disputes. I think this is a fair definition. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   Jeez, that's smart. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   Why, thankyou! :) Talrias (t | e | 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. Demi ^T/_C 16:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Of course. Johnleemk | Talk 11:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
4. yes that's use of common sense -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
5. More like uncommon sense. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Here.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Exactly. --Zoz (t) 14:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Agree. Rollback is a tool for restoring articles to the way policy says it should be, not the way you think it should be. --Gray Porpoise 03:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (rollback)

1. The rollback tool should be redesigned to allow leaving a comment.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Note: I created (two months ago) a customized version of 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. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:16, Feb. 8, 2006
   • 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. — Ilyanep (Talk) 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 [kzollman][talk] 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? -- nae'blis _(talk) 04:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
       • I'll register my agreement here. Rollback in it's current form should be kept to vandalism only, but add a comment and presto. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
       • Definitely. Why doesn't it already get you to put in an edit summary? It makes so much more sense. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I find myself seeing exceptions to this (like Geni's), so I can't agree or disagree. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Not an admin issue since other rollback systems are now available. violet/riga (t) 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. In general, I agree, but there are always exceptions, such as reverting a large number of edits that fall just a hair below the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Carbonite | Talk 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Rollback should come with optional comments. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. I mostly agree with this one, but do see exceptions. However, I am of the opinion that rollback should never be used in content disputes. Dragons flight 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Mostly agree, but there are some caveats.  Grue  20:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Per Ëzhiki. —Nightstallion (?) 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Plenty of exceptions. --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. There's no need to "restrict" usage to just vandalism - it is a tool, and there are uses that we might not think of when using. That said, abuse is clear when it happens (for example, using it in an edit dispute) and should be dealt with. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Agree that Rollback should only be used for obvious cases where no explanation is necessary, because reverting without explaining is rather rude. Add newbie tests to the list and I would be in the support column. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Ditto the others. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Mostly agree, but there are some exceptions. Per Dragonflight, others. — mark ✎ 14:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. A rollback button with checkboxs to allow you to indicate why you are using it. Some possible examples, "vandalism", "copyedit", "linkspam", etc. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
15. There are always exceptions to everything. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
16. 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". Kingturtle 06:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
17. 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. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
18. I've longing for this a long time -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
19. A redone rollback with categories seems appropriate; if it doesn't change, I think non-vandal rollbacks are inappropriate.--ragesoss 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
20. 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. — Omegatron 03:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
21. 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. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admins placing blocks should be contactable via email

[edit] Agree (admin emails)

1. A blocked user should be able to easily contact the blocking admin. Carbonite | Talk 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Aye, of course. All admins should be. —Nightstallion (?) 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree, all admins should be email contactable. Hiding talk 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree with Nightstallion: one of my personal requirements for adminship is that the potential admin provide a valid e-mail address. – Seancdaug 21:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Yes Yes Yes a million times yes. This should be a requirement for adminship. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. There should be no question about this. No email, no admin bit. Ideally I'd like to see an autoresponder checking this regularly for bounces with the intention of enabling admins to check that their email addressess are still working. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree. If you don't have functional email or won't let wikipedia's send email from wikipedia, don't impose blocks. The block msg should also give an alternate way to get in touch with an admin when the blocking admin might be unavlable or off-line. Perhaps a click-here fucntion that puts a message on a Wikipedia:Requests for unblocking page. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Absolutely. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Jeandré, 2006-01-17t22:31z
10. Yes. It is now a requirement at the RfA nomination stage.

    who wrote this, and is it true? -- nae'blis _(talk) 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    I don't believe it is technically a requirement, but anyone on RfA with no email address set or the "allow email from users" unchecked will get significant oppose votes on this issue. DES ^(talk) 20:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

11. Agree although I really wish users (blocked for 24hrs) who sent threatening emails could have their blocks increased to indef.  ALKIVAR™ 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
12. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Absolutely -- Francs2000 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Somewhat support, won't make the ban as harsh if it were a mistake, although freestylefrappe makes a good point about flame mail, but I don't know how regular that would be. Admins should also check that their email link actually works - I only found out relatively recently that my hotmail account was treating all the emails as spam! enochlau (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Yes; this is essential. I set up a webmail for just this purpose, and there are many times someone has contacted me there about a "collateral damage" issue which otherwise would never have been fixed. Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Yup. Not that admins are required to listen to reason. (SEWilco 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
17. Yes. Flame mail (which I get a lot of) can be just deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Yes. Important to avoid collateral damage. Regrettably, I cannot be logged in 24 hours a day to receive these e-mails! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Absolutely - but give admins an e-mail address to be contacted on. Getting threatening messages from a vandal you blocked in your private inbox can't be much fun. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Why the hell not? Johnleemk | Talk 13:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Agree. ^BlankVerse 14:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
22. d'accord Marskell 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Admins should always be available via email even if they don't block. Feel free to delete flames. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Agree. All admins should be contactable by email. -- Arwel (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
25. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Absolutely, otherwise, blocked users have no (good) way of contacting the blocking admin. --Deathphoenix 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Just in case.--Alhutch 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
28. Yes just in case of collateral damage. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Any admin not willing to check their email shouldn't have access to the block scripts. The Witch 19:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Admins should have an active and accessible email anyways. --tomf688^{talk} 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Agree and it's easy to set up a webmail account to handle any problems. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
32. Yes. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
33. Per others, it should be mandatory for admins, period. ~~ N (t/c) 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
34. Yes, though it would be good to have an alternative method. Warofdreams talk 12:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
35. Yes. Accountability is very important. --Improv 15:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
36. All admins should be. This should be a criterion for adminship. - ulayiti (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
37. Agree. Jonathunder 23:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
38. Agree, but in practice, admins can't be required to check email every ten minutes, 24 hours a day. I tend to check mine once a day, so often an issue is already resolved by the time I see an email on the subject.-gadfium 23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
39. All Admins should be contactable via email, period. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
40. Why not? - Mailer Diablo 18:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
41. 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. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
42. Agree, and Administrators should regularly check it. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
43. Communication is key. Flames are easily deleted and ignored... if not, then how could an admin possibly handle adminship? ~MDD4696 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
44. Agree - a bit like a judicial system having no appeals process otherwise. All part of the accountability issue IMO. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
45. Yep. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
46. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
47. Strongly agree.--Jusjih 09:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
48. Absolutely. — Omegatron 04:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
49. Of course. Any admin who's too high-and-mighty to read complaints probably shouldn't be one. Snurks ^{T C} 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
50. 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.
51. Every admin should be contactable by email. --Revolución (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
52. Strong agree.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
53. All admins should be contactable by e-mail by any registered user, blocked or not. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
54. Of course. For great justice. 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Absolutely. --maru (talk) contribs 06:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
56. 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. --Cyde↔Weys 23:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
57. I thought it was aleady a requirement! It certainly should be, yes. --Guinnog 15:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Sure. Sarge Baldy 23:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
59. It's a bunch of pixels on a monitor. It's not like getting some flame mail is a life or death issue. ugen64 03:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
60. Agree. I was surprised to say the least when I found out this wasn't the case. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (admin emails)

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

   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 this is mentioend in the message. DES ^(talk) 20:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   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). —Simetrical (talk • 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. — Omegatron 04:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

3. as per Freestylefrappe and DESiegel--A Y Arktos 20:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I agree with Freestylefrappe, and this method of redress should be mentioned in the block message.--ragesoss 23:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
5. 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. --kingboyk 13:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. — brighterorange (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
7. 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. --Hetar 03:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Just what we need: more admins leaving because IP's spam and harass them. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
9. It's not an obligation they should have to make. --Knucmo2 00:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (admin emails)

1. Or some other reliable mechanism but blocked users should be able to talk to their blocker somehow. ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Blocked users should have a clear method of contesting their blocks, besides their own talk pages, email may be the best method. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. To those who are concerned about privacy & flamemails, I'd like to point out that you don't have to reply to any flame mails. --Deathphoenix 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. 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. Radiant_>|< 20:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. 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 privileges too much, to the extent we have to protect it. We should be able to implement some cap on the rate of emails, posting on talk pages, etc. etc. if necessary (ie. hate flood mails, or hate messages)...also, the template:unblock function should be extended to the software - an equivalent to the "you have new messages" kind of alert would be received if a user an administrator blocked tried to appeal. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
6. User:Natalinasmpf has had a brilliant idea here with regard to the "new messages" equivalent for email. Full support.-gadfium 23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
7. The "new email" thing is a Good Idea. Also, while I agree with the statement, I'm a bit hesitant about supporting that statement, because I don't want to discourage potential admins who don't have email enabled. (I didn't have email enabled myself until I got persuaded to; I always watchlisted the blocked user's talk page.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
8. 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. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
9. 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. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
10. 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. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:23, Feb. 8, 2006
11. 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. --kingboyk 13:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Natalinasmpf's idea. --Zoz (t) 14:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
13. 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. Stefan 06:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
14. 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. --Gray Porpoise 03:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested enforcement

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

[edit] Agree (ArbCom de-adminning)

1. Yes. Fully. The ArbCom should be willing and fully ready to strip the powers if need be. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. --badlydrawnjeff 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Lack of oversight is part of what has led to the current issues being bled forth across the wiki. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Absolutely. ^BlankVerse 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Wholeheartedly. android79 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong agreement. --Aaron 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Agreed. violet/riga (t) 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong support If it's reached the arbcom, there is generally reason enough to de-admin --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Amen. I can think of a few who need to go. but it's only an appropriate sanction for abuse of admin powers, or when confidence in judgement is shaken. in other words, it shouldn't be a punishment. Derex 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Agree arbcom should be fully prepared to do so for consistent misuse of admin facilities, editors can always put themself through RFA again. --pgk^(talk) 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
11. The strongest support possible. But there should be strict guidelines for de-adminship, e.g., wheel warring or using rollback for no apparent reason a certain number of times. --Ghirla | talk 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
12. I'd like to see the Arbcom temporarily de-admin when they see solid evidence of abuse of privileges. Then, they could reinstate them after a full investigation if they feel it's appropriate, or leave them revoked. Friday (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
13. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
14. See earlier comments on admin accountability Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Easy come, easy go.  Grue  20:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Arbcom's job is to resolve disputes in the Wikipedia community. I must admit that I'm baffled that they did not take the cases involving the userbox fiasco. This is perhaps our most contentious issue, and one that has the potential to literally tear the community apart. (The amount of digital venom spewed over this issue, on both sides, is astounding.) And Arbcom refused to listen. Hopefully, the new election will result in an arbitration committee more willing to act when necessary. That said, I think that it would make sense to have a process besides Arbcom to handle cases where an admin no longer has community consensus. (Note that this would not even necessarily entail a specific finding of wrongdoing - it is simply that administrators must have the continued trust and support of the Wikipedia community.) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Oversight is essential. This doesn't mean that an admin should be "punished" by removal for a single mistake (unless it's a real whopper), but a pattern of bad judgment calls or other problems should definitely have consequences. Elonka 20:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Depends on the situation, but in principle, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Definitely. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Jeandré, 2006-01-17t22:33z
21. Mostly because the ArbCom is well-equipped to understand which of Wikipedia's rules matter, and which don't. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Checks and balances. Adminiship should be easier to lose than it is to attain.--God of War 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Very strongly agree with this one - if admins are reaching arbcom stage in a dispute something in the back of my head is saying they shouldn't really be admins. -- Francs2000 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Definitely. NSLE _(T+C) 00:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
25. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
26. probably. though I'm not sure the Arbcom is the right body to take on this responsibility. Rossami (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC) ...read my arbcom candidate statement for my POV on this, too lazy to type it again. :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
28. The point isn't punishment. The point is to inhibit damage to the project. An administrator who breaks articles and drives off editors is hurting Wikipedia. Better to de-admin soon and let them reapply later, than to wait until the problem is so bad that they have to be banned. --FOo 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Perhaps not the ArbCom, but someone should do it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
30. If this is Arbcom's responsibility they need to uphold policy and sanction the admins who abuse their privileges to work against it. I feel the ArbCom has been too hesitant the past year. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Ditto Rossami and NightStallion. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
32. Absolutely true. --Terence Ong 14:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
33. Absolutely. Would prefer it was the ArbCom, rather than having to create another bureaucracy or submit completely to mob justice. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
34. Yes, but only as a remedy for accepted arbitration cases. --Deathphoenix 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
35. 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. The Witch 19:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
36. 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. Petros471 20:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
37. Kevin baas 20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Hair-trigger desysoping. One rule broken, you're out. No questions, no appeals.
38. 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 privileges is definitely a very big deal. - Taxman ^Talk 23:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
39. No point in having neutered authority. --tomf688^{talk} 00:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
40. Totally. Bad admins need to GO! Matt Yeager 00:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
41. Agree but only where the admin has abused their privileges and not for regular editing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
42. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
43. Who else would the people voting 'other' suggest? The point of ArbCom is to defuse disputes and take measures against problem users. Suspending adminship is a perfectly legitimate measure. They should do it much more often. ~~ N (t/c) 01:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
44. Yes; it would be good to have some examples of things which may result in desysopping and some which would be frivolous, to encourage the development of a simple process without opening it to abuse by trolls. Warofdreams talk 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
45. 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. CalJW 17:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
46. Agreed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 08:56Z
47. Yes. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
48. 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.--Toffile 00:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
49. Absolutely. No big deal. Conscious 10:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
50. Yes, pleaaaaaase Huldra 16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) <begging on her knees>
51. If adminship is truly "no big deal" (which I do not agree with), then de-admining should be as well. If it is a big deal, then bad examples should be removed as quickly as possible. Turnstep 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
52. Yes. Actually I think if arbcom accepts a case against an admin, powers should be suspended during hearing. Arbcom think long and hard before even accepting the case, after all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
53. Absolutely. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
54. Definitely. - Mailer Diablo 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
55. Yes. De-admining should be "no big deal". Kaldari 01:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
56. Wholeheartedly. No big deal. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
57. 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? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
58. 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. Stifle 09:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
59. 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. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
60. Sure. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
61. Absolutely. -- nyenyec ☎ 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
62. Dan100 (Talk) 20:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
63. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
64. No doubt.--ragesoss 23:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
65. Absolutely. Adminship is supposedly "no-big deal", so why isn't de-adminship? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
66. Completely and totally. Adminship is not something that should be taken lightly, and a poor admin is a liability. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
67. Sam Spade 12:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
68. maclean25 06:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
69. Agree completely. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
70. 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) Cynical 11:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
71. Agree strongly. De-adminship should be no big deal, as there are plenty of competent and responsible people to take their places. — brighterorange (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Strongly agree. Breach of wikipedia policy more than once or twice should be enough to justify de-admining. For great justice. 19:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
73. 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. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Agree. It should be easy to lose adminship through misconduct. -- Gnetwerker 19:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Agree. DarthVader 01:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
76. 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); BabaRera 04:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
77. Agree. Adminship is no big deal, so de-admining should also not be a big deal. Polonium 00:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
78. Agree, they should be less hesitant (but not too liberal). joturner 20:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
79. Easy come easy go. --Cyde↔Weys 23:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
80. I agree. ArbCom can be expanded if necessary. Grandmasterka 03:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
81. 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. Sarge Baldy 23:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
82. Yes. Yes. YES! - Kookykman|(t)e 18:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
83. Strangely I was about to say "yes. yes. yes!" but someone's already beaten me to it ;) ugen64 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
84. Yes. However, de-admining should just be for intentionally and continually violations, not making many mistakes. --Gray Porpoise 03:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (ArbCom de-adminning)

1. We should avoid turning ArbCom into the 'de-adminning body'. They should be resolving disputes and only get involved in de-adminship in the rarest of cases. That said... if no other means of de-adminning becomes available then the ArbCom will have to take it on more. I just think this isn't the best way to do it. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. The arbcom can't have anything to do with de-opping. It is a conflict of interest. Administrators have to be accountable to the editors that they administer to for the problems implicit in this poll to ever be resolved. --Rudolf Nixon 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   This user is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Zephram_Stark. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Its not arbcoms job... make another body to handle this.  ALKIVAR™ 23:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Would support, but since arbcom is totally unreliable and lazy, no. 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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
6. I'd expect the arbcom to make a decision based on what they feel to be appropriate based on the situation rather than being a crowd pleaser. It's a lot like how the average Joe Bloggs on the street complains about the "lenient" sentences given out to criminals in the justice system. If you don't like how the arbcom makes its decisions, then make sure you vote for the candidates who support your view in the elections. enochlau (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. 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. Karmafist 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Absolutely agree, but this shouldn't be ArbCom's job. — Omegatron 04:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
9. // paroxysm (n) 20:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
10. 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 --Knucmo2 00:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (ArbCom de-adminning)

1. Some body, not necessarily the ArbCom...should be less hesitant about de-adminning admins who violate Wikipedia rules. --Syrthiss 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Members of ArbCom have stated they are not a punitive body. It is not their job to be applying punitive measures. If that is the case, then ArbCom is not the appropriate body to be bringing deadminship pleas to. Instead, we need another body for handling such functions. Are such functions needed? I say yes; it isn't enough to just get a promise from someone that they won't do "X" again. We don't let criminals loose because they promise not to do it again. There does need to be consequences for negative behavior, else we encourage anarchy. In small communities this is not needed. But, we're not a small community anymore. --Durin 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. I would prefer a community based solution to reassessing and removing adminship. A more aggressive Arbcom is a possible, but less desirable option. Dragons flight 20:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I agree with this on principle, but I am concerned with the notion that ArbCom personnel may feel compelled to vote one way or the other due to political considerations. If they "traded" arbcom status for admin status, there would not be concern about getting into a subsequent political entanglement. I think this needs to be thought out a little more. Avriette 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • What political considerations? Shouldn't they be neutral? Isn't the whole point that 'adminship' is a role, not a "status"? ArbCom members may very well need admin tools like delete histories to get to the root of a matter; I don't see why we should require them to give that up. -- nae'blis _(talk) 05:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
     • The point is that regardless of whether it should be a role or a status, some users have made it a status. elsewhere the issue has been raised (correctly, in my opinion) of voter blocs, professional voters, etc. ArbCom can't possibly be free of this. Removing them from the possibility of being swayed one way or another by affiliations with other users whould ensure (one hopes) a less partial process.
5. I think they should be more willing to de-admin admins who abuse their admin powers, but not necessarily any Wikipedia rules. JYolkowski // talk 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
6. There is nothing in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy which indicates the ArbCom has any relationship or control over Admins. (SEWilco 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
7. This shouldn't be the ArbCom's job, but someone has to do it. By deadminning an admin, they would automatically become partisan. Besides, I worry that there is too much of a "buddy" relationship between the ArbCom and many admins these days. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Per Jamyskis and SEWilco. - FrancisTyers 15:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Someone should be able and willing to do so, but I'm not convinced ArbCom is that body. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Someone should make problematic admins hand in their extra buttons but I'm unconvinced that Arbcom is that someone. Pilatus 18:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Not the arbcom, but we need a de-adminning process that the community gets to affect. - ulayiti (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
12. 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. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
13. 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. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Agree (temporary de-adminning)

1. Agree per my comment above. If adminship is no big deal, losing it should be no big deal. Abuse of power IS a big deal, however. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. ^BlankVerse 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   Currently there is no way of dealing with misbehaving admins other than peer pressure, a toothless RFC, or a very long RFAR. There needs to be some intermediate step, and this it it. ^BlankVerse 19:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Badly needed. android79 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree per all three above. --Aaron 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. This needs to be the first step in handling admins who are disruptive, not following policy and/or wheel warring. I think this should be implemented independently of any discussion about RFA improvements. In the same manner as we temp block editors, temp de-opping will help focus an admins attention. I'd like to see a bureaucrat be able to place one of these blocks for a day with no other input or discussion. In particular, this would be effective in stopping wheel wars from spreading. Rx StrangeLove 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree and propose that a blocked admin should lose access to sysop powers for the duration of the block as well as editing powers. There are more than enough of us to police each other, and a blocked admin could still appeal to other admins. Dragons flight 20:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Zero^Talk 21:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. this is needed. It could be the arbcom, but probably should be a different body/process. I'm not sure how this should be implemeted or what the process should be, though. DES ^(talk) 21:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. A good respsonse to abuse of admin powers that does not remove them from the encyclopedia entirely It can also prevent wheel wars. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Yes! This is the admin equivalent of short-duration blocks, and would be entirely appropriate to deal with wheel wars, just as short-duration blocks are appropriate to deal with revert wars. --FOo 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Agreed. Admins should be held accountable and if removing their sysop privileges temporarily is the only way to stop abuse, then so be it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Temporarily being the key word here. There should be someone available to de-admin controversial admins in severe cases until the dispute can be resolved. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. In an edit war, the participants are blocked until they cool down and banned if they can't keep their cool. Can't see why admins shouldn't have taken their extra buttons away if they get into a wheel war and why they shoudn't hand them in if they persist. Pilatus 18:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Yep, this should be a standard task of some bureaucrats. The Witch 19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. 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 privileges for 24hrs. It's not that hard to let things stay the way they are and discuss for a little while first. Few admin actions are so urgent they can't wait till a consensus emerges, and if they are there wouldn't be a dispute in the first place. - Taxman ^Talk 23:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Agree as per prior section. Should only be done to stop admin privilege abuse. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
18. If admins can completely block problem users, bureaucrats should be able to completely block problem admins. Problem 'crats, hopefully, won't be too much of a problem. ~~ N (t/c) 02:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
19. This is something which bureaucrats could do. It would need some further thinking about process, and might need tweaks to the software. Don't be too sure there'll never be a problem bureaucrat - but stewards can deal with immediate action for them if needed. Warofdreams talk 12:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
20. A sharp shock like this would be good for some admins. CalJW 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Yeah, this is a good idea, but I'd like us to be more strict (permanent de-adminship a lot more often). - ulayiti (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
22. 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. --William Allen Simpson 23:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Without question. I've always found it odd that a Bureaucrat can sysop a user but not desysop - and you need to get Stewards (i.e. WikiMedia management) involved to do so. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Yes - this should be a fairly automatic response to abusing privileges, such as unblocking oneself, just like the fairly automatic blocks for 3RR. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Since this poll is only to gauge the community's thoughts, I don't have any reservations of agreeing. I think forgiveness is important though, so the "temporary" part is important to me. ~MDD4696 02:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Agree, sounds fair. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
27. I agree with this, temporary suspension is definitely fair. Stifle 09:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
28. Agree, but the devil is in the details. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Strongly agree. There has to be a middle ground for minor infractions to be addressed. BD2412 T 17:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
30. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Absolutely. And kind of obvious. If the ability to de-admin an admin exists, then someone has it. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
32. Absolutely. Losing your magic powers for a few days is no big deal. — Omegatron 04:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Agree. — Dzonatas 19:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
34. 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
35. 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. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 03:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Probaly the best way forward. Should be no big deal. --Henrygb 00:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Agree. Give bureaucrats the ability to do this. DarthVader 01:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
38. 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. --maru (talk) contribs 06:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
39. I can't imagine we would need it too often, but it would be a good think to have as a reserve —Mets501^talk 12:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
40. 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. BabaRera 04:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
41. Yes. ugen64 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
42. Agree, just like using short-lived blocks to cool down problematic users. --Gray Porpoise 03:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (temporary de-adminning)

1. Point being?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   To stop wheel wars. android79 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Who watches the people who watch the watchmen? Gamaliel 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. no. that's up to arbcom. there are enough admins to police any rogue ones. Derex 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Disagree; this assumes guilt before any discussion has happened. There are multiple viewpoints in most incidents; one person's view may or may not be correct. Temporarily de-adminning them is not helpful to resolving disputes. --Durin 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. The ArbCom is perfectly capable of handling this via injunction. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Wikipedia runs best on consensus. We vote for the ArbCom members, they decide on admin privileges in these cases. No one but Jimbo, who must have ultimate control over the worst things (he's got Executive powers), should be unaccountable or act unilaterially where there is no chance to undo actions. Harro5 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. No one but Jimbo or the ArbCom; I agree with Harro5. I wouldn't trust anyone else in acting unilaterally in these situations. Administrators have passed through RfA, a rigorous process that I usually do trust (I recently commented in an RfA poll that I've seen several candidates get their candidacies destroyed when somebody uncovered one bad edit), so to allow one user to override that is a mistake. From the userboxes controversy alone, one can see the potentially destructive effects of a single user acting unilaterally. However, if the whole ArbCom (or several members of it) acts, then there is enough accountability there to keep one user from revoking another's adminship simply because they don't like a particular admin. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. No I would not trust anyone to not abuse this power.  ALKIVAR™ 23:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Point of order: "Someone" (stewards) already possess the power to take away adminship. It's not a technical question, but a process one. -- nae'blis _(talk) 05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Someone does. But Bureaucrats should be given this authority, as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. I'd say give it to the bureaucrats. We don't need more bodies set up. enochlau (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Already covered by ArbCom injunctions. I don't know if they have ever temp de-adminned someone in this way, but it seems it could be a sensible option in some cases. I'm wary of extending the technical power to the 'crats, it's not that I don't trust them all, just that stewards are more detached and neutral. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. 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. --Improv 15:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
13. 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. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
14. 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. Conscious 10:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
15. 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. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
16. // paroxysm (n) 20:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Pointless. It should be permanent, or not at all. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Like taking a bone away from a dog only to give it back again. --Knucmo2 00:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
19. 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. --Cyde↔Weys 23:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (temporary de-adminning)

1. For now, no vote. I need to think on this one. Leaning to agree on this though. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree with Nae'blis, being "no big deal" cuts both ways, however I'm not sure there is a satisfactory and workable manner for this to be done, Stewards keep away from their "home" projects so wouldn't be ideally placed to enact without instruction from someone else. Giving the ability to Bureaucrats would (I believe) be significantly widening their remit and as not necessarily selected with that in mind might cause more tension as having an arbitrarily assigned "elite". Really should be an ArbCom thing, arbcom should be able to respond quickly enough to serious complaints to request a steward to temporarily desysop --pgk^(talk) 19:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Stewards already have this power. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Not a problem, it can be done already in clear-cut cases. Whether the given admin is "problematic" or not can be controversial.  Grue  20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Not quite sure yet, and per Tony Sidaway. —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? 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. Radiant_>|< 22:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   Right, I guess I was taking it for granted that they had the ability as they use it on a regular basis, I was trying to (not very clearly I'm afraid) ask if they were in favor of using it for this purpose. Saying they have the power isn't quite the same as agreeing that they should use it for this reason. Rx StrangeLove 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Per Grue -- Francs2000 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. A good idea in principle. It would seem to parallel the ability to block a regular user. The challenge is choosing who will decide and how they will make that decision. Devs and Stewards aren't taking these actions today. Presumably, they have a good reason for avoiding it. Rossami (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Not sure, per Grue. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Ditto Rossami. Johnleemk | Talk 13:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. If the tool were used like blocking, possibly, but we don't ban users pending RfCs or the like, so in that manner, no. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. No need, there already is a capaity for doing this, and, per Rossami, there must be a good reason why they're not doing it with more frequency. OTOH, there should be something similar to blocking a user for editing actions: admins who are blocked can still perform some admin functions. --Deathphoenix 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Already possible, although ArbCom may want to consider it as an temporary injuction. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Agree (periodic reconfirmation)

1. Sounds like a good way to keep hold of the good ones and rotate out the not-so-good ones. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes, assuming that there's a grace period between revotes (i.e., if I don't like Geni's style (first admin I could think of, no offense meant) and put her to vote, and she's reaffirmed, I can't reup her the next day). --badlydrawnjeff 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. I like this idea, but this vote subject to change; I need to give it more thought (or be convinced otherwise). android79 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. It would have to be implemented carefully, but I think 'term limits' for admins make alot of sense. I don't think there should be a 'nomination for de-admin' aspect to it, just every 6 or 12 months put admins up for 'decertification'. Could make removal of admin status subject to the same sort of consensus as gaining the status in the first place. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Perhaps with an excusal mechanism (as in jury selection)... it should be easier to deadmin someone than admin them, but admin should not be "for life". If the mechanisms for deadminning are corrected, term limits may not be necessary. An admin that has made a lot of enemies??? Maybe that admin needs a break, let someone else step up. We're here to write an encyclopedia and an ex admin can still write good articles. ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
6. While this is a logistical nightmare (making this an agree in principle but neutral in the real world^TM), I think this would probably be the best way to make deadminning easier. There has to be some sort of accountability. And regarding the potential for trolling, that's what 'crats are for, right? Besides, I view the presence of trolls as another defect that has to be corrected -- they're not being taken care of by the dispute resolution process. Johnleemk | Talk 13:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Maybe put people on admin probation for a year. (I think they do that at .de.wikipedia.) If the extra buttons have gone to someone's head that will have shown after a year. Pilatus 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Perhaps an open comments page for each admin, to which any editor can post, to be reviewed periodically by bureaucrats (or some group appointed to the task). The Witch 19:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Given the current hierarchy between admins and non-admins and lack of checks and balances some reconfirmation or even re-election process should happen semi-infrequently. zen master T 21:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Kevin baas 21:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Probably the easiest way to make de-admining easier than admining, an automatic community vote bypasses the obstacles of arbcom or what-have-you. The community is the proper check. Should be fairly infrequent, as voting consumes time. I like the idea of a comment page for each admin - and I think the periodic reconfirmations should be on that comment page, so people are informed about the admin they're discussing and checking. To counter a common argument made in the disagree vote - so what if an admin gets wrongly deadmined? There are plenty of others to pick up the mop and continue mopping the floor. It's no big deal. On the other hand, if an administrator abusing their powers is not desysoped, that is a big deal.
11. Yes, at the moment they feel like they belong to an elite caste and they are almost untouchable. There is almost no accountability. CalJW 17:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
12. 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.--A Y Arktos 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Yes, but it should be periodic reconfirmation by bureaucrats, not by editors. Goes with the way some places handle judges: elect by people, confirm by appellate judges. Who knows better than the folks that have to clean up your messes! --William Allen Simpson 23:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
14. 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. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Agree --Revolución (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Agree, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
17. 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. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 03:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
18. 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. Eivind^t@c 11:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Agree - six months to a year, with a period of non-eligibility before re-application. For great justice. 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Agree -- adminship should have a fixed term (e.g. 1 year), with a requirement for re-RFA. -- Gnetwerker 19:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Absolutely. If not that, then at least empower burocrats, and let burocrats be reelected with short terms. Absolute power that admins have spoils absolutely. BabaRera 04:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
22. 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? Sarge Baldy 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Yes. ugen64 03:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (periodic reconfirmation)

1. Even the best admins make enemies over the course of carrying out their duties. --Interiot 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. No automatic "votes of confidence" every X months/years, but improve the enforcement options for temp/permanent de-adminning. -- nae'blis _(talk)
3. This leaves it far too open to rampant bad faith actors for it to be immediately binding. I would support some kind of regular review of actions that would then be evaluated by, say, ArbCom or a committee of peers as to whether the comments reveal anything that needs acting on. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I don't think that this is necessary at this time. ^BlankVerse 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Bad idea. violet/riga (t) 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. A logistical nightmare (how do you run votes to reapprove 600 admins? how often?) and an unnecessary one. Arbcom can deal with the bad apples. This would do little more than provide a soapbox for trolls to better attack their targets. Gamaliel 19:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. no. why waste the time? the vast majority of admins raise no questions. plus, it's an invitation for those angry at a (proper) use of admin powers to cause trouble. it there's a legitimate complaint, arbcom should handle it. that's why they exist. Derex 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. If the above were to go through, why waste the time on this? A bad admin should hopefully float to the top and be censured by other means. --Syrthiss 19:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. We shouldn't make all admins be reconfirmed because a few may be questionable. Deal with the problem admins and avoid the circus that hundreds of reconfirmations would lead to. Carbonite | Talk 19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. This is a remedy seeking for a problem. I don't see how this is practicable. Generally, the more you edit, the more people have a thing against you. --Ghirla | talk 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Performing admin tasks doesn't necessarily lead to being popular... "Bad" admins should be desysopped by other means --pgk^(talk) 19:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Soft disagreement. --Durin 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
13. I'm opposed to beauty contests anyway. Good admins do what is right for Wikipedia, not what will keep them sweet with the groupies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Because no one would elect me the second time ;)  Grue  20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Per the above. —Nightstallion (?) 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Absoultly Not, If we do that, more than half of our admins will be desyruped because of the pouplar rule, damaging wikipedia badly, A complete waste of time --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
17. I use to think reconfirmation good, but now think de-adminning after rogue action and the freedom to RfA is better. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-17t22:41z
18. Forget it. That would be a chance for all these disruptive users that you have blocked, to do a Jihad on you. No way. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Voting is evil. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
20. I strongly disagree with this one. Admins are going to make unpopular decisions and having to come up for a vote and defend your actions on even the most minor of things is pointless and time-consuming. If the problem is big enough than it should be taken to Arbcom. Sue Anne 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
21. In theory, this is a good idea; in practice, it means that users with an axe to grind are going to be able to get even good, uncontroversial admins de-adminned. JYolkowski // talk 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
22. This would lead to corruption. Admins should be treated like supreme court justices - elected for life. Otherwise the admin cabal would engage in "you scratch my back..." - which it essentially does since any user who's up for an RFA votes support on every other RFA, usually with no stated reason. freestylefrappe 01:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Hell no, as above. enochlau (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
24. No! More wasted time and more division amongst wikipedians. A bad idea. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Nope. The best way to make enemies is to be an admin. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Leads to too much time spent on RFA voting on a large wiki like the English Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Absolutely no ! This is a pure waste of time (almost 800 admins and the number is still growing) and a possible cause of division. JoJan 09:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
28. This would be a real invitation for a flame war, given that admins are likely to have pissed some people off, rightly so or otherwise. No way. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
29. cj | talk 15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Maybe, just maybe in the case of an admin who's abused the tools, otherwise it'll just feed the trolls. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Waste of time, would be incredibly disruptive. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong disagree. While I agree that deadminning should be made easier, I strongly disagree with this option. The "heavily active" admins are bound to make enemies with their actions, and these admins are bound to fail any reconfirmation of admin status. --Deathphoenix 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
33. Disagree. This option will just make a longer process. Agree with Titoxd. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
34. 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. - Taxman ^Talk 23:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
35. Too aggressive. Wikipedia Un-Administratorlike Activities Committee, anyone? --tomf688^{talk} 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
36. Disagree. POV pushers etc would have a great time with this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
37. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
38. FeloniousMonk 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
39. As above. Guettarda 03:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
40. Sorry, no. NSLE _(T+C) 08:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
41. Instruction creep, and a huge waste of time. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
42. Admins should be subject to recall - to desysopping - but if there's no problem, there's no need to revote. Warofdreams talk 12:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
43. likely to depress those peaceful, non-combattive admins that are most needed.
44. 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). - ulayiti (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
45. Make it easier for Arbcomm (or Bcrat) to de-sysop, but don't hold monthly polls. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 08:58Z
46. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
47. There are too many admins. Conscious 10:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
48. Nice Idea, but, for example, if 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. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
49. Disagree, not necessary as they have already been through RfA. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
50. 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. --InShaneee 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
51. Disagree, unless admins keep abusing their powers continuously. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
52. 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. Stifle 09:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
53. Not a good idea at all. --Terence Ong 10:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
54. Too much trouble and would lead to a popularity contest. Use only in the case of problem-admins. -- nyenyec ☎ 18:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
55. Tedious waste of time. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
56. It would create more problems than it would solve. Ex-admins would likely feel alienated by the community.--ragesoss 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
57. Time is better used editing. feydey 13:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
58. This will just waste good admins' time. — Omegatron 04:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
59. 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 products with exparation dates... :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
60. 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. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
61. 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. — brighterorange (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
62. No need for this, would result in a lack of bold edits because everyone would be too afriad of the next pending rfa.
63. No. If you were good the first time, you're good until ArbCom kicks you off. (Which should be more often). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Disagree for some of the reasons already stated. DarthVader 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
65. Disagree. This would solve little, and would only burden us with another process. (In addition of course to the possibilties of abuse). --maru (talk) contribs 06:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
66. 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. --Knucmo2 00:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
67. per Tony Sidaway. Admins can block; this makes enemies. Admins can protect pages; we always protect the wrong version. Etc. The better the admin the more likely you've stepped on someone's toes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
68. 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". --Cyde↔Weys 23:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
69. 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... Grandmasterka 03:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
70. Not a good idea, wastes a lot of time. A community-based process would be better. --Zoz (t) 14:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (periodic reconfirmation)

1. Applying to all admins is too strong, but reconfirmation would make sense for controversial cases, if we can agree on some measure of when such a reconfirmation is appropriate. Dragons flight 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Being an admin makes you a target for problematic users. There should however be a voluntary process for this but making all admins go through it would be extremely problematic. -- Francs2000 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
   • A voluntary process would not help, because those controversial admins for which it would actually be (close to) necessary would simply decline to volunteer for the process. Radiant_>|< 12:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. 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.-gadfium 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support in principle, but would be a logistical nightmare to do so. - Mailer Diablo 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
5. 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. ~MDD4696 02:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

   Sarge Baldy, His voluntary re-affirmation of adminship. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the info. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

7. 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.GRBerry 16:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Depends on the process envisioned. Admins could be reRfA'd for cause but not automatically every $TIME_PERIOD. Eluchil404 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Not exactly another "RfA", but rather more of an editor review-like process to confirm that the admin is not causing problems. --Gray Porpoise 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abstain

1. As a serving admin I abstain from thispart of the vote. Hiding talk 23:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Agree (community based de-adminning)

1. Provided that some form of suffrage is instituted to keep from ballot stuffing against the admin that happened to ban you. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Adminship is no big deal. It should be no big deal to lose it, either. android79 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Taking it away should be somewhere near as easy as granting it. Of course, if things are working properly, de-admining should happen quite a bit less frequently than adminning. Evaluating the results might require careful analysis, but that's why we have b'crats. Friday (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. ArbCom's already said they are not the body to handle this. --Durin 19:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Yes, properly constructed, such a process would be good for the community. Preferably with some option of temp power removal as above, so it is not an all-or-nothing process. Dragons flight 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Absolutely. Arbcom has been given an opportunity to handle such issues, and the results are clearly not satisfactory to the community. I'm confident we can come up with a process that will not risk the horror stories feared by its opponents. Minimum edit counts (1000, perhaps?), a cooling-off period of a week between the action and the filing, requiring multiple users with separate grievances - there are a lot of ways we can have a sensible, community-oriented process without degenerating into a circus of vandals and trolls. Hopefully, it will not have to be used often. Out of our 700 or so admins, I expect between 6 and 12 to lose their adminship if such a process is implemented. These will be our most controversial admins, and on the whole our project will be better off without these powers in their hands. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. If overwhelming amounts of people are citing that a admin has a problem, then there's a problem. its become increasingly difficult to de-sysop even the most incompetent of admins. -Zero^Talk 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Wikipedia moves through consensus, not mob rule and beauty contests. Hiding talk 21:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. If arbcom was handling this efficiently, we wouldn't be voting on this. If sysoping is no big deal, neither should desysop. Tintin Talk 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. The problem with arbcom is not that it doesn't do a good job, but that it's the only venue for doing any job at all. The community should have some kind of mechanism to bring resolution to most problems, including the possibility of arbcom-style remedies like desysopping, article bans and probation in addition to "banning by consensus." Demi ^T/_C 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Un-popular admins are more harmful then helpful.--God of War 22:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Agree, but it should not be a community vote. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. This needs to be sorted way before it gets to arbcom. We just need to make sure this doesn't become a target for vandals and problem users to take up a genuine admin's editing time. -- Francs2000 00:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Some process is needed. Perhaps a recall petition like mechanism? ArbComm has enough to do, not sure they can or will do it. ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. ArbCom is swamped most days, so perhaps this should be the solution. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Agree, but this does need to be based on consensus, as again, it is possible for the admin's newfound enemies to railroad this. It should also be possible for admins to ask around for support. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
17. ArbCom's not doiing it, and when they do do it they send 'em back to the masses anyway *cough* Hiding *cough*. Let's cut out the middle man. - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Free-wheeling admins create a lot of bad will. If someone is continuously abusing his editing powers he'll eventually get banned. If someone is continuously abusing the extra buttons he should get to hand them in. Pilatus 18:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
19. 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.
20. 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 privileges. zen master T 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
21. If the community at large is responsible for "electing" admins, why are they not allowed to realize they made a mistake and correct it? Mo0[talk] 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Agree per Mo0; It's like a recall; if someone isn't doing the community good, then take their power tools away. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 01:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Yeah. - ulayiti (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Admins are granted their powers by community support, and should keep them for only as long as they maintain that support. ArbCom can adjudicate specific disputes, but it cannot decide the more general question of community support—only the community itself can do that. The details need discussion, but one approach would be to use a Requests for reconfirmation page for initial evaluation. If a request generates significant support there, it can proceed to RfA, where actual reconfirmation would occur. Tim Smith 16:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
26. 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? Conscious 10:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Yes. ArbCom has too many conflicts of interest. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
28. 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. Cactus.man ✍ 10:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Yes, although the devil is in the details. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Agree, but with properly laid out rules. -- nyenyec ☎ 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
31. 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. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
32. 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? — Omegatron 04:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Absolutely. --Revolución (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
34. 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. moink 04:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
35. 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. — Dzonatas 19:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
36. Of course. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 05:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
37. Of course. For great justice. 19:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Term limits? Elizmr 01:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
39. Strong agree. Much better than the current RfAr deadminning process. Sarge Baldy 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
40. +1. -- Omniplex 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Yes. ugen64 03:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
42. 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. --Zoz (t) 15:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (community based de-adminning)

1. Take it to Arbcom. Gamaliel 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. arbcom. Derex 19:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree, Arbcom --pgk^(talk) 19:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. A beauty contest judged by a mob. Not the kind of Wikipedia I want to see. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Please no. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. This would create mass ganging up, rousing the troups, mobilising the base, etc. Basically, it woould create chaos as everyone got their Wikifriends to support their views. Harro5 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. ArbCom needs to handle these. This would lead to realy ugly disputes, nothing is worth that. Rx StrangeLove 21:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Per Tony Sidaway, and → ArbCom. —Nightstallion (?) 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Yikes, no way. ArbCom, please. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • If you don't mind my asking, you support the idea of an RFC with "teeth", below. What kind of teeth are you referring to, if not (among other things) the ability to remove privileges being abused from those abusing them? Demi ^T/_C 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
     • Actually, you bring up an interesting point. Now that I think about it, a desysop-process could in fact prove to be useful, assuming that it is kept under control (read: no torches and pitchforks without a permit) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
       • Call me naïvely optimistic, but I think a "community-based process" need not necessarily be "pile the hell on, vent your spleen and get an admin desysopped." Demi ^T/_C 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Arb com --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
11. We need a specific body to handle this... not arbcom (which is already overworked), and not a public mauling.  ALKIVAR™ 23:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Easily abused, so no, leave it to ArbCom, or as Alkivar says, some other panel. NSLE _(T+C) 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Not unless problems are identified with the current process for deadminship. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Arbcom has been able to remove admins in the past and I don't think they are going to make the mistake of refureing the problem to WP:RFA again.Geni 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Same problems as with "All admins should be subject to periodic reconfirmation of their admin status". I think abuse of admin powers is a complex issue that involves examining a variety of documents in detail, and only a dedicated body like the arbcom is able and trusted to do that. enochlau (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Arbcom, arbcom, arbcom. This has the same problems as the above proposal. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Not really, I have a feeling this will wind up being a "lynch mob". Perhaps best to leave temporary desysoppings to bureaucrats and permanent removals to the ArbCom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
18. I would leave it to arbcom. Otherwise, deadminsip procedure would degenerate into a RfC-style circus. --Ghirla | talk 08:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Arbcom. - FrancisTyers 15:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Don't feed the trolls, we need a body to do this, possibly ArbCom. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Take it to Arbcom. -- Arwel (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Arbcom. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
23. There be ARR-bcom ahead maties! --Deathphoenix 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Arb. We don't need vandals and other enemies of an admin to do this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Nope, too tempting for mob rule and vendetta campaigns by juvenile trolls. The Witch 19:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
26. 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. - Taxman ^Talk 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Arbitration committee. --tomf688^{talk} 00:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
28. Far to easy to abuse. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Let's just give trolls a "De-admin" button and be done with it. FeloniousMonk 03:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Agree with Felonious, above. Neutrality^talk 03:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Guettarda 03:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
32. ArbCom or similar is the appropriate way to handle removal of administrator rights.-gadfium 23:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
33. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
34. ArbCom - there aren't that many cases that NEED deadminning Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
35. Arcbom. - Mailer Diablo 18:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
36. Acrmob. Too much community based voting as is :-) - The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
37. That's what ArbCom is for. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
38. Lynch mobs? No thanks. --Doc ^ask? 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
39. Ditto Doc glasgow. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
40. Hmm... Mob deadminship is like capital punishment for attempted suicide, fundemetaly illogical. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
41. We need bold admins - who notify other admins when they take controversial actions, and should not be punished for upsetting a group of users. Trödel•talk 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
42. It's all too easy for a good admin to wind people up. Definitely a mob justice scenario could arise. --kingboyk 13:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Fix arbcom instead, if needed. — brighterorange (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
44. good god no! we all know about the tyranny of the majority. Can you imagine a sockpuppet mob de-mopping a good admin? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Arbcomm. One has to hope that the arbcomm will do the right thing if there is a problematic admin. DarthVader 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
46. 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". --Cyde↔Weys 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (community based de-adminning)

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

    As an example of the above, look at the Arbcom elections. Some of the most controversial administrators are (or were) running, and received significantly less than 50% support. Often, their refusal to abide by consensus in their administrative actions (including wheel warring) was specifically cited by voters as a reason for opposition. Certainly, the standards for Arbcom are (or should be) higher than for ordinary adminship, but looking at the elections provides a pretty good rough indication of which administrators are too controversial to operate effectively and which ones have lost the confidence of the Wikipedia community. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

11. 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. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
12. 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 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.

    Or something like that. You get the idea. For now, ArbCom is probably the only real option, but motions for summary desysopping should be default in cases of sysop abuse. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

13. How about recall voting style? If a good number of people want a recall vote (say five or ten or so), then a vote discussion for consensus occurs. If about a simple majority think the admin should be de-adminned, the admin ought to be. joturner 20:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

[edit] Bureaucrats should not be on the Arbitration Committee

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

[edit] Agree (bureaucrats on ArbCom)

1. In my opinion, Bureaucrats nor Admins should be on the ArbCom. I think that if an admin is eleccted to ArbCom, that his admin rights should be revoked, as a potential conflict of interest. Same goes for Bureaucrats. --^demon 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Admins have important tools, such as seeing deleted revisions of pages, etc. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree per demon. --badlydrawnjeff 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree. ^BlankVerse 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. agree. choose one or the other. there are enough good users to fill these positions independently. i suppose it's ok to still be a bureaucrat, so long as you don't use the privileges while on arbcom. Derex 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. per Derex.  Grue  20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree, have one or the other. Spread the roles around. enochlau (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. 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. -- Kjkolb 12:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Too much concentration. I'm sure we can find lots of interested people for both jobs. - ulayiti (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Of course. Just because There Is No Cabal doesn't mean we should create one. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
10. 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. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Somewhat agree. Conflict of interest/power too concentrated. — Omegatron 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
12. 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 Almightys. Arbcoms only responsibly is to resolve disputes, any other problem should have their own process. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
13. 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. --maru (talk) contribs 06:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (bureaucrats on ArbCom)

1. Bureaucrats have very little more power than admins.Geni 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Not to mention that there is no cabal. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   The first rule of the cabal is "You do not talk about the cabal." The second rule of the cabal is...--God of War 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Don't think 'crats should have to be de-crat'd to become arbitors (or vice versa) --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. If you've been elected as a bureaucrat, you've already demonstrated your ability to handle conflicts of interest. (And if you haven't, that's an indication that something's seriously wrong with the admin/b'crat nomination and election process, which won't be fixed by decreeing that b'crats can't be on ArbCom.) --Aaron 18:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. There is only a need for separation when one position can benefit another position. This almost always not the case with Arbcom and and admin duties. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Disagree, per above. I don't see why it would be a conflict of interest. --Syrthiss 19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Per Reflex Reaction, separation of power is normally to ensure checks and balances, as the positions don't particularly overlap there is no such requirement for checks and balances. It might be different if a large number of arbcom members were bureaucrats (ability to desysop and to prevent re-sysopping) --pgk^(talk) 19:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Bureaucrats are pretty much the same kind of people who make good arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Dragons flight 20:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Zero^Talk 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
11. I don't see the conflict here. B'crats basically are admins who can also clsoe RfA's. Usually an RfA is pretty clear-cut, adn the closure is prtty mechanical. if the issue realy becomes a jusdgemetn call, and the closer is also on the arbcom, than that clsoer should perhaps refuse if soemone involved in that RfA comes before the Arbcom, but this is no more of a problem than soemone whith whom an arbvom member might have been having a content dispute or other personal interaction. Unless we ban arbs from all wiki-activity except the arbcom, conflicts can and will happen, that is what recusal is for. DES ^(talk) 21:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Agree with Geni --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
13. I disagree that there is a conflict of interest. Sue Anne 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Disagree, arbcom needs these powers to do their job. No way to check user, look at deleted pages, etc... otherwise.  ALKIVAR™ 23:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Why not? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
16. I don't see a conflict of interests, personally. -- Francs2000 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Why exclude potentially good arbitors --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
18. 'crats maybe shouldn't do day to day admin stuff, but no reason to exclude from ArbComm. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
19. I'm not really sure what good this would cause. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
20. I disagree that this is a problem, as bureaucrats are already held to a high standard. Serving on ArbCom, while an additional duty, shouldn't provoke an immediate conflict of interest accusation. -- nae'blis _(talk) 05:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
21. No good reason to stop this because their tasks are unrelated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Any crat is there because they have good mediation and neutrality skills. Or is that not the sort of thing we want on the ArbCom? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
23. What the others said. Johnleemk | Talk 13:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Not a good idea, I'm sure it won't interfere with their other duties. --Terence Ong 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Tasks don't conflict. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Wikipedia doesn't need separation of powers, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Because of the trust involved in becoming one, I would argue that bureaucrats are more qualified. Bureaucrats have a very specific subset of tools, I don't see how these tools becomes a conflict of interest with being on the Arbcom. --Deathphoenix 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
28. No conflict for anyone who's truly qualified. The Witch 19:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Should be no conflict. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Guettarda 03:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Don't see a problem.-gadfium 23:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
32. I see no conflict. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
33. 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. --Toffile 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
34. bureaucrats don't have any particular powers that would given them a conflict of interest. Kingturtle 06:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
35. But bureaucrat-arbitrators should not use bureaucrat powers to enforce arbcom rulings. —Guanaco 02:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
36. 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. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
37. 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. --kingboyk 13:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Will have no conflict. --Terence Ong 11:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
39. I see no conflict, and a problem with the concentration of power. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
40. There is no conflict of interest. DarthVader 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
41. No problems, no conflict of interests, nothing wrong with it. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Wha.....?! --Cyde↔Weys 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
43. Bureaucrats are Wikipedia's most highly valued and trusted editors, we should not need to worry about them! Viva La Vie Boheme 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
44. 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. --Gray Porpoise 03:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (bureaucrats on ArbCom)

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

[edit] Requests for comment is not taken seriously enough

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

[edit] Agree (RFCs)

1. Myself. RFC's main problem is that it doesn't have any actual teeth to it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes. I have suggested RFCs with remedies in the past; it was considered very unpopular. Demi ^T/_C 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Linuxbeak hit it on the head. That's especially true for article based rfcs, which are basically just "go to the talk page". Karmafist 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. This is indeed a problem. I would say that article RFCs do work most of the time (they don't if they are ignored, ill-conceived or in a relatively unknown area), but people RFCs generally don't work at all. Some degenerate into personal attacks, many are filed in bad faith, and the majority are mostly ignored or disregarded by their subject. Radiant_>|< 23:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Strongly agree. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
6. It's seen as a necessary bit of paperwork before full arbcom imo -- Francs2000 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree. Those in power need to learn that community opinion matters here.--God of War 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Agree as per Linuxbeak and Karmafist. — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Agree per Radiant. Nifboy 02:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. We need some way to make the subject pay attention to them. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Currently, RFC's on specific admins are turning into heated, emotional diatribes instead of offering real solutions. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Agree. A two-day-old RFC was ignored when the ArbCom grabbed me. (SEWilco 04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
13. Agree. Perhaps it should be turned into a lower court, with ArbCom being a Supreme Court, to make a legal analogy. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Agree with Radiant and several others. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
15. I don't see how this is related to admin accountability, but IMHO RFC is often a circus for trolls whose purpose is to intimidate well-established wikipedians opposing their views. I can't take this seriously, and I know that many others feel the same way too. --Ghirla | talk 08:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Agree per Tito. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Francs is on the money.... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 12:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Ditto Francs. I have never seen a user or admin RfC that wasn't subliminally implying "Sigh...when do we go to arbcom?" (And this includes RfCs I've filed. ;-)) WRT article RfCs, I doubt they hurt, but I don't know how much they help. Johnleemk | Talk 13:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Yes. — mark ✎ 14:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
20. User RfCs rarely accomplish their goal given the circus like atmosphere that tends to preside; either the dispute is already out of control, people pile-on based on POV or trolls make a bad-faith RfCs. Many article RfCs are ignored. Just not functioning in its current incarnation. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
21. User RFC is probably the worst, most useless process on Wikipedia (with the possible exception of deletion review). Article RFCs are flat-out ignored (at least in my experience). As stated by many others, RFC is often considered a prelude to arbitration, rather than a serious attempt at dispute resolution in and of itself. It's also a forum for venting grievances, which makes it inherently problematic. What is worst of all is that with all the venting, there are no actual consequences. A few of the most controversial administrators have openly declared contempt for extensively certified RFCs against them. Result? Nothing happened. What's the point of even having RFC if it is simply useless paperwork that serves as an opportunity for people to get even angrier? Even keeping discussions within the bounds of civility is almost impossible in some cases. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
22. They are a waste of bytes and when the RFC is done it tells what everyone knew already. Pilatus 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
23. As above, RfCs are wontedly a waste of everyone's time though they shouldn't be. The Witch 19:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Kevin baas 20:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Agree, but it's all in how you treat it. If RfC comes up with a consensus then simply enforce that consensus. This would probably require a stronger consensus in the RfC, but if that develops and a user continues to violate it despite polite admonishment, then they could fall under the disruption clause for blocking. If that consensus never materializes then either ignore the behavior or take it to arbcom. Yes I reallize the difficulty is in who decides the consensus, but that could be worked out fairly easily I think. - Taxman ^Talk 23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Agreed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
28. This one I can support. RFC doesn't need teeth - it just needs more uninvolved people who are willing to read about disputes and offer their help in resolving them. Currently, few people who aren't already part of the dispute read/endorse/discuss RFCs. Rhobite 04:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
29. It seems that way, aye. —Nightstallion (?) 12:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
30. RFC as it is now is completely useless. - ulayiti (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
32. Duh. - Mailer Diablo 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
33. I've seen little evidence of the RfC process being effective. Kaldari 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
34. Yes. This may involve giving RfCs some teeth, not quite as pointy as ArbCom's. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
35. Agree. What's the point of wasting time on something that isn't enforcable. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
36. 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. --InShaneee 03:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
37. User RFCs are just dress rehearsals for RFArbs. -- nyenyec ☎ 18:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
38. 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. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
39. — Omegatron 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
40. 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")

    --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

41. Agree. --Revolución (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
42. Agree. They seem to be rather pointless. --kingboyk 13:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Agree. --Terence Ong 11:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
44. Agree. Sceptre ^(Talk) 13:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Agree. It's really frustrating. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
46. 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. Raphael1 03:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
47. RFCs are worthless. --Cyde↔Weys 23:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
48. Agree. ugen64 03:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (RFCs)

1. RFCs are a pointless waste of time and energy. That said, RFCs should be what arbcom already is. Instead, RFCs act as trials without verdicts or become meaningless when other users not involved dont comment or cabal admins c and p what their friends already lied about. freestylefrappe 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. It's taken far too seriously really. It's just a way of getting a lot of heads discussing an issue, but it's often seen as a kind of mini-arbcom. I haven't seen a useful RfC in a couple of months now, I think they may be a casualty of this neverending September. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Flawed proceedure - far too polemical and pointless. Many are ignored, and most should be. --Doc ^ask? 19:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (RFCs)

1. I tend to think that people forget that these are requests for comment so that the subject can see what the community thinks, and then change their behaviour to meet community norms. People tend to see them as just a means of escalating dispute resolution. Having said that, if someone gets lots of RfCs against them, it may be an indicator of significant problems. In that light, I think it would make sense to add a punitive aspect for someone who gets multiple RfCs (e.g. maybe have Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship require three certified RfCs over the past year among other things). JYolkowski // talk 01:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. The one RFC that I've submitted received useful comments, and I think I learnt something from them. I think it should be more a learning process than a punishment process. enochlau (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. It's more that they are taken TOO seriously (by the community) leading to a lot of heat and bad feelings, and not seriously enough (by the person being commmented on). They're broken but I'm not sure what the fix is. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. RFCs seem to frequently descend into inconclusive ranting against the person or people in question. This sort of mass expression of hostility is not healthy for either the person in question, or the people who participate. It is polarizing, degrading, and simply nasty. --FOo 04:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Fubar Obfusco is wise. -- nae'blis _(talk) 05:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. The only thing a personal RFC is these days is a huge waste of time for everyone involved, except that it may uncover more evidence before going to the next step of Arbitration. There needs to be something before going to Arbitration but RFC are not it. All they are is blatherings, obfuscations, personal attacks and venues for vendettas. ^BlankVerse
6. Agree with both Lar and Fubar. Jonathunder 22:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
7. 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. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
8. They should probably be limited to articles, not users.--ragesoss 23:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

   True - user RFCs just descend into pointless flamewars Cynical 22:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

9. 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. GRBerry 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Per JYolkowski. --Gray Porpoise 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Yes, the bureaucrats (other de-adminning)

1. 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. - Taxman ^Talk 23:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. 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. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, create a new group of functionaries for this (who deals with de-adminning)

1. Absolutely, and have them rotate frequently so nobody can blackmail others with this power. Karmafist 04:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree per Karmafist Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Someone has to do it. Pilatus 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. 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. The Witch 19:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. I've expressed this elsewhere. If de-adminning is entirely in the hands of ArbCom, you get conflicts of interest. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 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). --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Yes. ugen64 03:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (other de-adminning)

1. What has the ArbCom done that has everyone hating it so much? Leave this stuff to a well-defined and established system. Can't we have just a little bit of order around here? Harro. 5 02:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. No more stuff. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. The 'crats should do the actual mechanics work (promote them if necessary). Not sure that removing this power from ArbComm is the right way to go. Would rather see them use it more, not less ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Why? There's enough bureaucracy as it is. — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Then we would have another cabal to blame. With consensus everyone is responsible.--God of War 05:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
6. No need to multiply panels. Leave it to ArbCom as per votes cast above. --Ghirla | talk 08:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Leave it to ArbCom, with stewards/devs doing the technical stuff. It's not like it should be a regular thing, if it is then we're in trouble. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 18:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Arbcom is fine for this. --Deathphoenix 18:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. The arbcom should be strengthened, not weakened. Chick Bowen 01:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Arbcom is doing quite well with this at the moment, no change is needed. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
12. 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. - ulayiti (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
14. ArbCom is fine. --kingboyk 13:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (other de-adminning)

1. ArbCom should still be able to de-admin. Bureaucrats should be given the power, but stewards would have to do the actual de-adminning, as bureaucrats do not have the technical power, and it's unlikely that the devs would change this for us (like with the rollback thing). I think maybe a straw poll should be used to gauge community consensus, active bureaucrats should determine what they feel to be the consensus at the end, publically comment, and if they agree to desysop, then they list it on requests for permissions. Or we could just hire Chuck Norris to arrive, and beat the cruft out of the admin until they post for voluntary desysopping on requests for permissions. The previous sentence was a joke, but the rest of the vote is not. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. ArbCom has certain situations when they should be active, and they make decisions in those situations. There is nothing in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy that they are the body to affect Admins in other situations. (SEWilco 04:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
3. Giving desysop permissions to bureaucrats is actually quite easy, from a technical standpoint, so if it is wanted, it can be done (just like with the rollback privileges, the Devs don't want to do it until we're sure we really want it). Another good idea would be to get Rambo to beat up rogue admins, too. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. 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. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
5. I probably would have, had I voted something else on this question. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 12:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. ^BlankVerse 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
7. See my comments at #Other (community based de-adminning) above. It should be a community process, but a more rigidly-controlled and sensible one. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
8. 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. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
9. ArbCom, Danny, and Jimbo. The status quo. --Cyde↔Weys 00:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More users should have m:checkuser rights

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

[edit] Agree (checkuser rights)

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

   depending on the ISP that isn't completely true.Geni 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Your IP address is extremely accessible on the internet as is, and only in one case does blocking your IP actually make sense, and thats IRC (since DoS attacks are a problem there. I doubt that any admin with checkuser rights would DoS a user. Otherwise its something that doesn't even belong to you. Your name/address cannot be had from an IP without a court order.I don't see why wikipedia treats it like a SIN number is all. Maybe i'm missing something however. Mike _{(T C)} 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

   If someone is editing from AOL, they will go through a 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. ^BlankVerse 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

3. I'd like to see some people independant of the arbcom have it. Dan100 (Talk) 20:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
4. DUH! See the 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. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Strongest possible support. Please read over 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. ~ PseudoSudo 02:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
6. 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 NPOV and 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. — brighterorange (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Admins should have checkuser rights as part of the admin process. Or, alternatively, it could be a sub-position between admin and crat.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
8. 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. JoshuaZ 02:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Agree...all admins should have checkuser access. DarthVader 02:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Not all admins should have it, but more people than currently have it should have it. --Cyde↔Weys 00:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
11. It's a useful tool, and one that should be more available. Sarge Baldy 23:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Yes. ugen64 03:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (checkuser rights)

1. Don't see a real need for it. Johnleemk | Talk 13:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. No friggin' way. When the expansion of checkuser privileges was proposed, I could see the possibility that it could easily be abused. Although things seem to have settled down now, I saw several cases in the beginning that looked more like fishing expeditions rather than valid checkuser checks, as the persons who had checkuser rights played with their new toy. There is absolutely no reason to expand checkuser priledges beyond those who currently have it. IPs can, for example, reveal which the company where a person works, which dorm they are in at school, etc. I know there have been at least two cases where there were threats to go to editor's employer over an editor's behavior. ^BlankVerse 14:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. No way. This would encourage admin abuse and controversial blocks, and we have too much of this crap already. --Ghirla | talk 15:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Not sure why more users would need this unless some sort of backlog exists that I'm not aware of. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, there is getting to be backlog here. As I mentioned below, this might be something which can be solved without giving access to additional users. However, there does need to be a fairly rapid response (6-12 hours, in my opinion) to legitimate requests for sockpuppet checks. Carbonite | Talk 16:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

5. No need. CheckUser is only supposed to be applied under specific circumstances. --Deathphoenix 18:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Arbcomm members shouldn't have it. There should be a separate group appointed directly by Wales who agree to spend a certain amount of time per week working on the requests. The Witch 20:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. No way. An IP address isn't some kind of instant poison but no one who doesn't know what they're doing should have access to this, and this is and should be enforced by Foundation policy, not "consensus" or any other community process. We already have admins doing IP and range blocks who aren't familiar with IP addressing, let's not make this worse by having people who don't understand the nature, persistence, reliability and meaning of the information they get from CheckUser going around making accusations. Demi ^T/_C 22:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Private information such as a user's IP address needs more protection, not less. zen master T 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. 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. - Taxman ^Talk 03:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
10. I don't see any good reason for this. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
11. 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 targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers - opening access to "check user" may lead to this policy not being upheld as strictly as I and others may read it.--A Y Arktos 21:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Should not be widespread: too much potential for abuse. Jonathunder 23:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Disagree - dangerous potential for abuse of privacy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 09:00Z
14. 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. Mozzerati 15:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Disagree --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Strongly disagree. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
18. 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.--ragesoss 00:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Absolutely not. This would be a total violation of privacy. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Disagree. I see no reason. --Alvin-cs ✉ 18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
21. 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. --kingboyk 13:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
22. It is very difficult to even justify the existence of checkuser 'rights', extending them is just not on Cynical 21:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
23. 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. BabaRera 04:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
24. 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.--Andeh 09:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (checkuser rights)

1. I do think it's essential that we have more rapid sockpuppet checks. Perhaps this can be accomplished without granting CheckUser access to additional users. The problem is that ArbCom members are already extremely busy and have little time to hunt down sockpuppets. I'd support having the ArbCom (or Jimbo or the Board) grant access to a few more users, but would strongly oppose any "Request for CheckUser access" process. Carbonite | Talk 14:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I think there is room for a CheckUser light. I don't know what form it would take - perhaps something like you give it an IP and you give it a username and it says "yes this user has logged in from this IP and gives you the last date" or "no, this user has never logged in from this IP". You can find out a surprising amount of information with just an IP address. It shouldn't be necessary to know all the IPs they've logged in from. Oppose per Carbonite regarding RfCUa. - FrancisTyers 15:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. I'm in favor of designing a "CheckUser Express" tool that would be accessible to all administrators and could do sockpuppet checks without giving out actual IP information. This would be more complicated to program than ordinary CheckUser (which I understand relies on a high degree of intuition) but it would be more effective. For instance, someone might enter two user names and the tool would return a message saying: "These users are on an AOL proxy, so IP comparison is infeasible here." Or it might say "These users are from the same domain, but different IP addresses. The domain is: (whatever.net)." (If the domain was an ISP, of course, this would be inconclusive - but that's already the case with normal CheckUser). Or, of course, "These two users share the same IP address". (Maybe even "These users are on the same subnet, but not the same IP.") This information could be provided without needing to give admins access to personally identifiable information. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   This has been discussed in the past and the general consensus is that any automated solution isn't especially feasible since CheckUser is more an art than a science. There would be far too many false positives and negatives without having access to the actual IP addresses. Carbonite | Talk 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   Indeed, it often takes me half an hour of poring over CheckUser output, whois information, edits, and other content before concluding whether editor A and editor B are really the same person or not. It's not a simple yes/no question, even in cases that seem obvious. I don't think it can be automated at all. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

   You might want to take a look at my proposed implementation below. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Currently, the oversight on the use or abuse of CheckUser rights is through the other users with that right. If these are held only by a close-knit and insular group, accountability suffers. I would support some sort of expansion of the group of persons who may review the logs. My preference would be that one or more trusted persons independent of ArbCom and not personally possessing the CheckUser right be able to review the log of CheckUser actions. --Tabor 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. 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. 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. ^BlankVerse 17:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Per Carbonite. —Nightstallion (?) 12:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
7. I agree with JYolkowski. The log should be made available to all users, but the IPs should not be shown. - ulayiti (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Not sure, perhaps extend it to bureaucrats? - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
9. 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). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

   To clarify what the output would look like, based on above discussion, it would be something like
   

   Users matched on 2 IP addresses.
   
   Address 1: 17 edits by User:Account 1 (click for list), 2 edits by User:Account 2 (click for list).
   
   Address 2: 1 edit by User:Account 1 (click for list), 1 edit by User:Account 2 (click for list).

   This would be easy to produce with an automated check. And the log would just be of the form
   

   11:55, 28 January 2006 Bob compared the IPs of Sam and Jane

   —Simetrical (talk • 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. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 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. --Cedders 20:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

10. 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. — Omegatron 04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
11. 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. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
12. I like Crotalus horridus' idea. This kind of tool would be efficient in sockpuppet checks, while eliminating privacy concerns. --Gray Porpoise 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Comment As of now, image undeletion is working. [5] 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. Polonium 21:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree (intermediate user layer)

1. Per the reasoning and support on Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback. God-mode lite is good, but has its faults (slow, bigger drain on servers, compatibility problems). the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree with the wub. If this was implemented, I would want to see stricter standards for admins.-gadfium 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
3. 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. BD2412 T 21:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
4. 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". dbenbenn | talk 18:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
5. 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. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree with Cool Cat but not only for admin candidates. WriterFromAfar755 02:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
7. 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) — Dzonatas 20:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
8. 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. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 05:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Agree. Rollback. DarthVader 02:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
10. 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. --maru (talk) contribs 06:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
11. 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. Kitteneatkitten 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
12. 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. Stefan 06:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
13. 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. --Gray Porpoise 03:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There's a difference between tools and powers (intermediate user layer)

1. 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. --Interiot 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. 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". -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree with the above. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 23:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree. I want access to unwatched pages, but I'm probably a ways away from a successful RfA.--ragesoss 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
5. 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. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. — Omegatron 04:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
7. 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. Piet 08:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (intermediate user layer)

1. What for? If an admin can be entrusted to use the rollback and/or deletion, they can be entrusted to use other powers responsibly. Adding another user class just adds more bureaucracy. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Adminship should be no big deal. Johnleemk | Talk 13:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Would the new layer be "really, absolutely not a big deal?" Marskell 15:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. per above. - FrancisTyers 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Godmodelight already gives "rollback" to anyone, bureaucracy-creep anyone? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Too many layers, too much bureaucracy, too much red tape.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. The rollback button should come with blocking powers (anti vandal). The Witch 20:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. — Dan | talk 22:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Kevin baas 22:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Superfluous - does not add any functionality or checks.
10. No. The only ability that could possibly be given independently of the others is the rollback button, and what good is it if you still have to contact someone else to block a vandal? Mo0[talk] 22:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Disagree. Sue Anne 01:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
13. We already have a layer of users with a small amount of experience, who have access to the page move and page creation facilities. Why create yet more layers? Warofdreams talk 12:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
14. What for? —Nightstallion (?) 13:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Non-admins can revert quickly using Popups already, can't they? I don't see what this kind of a reform could possibly achieve. - ulayiti (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
16. More layers becomes uneeded feature creep now, especially with pretty effective tools as Godmode Lite and WP:AIV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
17. It's hard enough keeping track of who has what powers already without adding another layer. JYolkowski // talk 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
19. seems like instruction creep - more complexity for little apparent benefit Rossami (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
20. We're not trying to build a strictly hierarchic society here, are we? Conscious 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
21. meeee tooo (agree with most of the above). Any new layers should be designed to encourage people towards more advanced usage such as dbadmin / developer, if anything. Mozzerati 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Complicates process. - Mailer Diablo 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Too much red tape already. Kaldari 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
24. As I commented on the User Rollback poll, I oppose narrowing of the user hierarchy. (That is, I oppose the addition of another level to the user hierarchy because it separates users into more classes.) ~MDD4696 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
25. 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. --InShaneee 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Too complicating, as what Mailer Diablo said. --Terence Ong 10:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
27. 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? -- nyenyec ☎ 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
28. Not needed, anyone can revert, it only takes one more click than rollback. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Complicated. --Knucmo2 00:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
30. No need whatsoever. --Cyde↔Weys 02:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
31. No. Sarge Baldy 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Lots of work to implement, little or no benefit. Eluchil404 11:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Agree with Jamyskis. --Zoz (t) 15:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (intermediate user layer)

1. I don't consider rollback to be a "real" admin tool, since it basically just speeds up the process of reverting. None of the other admin tools (blocking, protection, deletion) can be undone by a non-admin. I support wider access to rollback, but not through a "Request for Rollback" procedure. I strongly oppose making admin tools available À la carte. They should remain a package that's given only to trusted users. Carbonite | Talk 13:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Rollback is a special case. Maybe it should have a "reason" field added and then be made available to all registered users, or there should be an easy way of getting it once you have a bunch of edits (but then maybe have it removable by any bureaucrat). Doling out other admin powers is very different, for the reason Carbonite states. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A blocked admin should refrain from using admin abilities

Being blocked does not technically prevent an admin from blocking, protecting, deleting or rollbacking anything. Admins can unblock themselves (which is entirely proper when, among others, hit by the autoblocker when they share an IP with a blocked user), but in several cases this is strongly frowned upon. In those cases where an admin should not unblock himself, he should also not perform any other admin actions, such as blocking or unblocking others. Block means block.

THIS POINT IS MOOT because the devs have prevented admins from doing this.

Actually, being blocked does prevent an admin from protecting, deleting, and using rollback. While blocked, the only action an admin may take is to block or unblock (in case of a block due to the autoblocker). See bug 3801. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyking, during his recent blocks, made extensive use of the rollback tool. Are you quite certain of this? Kelly Martin (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Talrias (t | e | 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. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 13:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree (blocked admins)

1. Taking advantage of this loophole is extremely bad form. Radiant_>|< 18:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I agree, with the caveat that admins are allowed to unblock themselves if hit by a "collateral damage" autoblock. Carbonite | Talk 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
3. 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. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
4. 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. Friday (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
5. 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 privileges. ^BlankVerse 19:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Of course. Admins should refrain from doing anything while they're blocked (with an exception for the autoblock problem, naturally). - ulayiti (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
7. 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. Jonathunder 23:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
8. 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). -- Kjkolb 04:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
9. I think that blocking an admin should also block him/her from using admin powers, especially unblock. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Yes, it makes sense to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Obviously Dan100 (Talk) 20:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
12. 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. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Duh. For great justice. 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
14. I would completely agree with that.If an admin is blocked, he should lose his powers also.Doctor Evil 21:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (blocked admins)

1. 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. 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. -- nae'blis _(talk) 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] --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Blocking someone should not be de-sysopping them. If blocked admins abuse their admin powers, then de-sysop them. JYolkowski // talk 22:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
3. 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Incredibly, I agree with Tony Sidaway here. Indeed, I think the fact that blocking doesn't disable the rollback function was intentional. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Depends, of course, on why the block was made. I see no problem with an admin rolling back vandalism while blocked, but of course they shouldn't rollback non-vandalism and especially not if the edits related to the reason why they are blocked. Admins mostly should not use block/unblock and protect/unprotect while blocked, mainly because they are unable to explain their actions by posting on the relevant talk pages. Admins should certainly stop acting in any wheel war when blocked.-gadfium 23:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
6. I'm happy with the way things stand. Auto IP blocks need to be avoidable. If an admin abuses the facilities by unblocking themselves, then WP:RFDA. Stifle 09:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other (blocked admins)

1. I don't see anything particularly wrong with making admins unable to unblock themsleves and having an admin ask another admin to perform an unblock. Sure, it is a minor inconvenience if your IP is accidentally blocked for some reason, but that is the case for every single non-administrative user. If it's good enough for Joe Editor, it's good enough for everyone else. Perhaps it would even be incentive to be more careful with autoblocker or aggressive IP range blocks.
   Looking at the balance, on the one side, we have the convenience of being able to unblock oneself and not having to ask someone else. On the other side, we have wheel warring and potential need for some emergency deadmin procedure if someone really loses temper and decides to be destructive. Which is more important? --Tabor 19:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   I'm a little puzzled by your comment. Admins don't place autoblocks, so I'm not quite sure what you meant that it would "be incentive to be more careful with autoblocker". This is actually the first time I've heard anyone argue that admins shouldn't be allowed to remove unintended autoblocks from themselves. Is this really what you meant? Carbonite | Talk 19:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   Did you understand the part about IP range blocks, or did you stop reading on the word "autoblocker"? --Tabor 02:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

2. If I recall correctly, Rob Church fixed the loophole already. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Well, I guess the point isn't moot anymore now that the bug is fixed. (See the top of this section.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4. 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. 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). Johnleemk | Talk 13:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

   They should be allowed to unblock themselves if they use a shared IP which frequently gets blocked for vandalism Sceptre ^(Talk) 12:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

   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). 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. 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. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

5. Except collatertal damage, otherwise get another sysop to do the unblock. - Mailer Diablo 19:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 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. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
7. 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. --Gray Porpoise 17:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Reminder

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

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

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

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

• I should also point out that the oft-overlooked counterpoint to "Voting is evil" is mb:Voting is Good. I'd encourage everybody to read that article, it's actually quite good :) Radiant_>|< 12:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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. The Witch 20:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• We have leadership now? Radiant_>|< 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• The Witch: I recommend you read this. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 06:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Letting the leadership control things unilaterally? I THOUGHT WE WERE A WIKI. --Victim of signature fascism | 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. --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. Rd232 ^talk 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with this page is that it's huge. — 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. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)