Wikipedia talk:Admin accountability poll

message: I hate edit conflicts >:( — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should not happen. The the section trick to prevent edit conflicts should work even when the entire page is edited.Geni 19:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if you do hit an edit conflict with one section, you get booted back to editing the whole page, which increases the chances you'll be in an edit conflict...and round and round we go. I hit three of these in a row earlier. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Are the section edit links broken...or off...or something? Works now, strange. Rx StrangeLove 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should simplify things: "With power,comes responsibility and accountability". Martial Law 21:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Wow, over 500 responses in less than a day, and nobody has cried VIE yet. I feel so proud :) Radiant_>|< 01:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: VIE! Avriette 02:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: WARNING!!! These are only raw numbers. These numbers are not modified to disclude sockpuppets or "neutral" votes. As such, these numbers are to be taken with a [large] grain of salt (with the exceptions of obvious cases such as wheel warring). Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those interested: polling stats as of 2006.01.18 15:17 (not official) 

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

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

message: You know, it amazes (and baffles) me that people would actually create sockpuppets for a simple poll such as this...  and . Actually this may indicate that people are afraid of retaliation for voicing their opinion (even if quite a bunch of others already voiced similar opinions). It may be a joke, or it may be disturbing... Radiant_>|< 23:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it either. What's the point of skewing results in a nonbinding poll? This is merely to gauge public sentiment. --^demon 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: We've had a bit of a lull.  I made the smallest possible start to archiving.  But any thoughts as to what next?  brenneman{T}{L}  12:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the original thought was the WP:ACC (see above), however that doesn't seem to have widespread support. The last comment made on Wikipedia talk:Administrator Code of Conduct, by Taxman, suggests making sure that existing policy pages should be clarified rather than adding more. I think that's a good point, so it might be a good idea to see if the ideas in this poll that have gained widespread consensus can be incorporated formally into existing policies. Petros471 12:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Barring opposition I will close this out later today. It's pretty clear which ideas were popular at the time of the poll. If it's desirable to reassess feelings now, an entirely new poll would be better. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'd like to see the results from this forwarded to any relevant written policies/guidelines that seem to be out of touch. -- nae'blis 21:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward 

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