Wikipedia talk:Accountability

message: Since there doesn't appear to actually have been any discussion or consensus-forming on this subject, I've removed the "guideline" tag and replaced it with "proposal". This page really reflects a few people's opinion -- what some people like -- rather than the sort of generally agreed-upon standards that we call guidelines. --FOo 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would like this  proposal escalated, though I think the project page needs a little work to make it more proposal-ish. I'll see what I can do. Agne27 02:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's clear that the first article wasn't originally written as a proposal but more as an essay of sort for an informal policy. It certainly needs more work to fashion it into a proposal, not the least is the need to make it a uniformed third personal voice throughout.Agne27 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a guideline? 

message: Wikipedia wasn't a democracy last time i checked. The words dialogue and cooperation come to mind though.. --Nnp 23:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Democracy

message: If you were to construct a view of an article by excluding random sections of its history, the result would almost certainly have unreadable noise. Remember, the non-anonymous edits are often based upon anonymous ones. You can only revert along a linear progression lest you almost certainly end up with garbage. --Apantomimehorse 06:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How could you remove anonymous changes? 

message: One idea would be to put anonymous edits on hold. The next named editor to come to the article could either accept or reject each change. This would allow typos to be found (which takes time) and fixed (quickly), but would also prevent IP vandals from adding rubbish. Stephen B Streater 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How this could be implemented 

message: This essay is just a rewording of the unwiki "No-anons" proposals on Meta. "You can edit this page right now" is a fundamental Wikipedia idea.
:Indeed. Proposals like these, if taken to their logical conclusion, would set such a high bar to entry that most "good faith" new users would be deterred from editing at all.
: Some people seem determined to turn Wikipedia into the new Nupedia (which had 24 articles to its name when it finally creaked into oblivion, its obvious lack of prolificacy being the prime reason Wikipedia was created in the first place). 217.155.20.163 00:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. I see, though I don't know Nupedia at all. I'd like to change the current Wikipedia: Accountability drastically. In my opinion, all anonymous editors should do is to write edits summaries, and to explain about their edits in talk pages when they are asked to do so. They can make public their opinions whenever they want, like you. Nobody ask you(them) to login. OK? -- JungianPPP 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done it. I've revised Wikipedia:Accountability drastically. This! :-) -- JungianPPP 10:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no way 

message: This page in its current form is almost entirely the work of a single user, who has tagged it first as  and then  without consensus to do so. Other users who have commented on the page disagreed strongly with it, wondered how it got to that state, and tagged it as . I think  is the best option here, as like essays it was written by and reflects the opinions of a single user. Please bear in mind that calling a page you wrote yourself "the most important new policy" does not make it one, and that a consensus to create a new policy, resulting from discussion with a wide range of users is needed for a proposal to be implemented – Gurch 16:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, why, when disagreed strongly with it( Wikipedia:Accountability ), wondered how it got to that state? No one did. To achieve accountability is one of common sense in advanced countries. Where do you live? I think  or  is the best option here, as like policies it was approved by and reflects the common sense of many users. In addition, I think, anybody wouldn't like to discuss with idiot guys who reject Wikipedia:Accountability as an official policy (or an guidline) of Wikipedia. In fact, it occurs not only here but anywhrere in Wikipedia. -- PBeaver 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common sense is not a reason to tag a page as policy. A lot of people have to also agree with you that it's common sense. There has to be much more discussion than this. There needs to be the clear consensus of a lot of editors shown in this talk page; and as guideline talk pages go, this one is extremely thin. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you talking about? And I didn't tag a page as policy. See next section ( #Tagged as a guideline again ). -- PBeaver 13:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This page appears to run counter to, rather than follow, what most people consider common sense. It was previously considered a "rejected proposal", it certainly does not follow that it's now policy. >Radiant< 12:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even the "rejected" version was rejected without any effort, without proper reasons and without clear consensus of a lot of editors. And the current version has been entirely revised, following what most people consider common sense. If what >Radiant< said is true, a lot of editors have already changed it appropriately. See next section ( #Tagged as a guideline again ). -- PBeaver 13:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *That is incorrect. A proposal does not become rejected by a "consensus to reject", but by the "lack of a consensus to support". See WP:POL for details. Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes to this page since June. >Radiant< 14:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged as essay 

message: I think, Wikipedia:Accountability has been automatically one of the most important official policy since May 21, 2007. -- JungianPPP 10:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What kind of status WP:ACAB should have? 

message: * Great! Support! (i myself proposed.) :-) -- JungianPPP 10:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction 

message: First, I want to point out that I don't agree with this proposal (or whatever you want to call it). Actually, I'm not sure. I might do. I'm not sure I understand what it says.
Despite this, I've tried to clear up the English and make it more correct, conventional, and readable. I hope that I've maintained the meaning to match the intent of the original contributor(s). I feel that this is necessary in order to give the proposal a fair hearing, rather than dismissing it as being badly written.
That said, it's still not very well written. I removed a few sentences or points that didn't appear to actually say anything, and I may have missed the odd bit of strained English. It still doesn't make a great deal of sense, but I think it's somewhat less opaque now. SamBC(talk) 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: PBeaver, I think it may help if you tell us, concretely, what you're trying to achieve here. If I understand you correctly, you want editors to be accountable for their actions. If that is the case, please realize that they already are accountable - first to each other, second to those with the authority to block them, and third to the ArbCom. This is already outlined in several other policy pages. If I understand the situation correctly, you believe people won't be accountable unless we have a specific accountability polciy, whereas others believe that said policy is redundant to what we already have. Is that broadly correct? >Radiant< 06:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to stick with language that's a bit more simplified, Radiant. Our friend probably won't know what "ArbCom" or even "redundant" means. No offense intended. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: * #What kind of status WP:ACAB should have?
* #Tagged as one of guidelines again
* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Do you know Wikipedia:Accountability?
* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Do you know Wikipedia:Accountability?#Round 2
* #Round 3
* #Round 4 ( Be Considered )
* #Round 5 ( Important Information Only For Decent Editors )
* #Round 6 ( There Is A Consensus That New Better Revision Should Come As Policy )
* #Round 7 ( Must Go Together )
* #Round 8 ( Recognize The Fact )
* #Round 9 ( Do It Yourself )
* #Round 10 ( YOU Yourself Demonstrate A Consensus About Its Being Policy )
* #Round 11 ( A Mass Of Contradiction )
-- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Contents For YOU GUYS/GALS 

message: ( Be Considered )
I have to make some sections because some guys still haven't realized my simple intention. My intention is not to make Vandals disgrace "the symbol of Wikipedia Accountability System", this is, Wikipedia:Accountability. Of course, I'm not a native speaker, as you know, and I can't realize why NONE of English native speakers can establish it even as a guideline. Japanese Wikipedians have already established :ja:Wikipedia:Accountability.
* GUYS like YOU ( who appear to be Vandals or potential Vandals, unfortunately ) apparently have ignored ( or haven't learned ) the most important core meaning of policy, guideline, consider, etc. If not, why can't you understand the meaning of "it is considered a guideline"? Or, why haven't you tried to understand the meaning of "it is considered a guideline" on the position of one of general decent editors?
* Of course, "it is considered" is neither "it is approved by all" nor "it is determined by votes" nor "it is licenced by Radiant!" nor "it is authorized even by Vandals". Do you understand what I'm saying?
* As far as a lot of decent editors except Vandals have practiced Wikipedia:Accountability without any complaints and without editing WP:ACAB, WE except Vandals have to admit, "it is considered a guideline or something more than a guideline."
* Therefore, the  should be put on Wikipedia:Accountability. 
* Apparently there is silent consensus of many millions on this issue. I explained it again and again. But YOU ( who have to be considered Vandals and potential Vandals ) haven't learned ( or have continued to ignore ) the core meaning of each word. -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not call other editors vandals. This is an extremely derogatory term and can be considered a personal attack. People can be considered vandals if and only if their behaviour meets the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Hut 8.5 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: PBeaver, I'm not sure if the difficulty here is with the English language, or with the English language Wikipedia. "XXX is considered a guideline" is generally understood to mean "considered by the community". A point made by one or more editors but not adopted by the community is an essay. This is the way the terms are used here. SamBC(talk) 23:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Round 4 

message: ( There Is A Consensus That New Better Revision Should Come As Policy )
* I have said from the beginning, "Please brush up Wikipedia:Accountability and make it one of fundamental official policies of Wikipedia. Obviously, few persons have edited Wikipedia:Accountability. Probably, for many editors, to achieve accountability is just one of common sense, so they didn't need to read and edit Wikipedia:Accountability from necessity. But it should be established properly by the consensus of many Wikipedians." ( Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Do you know Wikipedia:Accountability? )
: And GUYS who have maneged to lower and/or eliminate the status of Wikipedia:Accountability, this is, the symbol of "Wikipedia Accountability System", have said, for example, "The page is also very poorly written, extremely far from the level of quality usually attributed to guidelines. I fixed the overview paragraph somewhat, but it still needs much more work before you can even think about making it a guideline." ( by Equazcion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Do you know Wikipedia:Accountability? )"Pages generally need to be well-written..." ( by Equazcion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Do you know Wikipedia:Accountability?#Response )
: Therefore, the  should not be removed. -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Round 6 

message: ( Must Go Together )
* Radiant! said, "proposed" and "guideline" are mutually exclusive
* Hut 8.5 said, "it's either a guideline OR a proposal, NOT both,"
: but as I told above, BOTH must go together. So, I have to say, "It is difficult to agree with Radiant! and Hut 8.5 unfortunately."
* Hut 8.5 also said, Removing guideline tag until consensus is demonstrated
: but as I told above, consensus is demonstrated anywhere in Wikipedia from the beginning. Therefore, I have to say again, "It is difficult to agree with Hut 8.5, unfortunately."
::Consensus has to be forged on the talk page through discussion for any proposed policy or guideline, whatever the Wikipedia community has said previously. Hut 8.5 19:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Round 7 

message: ( Recognize The Fact )
* Who, Where, How many decent editors seriously insist that we should eliminate the necessity of achieving accountability in summary boxes and talk pages, where many decent editors have achieved Wikipedia:Accountability? You still haven't answered as well as those who managed to eliminate it from "Wikipedia Accountability System".
* As far as they couldn't, it is very clear that the title ( Wikipedia:Accountability ) and the exisitence of the page titled "Wikipedia:Accountability" at least have been already considered a guideline or something more than a guideline, regardless of its poorly written contents. 
WE ( except Vandals ) can easily admit, "Wikipedia:Accountability is considered a guideline or something more than a guideline in spite of odd tags such as  and , because a lot of decent editors, sometimes even anons, have performed Wikipedia:Accountability without any complaints."
: Therefore, the  should be placed on Wikipedia:Accountability. -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Round 8 

message: ( Do It Yourself )
* If you are concerned about its poorly written contents, it's just your own problem. Who can say this sentence is not good enough also could rewite it and say this sentence is OK. And you are guaranteed to amend it by yourself without changing its status of  , even if you can't and/or won't.
* Therefore, I have to say, it's difficult to understand what those who have managed to disgrace and/or eliminate are saying. It's very ridiculous, unfortunately. -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Round 9 

message: ( YOU Yourself Demonstrate A Consensus About Its Being Policy )
* Fortunately or unfortunately, what YOU have been doing and saying also proves that the page titled "Wikipedia:Accountability" has been a guideline or something more than a guideline, regardless of its contents. This is the fact.
* Now, what should we ( especially editors who needn't visit and, therefore, edit WP:ACAB ) consider the status of WP:ACAB is? -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Round 10