Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Administrator Accountability

message: I may have a reason to be biased, but I don't like this policy. First of all it doesn't seem to really say change anything — it just moves stuff around and reasserts existing beliefs. Second, the first rule is far too strict, as many official Wikipedia policies can be and often are broken, and are intended more as suggestions. If someone unintentionally incorporates too much POV into an article, that's breaking policy. If an administrator deletes a page accidentally while attempting some deft rearranging of articles, the page should be undeleted and the administrator reprimanded, but certainly not de-admined. We need more common sense applied and less blanket statements. Derrick Coetzee 06:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: <AOL>  +sj+ 08:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with Derrick. Johnleemk | Talk 18:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: If it is decided to split WP:RFROAA back into a separate page, should it continue to use subpages for each dispute? I believe the style of user conduct disputes and admin conduct disputes (and VFD, for that matter) has its advantages:
#It keeps the main page simple and easily readable—an index rather than an entire book. Compare Wikipedia:Requests for comment#General user conduct to a randomly-chosen old revision of Wikipedia:Conflicts between users to see what I mean. 
#Using subpages keeps the edit history of both the main index and the specific requests usable. 
#Archiving and linking to subpages is easier; if a link to a prior review is needed there is no need to root through old revisions of a page that, if used as the sole area of debate, will have a massive edit history.
#The RfC templates keep the discussion somewhat useful; if used properly they produce (in theory) a straightforward document of the dispute, rather than simply giving flamewars a new arena. Again, compare old revisions of Wikipedia:Conflicts between users to various RfC subpages. 
Anyway, format and organization are largely uncontroversial and easy enough to change if they should become so, so they aren't major issues, but it would be nice to decide this in advance. —No-One Jones 04:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  subpages for each dispute 

message: I am very active in maintaining Wikipedia:pages needing translation into English. There are a lot of times when this results in my speedy-deleting garbage articles in foreign languages. When I'm in doubt, I put them on Vfd, but it's a judgement call every time. So far the clear consensus is that I'm erring on the side of caution. Effectively this seems to say that if someone feels I make one bad judgement call in the other direction, I have to go through some kind of process related not to reversing my action (which I would always willingly do for any reasonable complaint) but over my qualifications to be an admin. I assume dozens of other admins are in parallel situations on other parts of Wikipedia. Our role requires us to take actions. Sometimes we will be wrong. It seems to me that as long as we unresistingly reverse ourselves when we are wrong and we are not often wrong, that is all that can be asked of a human being. 
I will admit that I haven't read this closely. I will do so only if it is actually solidified and brought up for a vote. Until then, frankly, I'm just hoping it will go away. In about a year on wikipedia, I have not witnessed a single case of an administrator doing anything significantly inappropriate in his or her role as an administrator (some are hell as editors, but they still will be if they are no longer admins). I think that regardless of probable good intent, this is (1) an attempt to solve a problem that, to the best of my knowledge, does not exist and (2) one more tool that will allow trolls to play with process and tie up the people who are actually trying to do real work. -- Jmabel 00:25, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
* Whilst I of course respect your opinion, I disagree.  I think that Wikipedia needs to have this policy or at least something similar.  Right now, administrators are rarely, if EVER, sanctioned, chastised, anything!  There's barely even systems set up.  We need checks and balances!  I'm tired of hearing users complain about cabals and how administrators can do pretty much anything they want.  It's true!  If I wanted to, I could go around doing about 1000 stupid or destructive things before anyone would talk about desysopping me.  We need a system in place, even if it's not a huge problem, if ONLY to be fair.  blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you both.  We have to be careful that every minor judgement call doesn't become a cry of "policy violation!"  We all make these decisions each time we speedy delete or block someone for simple vandalism - we need not to be afraid to make those judgments, and not to be risking days of hassle and accusations every time we do.  But on the other hand we also need to change the current climate where there is little or no analysis of admin actions, and anyone who dares to question a decision is automatically presumed to be trolling or worse.  Or (if that's a bad analysis of the situation) where that is perceived to be the current climate.  What we need from this policy is a balanced middle way, a sensible policy that makes us accountable but does not restrict our daily, legitimate work.  Jmabel, please do read this carefully and help to find a way to find this balance - the more of us that do so, the more likely we are to come up with a policy that will actually work.  -- sannse (talk) 13:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  My own concern 

message: Watch for Parkinson's Law. Mikkalai 08:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount of additional work must be compared with the importance of holding admins to account. pir 11:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did they go amok yet? Is it really time to start witchhunt? And who will hold to account those who want to hold admins to account? Mikkalai 17:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: *For reasons of visibility, multiplication of pages should be discouraged. It is a general policy of wikipedia that pages are split when the size becomes unmanageable. If we expect such growth of conflicts with admins, then something is inherently wrong, and no bureaucratic "Measures" will help. Mikkalai 08:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not forget that the possibility of admin review votes will have a big effect on admin behaviour. The aim is not to hold lots of votes. The aim is to introduce safeguards against rogue admins and thereby influence their behaviour. pir 12:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely, pir.  I think I shall add that statement in the introduction to the proposal.  blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: What is "brute-force" about voting? - pir 12:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consider the difference between voting and mediation. Mikkalai 18:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text:  The whole history of democracy shows that only majors matter of policy are decided by all-people voting, referendum, etc. For everyday issues, power must be delegated and someone must always be pesonally responsible for decisions. Soviets is the best example of what will happen if for every issue the voting is required, with  responsibility for bad decisions  meing diluted, hidden, or manipulated. Mikkalai 18:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does power have to be delegated when we have the practical means to retain it? De-admin requests will not be an everyday event. Soviets did not fail because they were democratic at the very beginning, they failed because they were taken over by the Bolsheviks and became totalitarian. I do not think that we can learn much by comparing Wikipedia to imperial Russia in 1917, but if anything your analogy supports my argument: we need safeguards to prevent abuse of power by admins. Suppose some totalitarian organisation, like Scientology or the North Korean government (the Dear Leader is known to use the Internet a lot!), decide to inflitrate Wikipedia. They give a twenty or fifty paid people the full-time job of contributing to Wikipedia. After several months, they'll be very highly respected and popular so they'll become admins without any problem. They'll also get their people in ArbCom. Once they've been installed they change their tune and take over. How would you prevent that if there's no way to de-sysop abusive admins via a popular vote? - pir 19:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The policy must clearly state that it is applicable only if attempts to resolve the conflict amicably were performed. If we call for blacklisting of admins for each and every misjudge (declared to be abuse, by this poposal), can of worms will be opened. Mikkalai 06:30, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measure 2  

message: *"...Thus Wikipedia would have a simpler, more democratic process". A simpler, yes, a more democratic: no. When only 0.003% of wikipedians vote, this is a mockery of democracy and an abuse of the term. Mikkalai 08:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I partly disagree. I have no idea where your figure comes from, but from my experience votes are quite representative. People who decide not to participate in votes probably have good reasons not to: they may be happy with the outcome of the votes ; they may not feel sufficiently informed to take part ; they may not feel sufficiently involved in Wikipedia to have an opinion. As long as every Wikipedian has the right to participate in the vote, and as long as these votes are visible and well advertised, there should be no problem. - pir 12:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point: "who decide not to participate". The problem is that people DO NOT decide not to participate: the people simply don't know what's happening. They simply have no time to keep their eye at politics. They are busy contributing (in their spare time, free of charge, mind you). And the history of bolshevism shows that a minority can really screw up any good idea, if they concentrate their efforts against the rest. Mikkalai 18:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  This should not be a problem if votes are well advertised. Abusive admins are a nuisance and a concern for all Wikipedians, so I really believe that a large (or at least representative) proportion of people will participate. In addition, and as I tried to explain above, a minority that concentrate their efforts to screw up things is far more dangerous if they are already in a position where they have more power. - pir 19:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measure 3  

message: A section has been added to the introduction of the proposal.  It reads:  "The aim of this proposal is not to increase bureaucracy nor to persecute admins. Rather, this proposal aims to introduce safeguards against possible rogue and abusive admins and thereby influence their behaviour, and to formalise the currently murky and obscure process of holding admins accountable for their actions."  blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Introduction has been revised

message: The following statement has been added to Measure II:
:In order to prevent misuse of the system, users would be disallowed from listing an administrator on Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions more than one time in any 30-day period.
I'd like to see some discussion on this... on the statement itself and then the time period.  Is 30 days acceptable?  Or would some of you prefer a shorter time?  blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:50, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally hate fixing arbitrary numbers into policy (page size in kb, number of voters, length of vote, minimum of edits to become a sysop etc etc). I blathered on about why I think this at Wikipedia:How to create policy. Pcb21| Pete 23:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your point, but what alternative do you suggest? There needs to be a safeguard against abuse of the policy. - pir 09:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Measure II has been once more revised

message: Is there a rule anywhere that a person who starts a page may act as supreme authority? The pase says "please do not edit this proposal". Why it is edited by the initial author while forbidden for the rest of us? Mikkalai 23:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the policy is being edited despite the request against this? 

message: As I have become aware that 30 August is a holiday in the UK, I have once again delayed the start of voting, this time by another 24 hours. This will allow people who may be unable to participate in the discussion over the weekend to return from their holiday and still have one day for any final input they have before voting starts.  Voting will now begin at 00:00 UTC, 1 September 2004. blankfaze | (беседа!) 07:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that Grunt just made an edit to the policy. I want to comment on it, but I don't know if I should consider his edit "official" or not. If you'll tell us who exactly is allowed to make edits, it might be easier. Thanks. -- orthogonal 22:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another extension...