Wikiquote:Admin accountability poll

Comment Note: I did NOT create this my self, this is mainly copied from Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll

There are many opinions regarding adminship held by a variety of people, and a number of perennial complaints about adminship or the related procedures. 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. – Ilovemydoodle (talk / e-mail) 05:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Requests for AdminshipEdit

RFA should be more a discussion and less a voteEdit

The standards for becoming an admin should be higher than they are nowEdit

Agree (admin standards)Edit

Personal standards should be higher (admin standards)Edit

It's about accountability, not promotion (admin standards)Edit

These are expectations, not standards (admin standards)Edit

Disagree (admin standards)Edit

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Other (admin standards)Edit

There should be suffrage rules for voting on RFAEdit

Agree to the principle (RFA suffrage)Edit

Agree, suggest something very low (RFA suffrage)Edit

Simply an edit before the RfA. --Ferien (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, suggest 1 month, 100 edits (RFA suffrage)Edit

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, some intermediate suggestions (RFA suffrage)Edit

Agree, suggest 3 months, 1000 edits (RFA suffrage)Edit

Agree, only admins should vote (RFA suffrage)Edit

Kale

Agree, only NON-admins should vote (RFA suffrage)Edit

Disagree (RFA suffrage)Edit

Other (RFA suffrage)Edit

Bureaucrats should remove votes that are in bad faith or nonsensicalEdit

Agree (bad faith RFA votes)Edit

Don't remove, but strike out (bad faith RFA votes)Edit

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't remove, don't strike but comment (bad faith RFA votes)Edit

Disagree (bad faith RFA votes)Edit

Other (bad faith RFA votes)Edit

Existing administratorsEdit

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.

Current Admins' job performance?Edit

Approve (job performance)Edit

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Approve. – Ilovemydoodle (talk / e-mail) 21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  • No issues with job performance. My only personal concern is there don't seem to be quite enough admins watching at any given time. People are busy, have offline lives and so forth -- WQ perhaps could use more admins. Antandrus (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 19:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Disapprove (job performance)Edit

Discussion (job performance)Edit

Admins should be held more accountable for their actions than they are nowEdit

Agree (admins held accountable)Edit

Yes, but only to their admin actions (admins held accountable)Edit

Disagree (admins held accountable)Edit

Disagree, less accountable (admins held accountable)Edit

Other (admins held accountable)Edit

Wheel warring is an inappropriate use of admin powersEdit

Agree (wheel warring)Edit

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree (wheel warring)Edit

Other (wheel warring)Edit

Ignoring consensus is inappropriate for an adminEdit

Agree (ignoring consensus)Edit

Yes, but copyvio/NPOV concerns trump consensusEdit

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree (ignoring consensus)Edit

Neither should non-admins (ignoring consensus)Edit

Other (ignoring consensus)Edit

Most of the time an Admin shouldn’t ignore consensus, but in some cases it is understandable. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 02:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The rollback button should only be used in cases of clear vandalism, or reverting oneselfEdit

Agree (rollback)Edit

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Or reverting a bot error --Ferien (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree (rollback)Edit

Disagree. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 17:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Rollback should never be used in content disputesEdit

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Other (rollback)Edit

Admins placing blocks should be contactable via emailEdit

Agree (admin emails)Edit

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree (admin emails)Edit

Other (admin emails)Edit

Suggested enforcementEdit

Someone should have the authority to temporarily de-admin problematic adminsEdit

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.

Agree (temporary de-adminning)Edit

Disagree (temporary de-adminning)Edit

I think the admins in this case should just be de-adminned if their behaviour is that disruptive. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Other (temporary de-adminning)Edit

All admins should be subject to periodic reconfirmation of their admin statusEdit

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.

Agree (periodic reconfirmation)Edit

Disagree (periodic reconfirmation)Edit

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Other (periodic reconfirmation)Edit

AbstainEdit

MiscellaneousEdit

Requests for comment is not taken seriously enoughEdit

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

Agree (RFCs)Edit

Disagree (RFCs)Edit

Other (RFCs)Edit

Rather than letting the community deal with de-adminning, some other panel should deal with thatEdit

Yes, the bureaucrats (other de-adminning)Edit

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

Disagree (other de-adminning)Edit

Other (other de-adminning)Edit

Should Wikiquote have CheckusersEdit

Should there be CheckUsers on Wikiquote?

Agree (checkuser rights)Edit

Yes, this would be useful for weeding out sockpuppets. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 00:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Could you please notify more users of this poll by leaving the following message at the end of their Talk Page: {{subst::WQT:ACP}} – ~~~~ (don’t create a new section, the Template does that automatically)? – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 00:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ilovemydoodle, I think I'd rather post at the village pump. Will do so now. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 00:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Rubbish computer: Also, do you think there should be a closing date for the poll? – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 00:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ilovemydoodle, I don't think it matters either way as long as it's open for a while. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 00:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree (checkuser rights)Edit

Other (checkuser rights)Edit

There should be an intermediate layer between "user" and "admin"Edit

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.

Agree (intermediate user layer)Edit

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between tools and powers (intermediate user layer)Edit

Disagree (intermediate user layer)Edit

Other (intermediate user layer)Edit

Like the idea of rollback rights, patroller rights are also a good one (autopatrol, patrolling other articles). However, I do not think it is right to split up the core admin tools. If you can be trusted with delete, then why not block? --Ferien (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Agree with Ferien here, exactly. Rollback is useful as a right conferred on established users, but unbundling the tools is an unnecessary complication. Antandrus (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, I support separating tools such as editing templates, rollback, import, merging, etc. But not the core tools. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 11:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)