| Revision as of 18:02, 17 January 2006 editBostonMA (talk | contribs)7,570 editsm hyphenation← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:03, 17 January 2006 edit undoBostonMA (talk | contribs)7,570 editsm hyphenationNext edit → | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
| # | # | ||
| ==Someone should have the authority to temporarily |
==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. | 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=== | ===Agree=== | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
| ===Other=== | ===Other=== | ||
| # | # | ||
| ==All admins should be subject to periodic reconfirmation of their admin status== | ==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. | 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. | ||
Revision as of 18:03, 17 January 2006
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 an 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)
Requests for Adminship
RFA should be more a discussion and less a vote
Agree
- Always should have been, always should be. --LV 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree
Other
The standards for becoming an admin should be higher than they are now
Agree
Disagree
- Not sure higher standards are needed quite yet. We are promoting good candidates now. --LV 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Other
There should be suffrage rules for voting on RFA
Agree
Disagree
Other
- Aren't there already? Don't BCrats typically discount (or take into less consideration) newbie or IP votes?
Bureaucrats should remove votes that are in bad faith or nonsensical
Agree
Disagree
- Strike out, but don't remove completely. --LV 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Other
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.
Admins should be held more accountable for their actions than they are now
Agree
Disagree
Other
Wheel warring is an inappropriate use of admin powers
Agree
- Duh. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Probably so, don't ya think? --LV 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree
Other
Ignoring consensus is inappropriate for an admin
Agree
Disagree
Other
The rollback button should only be used in cases of clear vandalism, or reverting oneself
Agree
Disagree
Other
Suggested enforcement
The ArbCom should be less hesitant about de-adminning controversial admins
Agree
Disagree
Other
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.
Agree
Disagree
Other
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.
Agree
Disagree
Other
A community-based process should be created to deadmin 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.
Agree
Disagree
Other
Miscellaneous
Bureaucrats should not be on the Arbitration Committee
Some people consider this a conflict of interest, or overcentralization of power.