Administrators are here to do the things that would cause havoc if everyone could do them, normally on request from other users (CAT:CSD, WP:AFD, WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, CAT:PER, etc.), although of course they can take such actions themselves if they would come across a situation where they'd otherwise request them. It's quite rare that there's a major row on AN/I over admin behaviour, and even rarer that there is actually a problem with the admin. Yes, I know that sometimes admins cause trouble and need desysopping, but that's sufficiently rare that I'm using this section (after all, it says 'overall', which can be treated as 'mostly'). --ais523 17:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes, and no process isn't going to let some bad eggs slip through. Overall, they're doing very well, for being falliable. -Amarkovmoo!01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not every admin is good, but the phrasing of the next option is prejudicial. That phrasing means that a vote here would somehow indicate that there are no bad admins, rather than what it should indicate, which is that bad admins is not a significant issue. —Doug Belltalk02:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, yes. Agree with the above that the section titles are not well worded, but in general I don't think that admins as a group consist of a bunch of mostly-okay people and a few 'bad eggs' who would be stripped of their bit forthwith if only we had an effective mechanism of desysopping. It's more like a bunch of mostly-okay people who mostly make good decisions but have a distribution of error rates, and someone has to be in the tails. Opabinia regalis06:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The number of avoidable genuine errors in outcome - as opposed to trivial faults according to some obscure and ill-worded process - seems remarkably low to me. As Opabinia regalis says, the bottom end of the distribution is always going to be populated. Overall I am more than satisfied with performance. Angus McLellan(Talk)13:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, yes. In particular, I appreciate the work of Essjay, Persian Poet Gal, Mackensen, Jpgordon, JzG, Chris 73, Fred Bauder and Shanel, to name a few. We all make mistakes, no-one can avoid that. But the standard of admins is generally very good. --sunstar nettalk00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone's doing a good job. I've never gotten into a dispute with another admin. But I've probably spoken too soon. I'm sure the allegations of admin abuse and mass-cabalry will come soon anyways. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are doing a good job, but there are some bad eggs that should be removed
Agree, but it's like any walk of life - the trick is to have the mechanisms in place to remove the bad eggs and an intitutional culture, structure and the will to do it. --Mcginnly | Natter15:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly, especially in the deletion processes. Deletion abuse is one of the major issues we're facing right now. It has gotten better as a whole as some notoriously bad eggs have resigned, left the project, or been deadminned. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mcginley - possibly Arbcom should have a separate branch to investigate admins accused of abuse? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and the process for removing the bad takes too long. I support the idea by Dev920, maybe we need a special commission in a way, all groups with power have checks and balances specifically for them. --NuclearZer017:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are always bad eggs; I would argue, however, that the bad eggs (and I can't think of any in particular off the top of my head) should be taken to RFAr immediately. Many felt Philwelch was a bad egg; he's been taken to ArbCom and has lost his adminship. It's that simple, if they're truly bad eggs. Ral315 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there always will be problems. Some of them are fixable--admins after making bad decisions sometimes say they've been on WP too long & were getting tired. Some are not--even the best of conduct during a probationary period or during pre-adminship does not necessarily mean it will continue. To diminish the odium of desysopping, there should be some way to get an admin not to participate in some particular parts of process--e.g. someone blocking too much, or speedying too much, or refusing to undelete into userspace.--just like there can be a block to prevent someone from editing a particular group of articles. We perhaps need not just a special commission, but an audit--there should be routine visible records kept of each admin's actions, and whether they've been overturned, without having to analyze their very long contribution record every time. DGG19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the closest to the the truth. But the corps of admins is not divided into bad eggs the need removal and good eggs that need to be left to their own devices. What is really needed is a some sort of feedback or performance review which allows all admins to improve while exposing the unreformable.--BirgitteSB 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel they're doing a very good job overall, considering they are human. What the definition of "bad eggs" is tends to differ between many editors. Yuser3141522:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly, though many otherwise good admins have become a little too quick to assume bad faith when dealing with anyone who questions their judgement. There are a small number of admins who should be deadminned last year. I have a little list. Αργυριου(talk)23:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, they're good. We hear overblown cases from like what? Like 1% of all admins? We have over 1000 of them now, and the fact that we've dealt with abuse with what? 20? 30? I'd say that's a damn good statistic. ^demon[omg plz]16:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have always done a good job as a group, although I am probably biased here. The wheels have kept on turning through hell and high water, what more can one ask for? That said, there are a few bad eggs, but this has always been the case. You try putting over a thousand random people in a room without there being a few ne'erdowells. Rje00:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although many of them are understanding, caring & easy going characters, a few "bad eggs" are mixing into wikipedia. A couple are even supporting the above option of "admins are doing alright". They strut around like officious peacocks, superimposing their strict rules & talking down to you like one of their children. They delete & block without warning & think they are above the law. I think someone up there knows I'm talking about him. These admins in my view are the ones who are pulled through the corrupt RfA system by their cabal of friends (See my above answers to the questions in this survey). It is these admins that give RfAs a bad name - If all admins were well rounded & perfect examples, then I doubt that we'd be having this survey. The very fact that people are questioning the RfA system shows that there are in fact bad admins out there that should never have gotten through. The funny thing is, is that there will always be bad admins that get through & this means the RfA system will always be under question. The fact is, you can't please everyone. Overall though, admins are much better than they were... Spawn Man02:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The number of "bad eggs" is very small, and they don't have a significant impact. There's also no way to avoid this entirely; the best option is to desysop them. --N Shar21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may be only a few, but a few bad eggs can do a lot of damage. It's not a question of the number of bad eggs, it's a question of the damage they create to the site and to the reputation of Wikipedia. As it now stands, they are allowed to run wild and this is a very dangerous situation. It needs to be fixed and fixed quickly. It is the thing that troubles me most about Wikipedia. Crunch12:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A special branch of ArbCom could decide in seperate cases if a certain admin must go through RfA again to confirm the communities trust. The "worst eggs" never step down, that's what makes them so bad. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few admins are doing a good job, but most of them are not
Definitely. I have nearly 30,000 edits and no blocks, but admin misconduct - against which in reality there is no recourse for non-admins who do not wish to undergo great stress in a nearly hopeless cause - drove me away for seven months. An unacceptable proportion of admins become arrogant about their status. CalJW00:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many admins seem to take their status as an entitlement, rarely acting unless it benefits themselves or their friends in some way. The unaccountability is a serious issue. .V.[Talk|Email]14:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I speak to the deletion processes, as that is my personal "expertise". Overall, I feel the admins are doing a very good job handling deletions. Only about 0.2% of deletions from December make it to deletion review, and only about 0.05% are overturned there by deletion review (not counting as overturns the original admin overturning themself or a contested prod). (See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#December 2006 Deletion Statistics.) Given that we have human admins and human editors, that rate is phenomenal. Deletion review would get overwhelmed if the dispute rate increased significantly. GRBerry17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
