Wikipedia:Adminship survey/N

(29/00/09/01)Admins should be held more accountable for their actions than they are now

Points to think about :

Are admins currently accountable enough for you?
What is your definition of accountability?
Should some actions (like wheelwarring or edit warring over a protected page) be cause for immediate sanction or deopping?

Yes

Arbcom currently has two different levels of sanction on admins; nothing or desysopping. There's no sort of temporary desysopping, no admin probation, no bans from using specific powers, etc... So if an admin isn't terrible, they can get nothing more than "Bad admin! We're not going to do anything about it, but you were bad!". -Amarkov moo! 15:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly. It's too difficult to have poor admins held accountable in any real way, especially without being accused of a witchhunt. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only current action that can be taken against admins is to desysop them. Consequently, if an admin is good at reducing backlogs but, say, persistently harrasses a user they don't like, that is ignored. Admin abuse is one of the biggest problems on Wikipedia - heavy users leave over it, and we can't afford to lose them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom's a slow and lumbering process, there needs to be some half-way house between full desysopping and lengthy arbitration that can be used to sanction wayward admins. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Way, way too difficult to get anywhere without being accused of "trolling" and "disruption". --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the very first step is "dispute resolution" of which takes time. I am not saying you ignore this process, but lets follow the steps. You tell the admin on their talk page you felt offended, etc. Now if you are ignored or further offended, you need to goto a 3rd party mediator, if they refuse mediation, then you goto AN/I where other admins judge if you have merit. From there you goto RfC, which usually is highly watched by other admins (obviously). If that doesnt turn around on you for every bad thing you once did, and doesnt get resolved, then you goto Arbcom. Arbcom is particularly bad because those making accusation for abuse from the admin, are scrutinized as well. Imagine complaining about a cop and being told that you were being cited for something you did 2 months ago ... leaves a bad taste. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Admins are the weakspot of Wikipedia to be sure. Just H 20:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Amarkov's idea for admin probation is a good way to handle it. Immediate de-sysopping is a bad, bad idea, unless an admin blocks all IP addresses with a range block, or goes on a vital articles deletion spree. It should be thought-out and processed, and that's why stewards do it. There should be middle line between losing nothing and losing everything. Gracenotes ^T § 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Accountabily is much needed. Accountability has not scaled.--BirgitteSB 21:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Adminship is not diplomatic immunity. Yuser31415 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per most of the above, especially NuclearZero's comments. Wheel-warring, edit-warring on protected articles, and block-warring should immediately trigger a review which could lead to dead-minning. Αργυριου (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amarkov put it best. We need some way to slap the user on the wrist, much like we do with temporary blocks for normal users, but with the admin tools. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we need primarily a way to deal with correcting the minor problems, and some sort of reprimand process as suggested above s--for example, a short block on adminship, would do nicely. But I do not think many admins who would be willing to do this to other admins. An active community discussion about this would also help, but as mentioned above, people are reluctant to do this. DGG 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Agree with AMarkov and NuclearZero. Tintin 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary desysopping/temporary block probation etc. needs to be looked at as an option. Daniel.Bryant 04:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now they aren't ccountable to anyone for anything less than clear abuse. Eluchil404 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Major boy-who-cried-wolf situation. There are so many trolls and nogoodniks whining about admin abuse that legitimate complaints - usually framed when the complainer is angry, frustrated, and not communicating as clearly as he would after some distance from the situation - get swamped in the din. At the other extreme, desysoppings have occurred for minor missteps, even those that occurred mostly in the course of editing disputes. I don't have any good ideas on how to fix this without putting out the welcome mat for trolls and perennial complainers, though. Opabinia regalis 06:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. CalJW 00:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to see the admins shaking in their boots. If I ever become admin, I want to shake in my boots. Why do you think that the revolution was so successful & gave birth to an outburst of democracy? Because the government should be afraid of the people not the other way round! If admins want to go around like officals & think they're holier than thou, thou should be prepared to be reviewed & held accountable for asny mistakes they make. Period. I'll love the day when an admin isn't given slack for incivilty or Jimbo Wales is blocked for 24 hours for acting like God. Don't take it the wrong way Jimbo, but I'm making a point here... Admins should have no different treatment to the layman editor. Spawn Man 02:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When admins and editors are actually regarded equally (they should be now, but theres always bias), then there won't be a problem. Accountability for their own actions will never be bad. James086 ^Talk 10:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per User:Gaillimh, I now find out Admins have the right to vanish and return under new user names, and have those new user names adminstratored, with no links to the old name. There is now no ability for me to do something I can't find and complain about - edit war over an article, vanish, return, and use their admin powers on it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, yes. But as Opabinia regalis states, the devil is in the details. Half of the complaints of "admin abuse" actually boil down to "He disagreed with me", which wastes everyone's time and causes most complaints to be ignored. That said, major issues need to be addressed without having to kick things to Arbcom or Jimbo. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of anything but a block, the easiest appeal is to ignore the admin. In the case of a block, the easiest appeal is to create a new account--though some proportion of editors will take a yet easier course, and just leave. In any case, there is practically no incentive but pure obstinacy for a wronged user to attempt to bring the admin to reckoning. Therefore we should expect that most abuse is undetected. -ac
I'd say almost all admin actions I see look fine. The scariest thing to see is admins taking a heavy hand with articles and editors where it's obvious they're highly biased about the topic or the editor. Sometimes the admin will wave a "I've never edited this article" flag as if it's some kind of proof of neutrality. Well. As everyone has biases, and some of our most experienced admins are heavily biased, there needs to be a way to say, "Thanks for the work you do, but we're going to make you stay away from this spot here." And incivility by admins needs to be called on more often. Kla'quot 06:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There actually aren't all that many "trolls and nogoodniks" stirring up trouble. There are a few but there are some really bad admins who do some rotten things! I think we need to be stricter. Admins should be routinely desysopped for things like protecting pages they are involved in conflicts in, deleting pages in the same circumstances, wheelwarring, committing blockable offences. Grace Note 09:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know an admin who is pushing his POV but I do not wish to name him here. That is why I have started Expressing_lost_of_confidence. As I have written before that We need a new process that is not so hard that one person spends many days writing an arbitration case and that case takes months to finish. It should be a process that gives power to each individual and each individual takes just a tiny step towards removing a bad admin. A good admin should not be worried about annoying other people while taking right decision and only a very large majority should be able to remove a bad admin. --- SAndT ^{Lets Talk} 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are still editors, just with a couple of extra buttons on their screens. They/we should be just as accountable for our actions as regular editors, etc. A higher profile due to vandal-fighting or closing XfA debates doesn't indicate a defensive position on the moral high ground. (aeropagitica) 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's too difficult to get any consequences for admin misbehavior. I think this is a big part of why it's so hard to pass an RfA, and I fear that we're turning away good candidates because folks are concerned that once you're an admin, you're an admin for life unless you do something really horrible. To me the idea that admins have to be free to make unpopular decisions doesn't work because it seems to me that if it really was the right decision, you'd be supported by policy and there would be enough people to back you up. Decisions about right and wrong behavior have to be decided by consensus, not a small minority. delldot talk 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins should not be removed for a mistake with the tools, but they should still have accountability with things that are intentional. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only to their admin actions

Yes. Admins should be open to recall. But their non-admin related behaviour should not influence their admin status.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 07:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are sufficiently accountable

~~What are they gonna do that I can't find and complain about? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)~~ Admins have the right to vanish and return as admins? Now there's something. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pattern abuse results pretty uniformly in de-adminship, so there is no problem here. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletions can be reviewed and overturned; blocks can be reviewed and undone; protections can be appealed—just what is it that admins do that there isn't an open process in place, accessible to all, to review and reverse the action? I don't understand the question of accountability since any admin that frequently goes against this consensus can then have their adminship reviewed and revoked by ArbCom. Seems to me that every check and balance is already incorporated into the system. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per all of the above. In this case, I'm 99% positive I know who Gaillimh was. :-) Grand master ka 09:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole survey is so broadly worded, I don't know what can be done with it once over. There is not a big problem with admins abusing their power, as evidenced by the rareness of people being de-admined. The existing system is just fine. The community can take actions against admins, get their decisions reversed, even blocked. What this seems to be about is a new way to de-admin somebody. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't laid out any problems that cannot already be addressed by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. If there is a problem admin, open a RFC. If concensus agrees with you, either they can modify their behavior or it can move up to arbcom. Avoid instruction creep. —dgies^t_c 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a giant solution for a tiny problem. Every time there's some drama around here, somebody hoists the reform flag. But it rarely (if ever) doesn anything but heap more bureaucracy on our heads. Kafziel ^Talk 16:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Sidaway 01:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Administrators are rightly subject to much greater scrutiny, and held to higher standards, than other users.[reply]
I though there might be some "admin-abuse" related question here. I agree with Tony. Admins are held to high standards now and we all know it. The amount of accountability is sufficient. We have to look over our shoulders every time we do something now. I don't get this attitude that people have that the admins need to be watched and criticized more than the vandals do! -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In good faith, they are doing the best they can. J-stan ^Talk 02:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

I don't understand what "accountable" means in the wiki context. Every single edit is logged and can be viewed by anyone else. This is the most open administrative system ever devised. Chick Bowen 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is there but it isn't being accounted for. Supervision is so open no one is actually doing it.--BirgitteSB 21:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)