Wikipedia talk:Accountability

This is news to me
This is news to me.... ... when did this happen? -65.96.160.252

This is a fundamental component
the operative word is informal policy' -- in some ways this seems to contradict wikipedia openness. in fact it doesnt, because its not really enforcable, though it describes a commonly felt difference in sentiments towards people with 'faces' and those without.

This is a fundamental component in the Corporate accounting scandals for example. This is why defernce of 'credibility' goes to Sean Penn, rather than to "Harvey Dinklestien" or some other unknown, operator.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. - Sv

Not a guideline?
Since there doesn't appear to actually have been any discussion or consensus-forming on this subject, I've removed the "guideline" tag and replaced it with "proposal". This page really reflects a few people's opinion -- what some people like -- rather than the sort of generally agreed-upon standards that we call guidelines. --FOo 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, good call Fubar. Still, it seems pretty unexceptionable to me. If anyone wants to generate some attention to it, it would probably be accepted. Herostratus 03:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like this proposal escalated, though I think the project page needs a little work to make it more proposal-ish. I'll see what I can do. Agne27 02:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's clear that the first article wasn't originally written as a proposal but more as an essay of sort for an informal policy. It certainly needs more work to fashion it into a proposal, not the least is the need to make it a uniformed third personal voice throughout.Agne27 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Democracy
Wikipedia wasn't a democracy last time i checked. The words dialogue and cooperation come to mind though.. --Nnp 23:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

How could you remove anonymous changes?
If you were to construct a view of an article by excluding random sections of its history, the result would almost certainly have unreadable noise. Remember, the non-anonymous edits are often based upon anonymous ones. You can only revert along a linear progression lest you almost certainly end up with garbage. --Apantomimehorse 06:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How this could be implemented
One idea would be to put anonymous edits on hold. The next named editor to come to the article could either accept or reject each change. This would allow typos to be found (which takes time) and fixed (quickly), but would also prevent IP vandals from adding rubbish. Stephen B Streater 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

no way
This essay is just a rewording of the unwiki "No-anons" proposals on Meta. "You can edit this page right now" is a fundamental Wikipedia idea.


 * Indeed. Proposals like these, if taken to their logical conclusion, would set such a high bar to entry that most "good faith" new users would be deterred from editing at all.


 * Some people seem determined to turn Wikipedia into the new Nupedia (which had 24 articles to its name when it finally creaked into oblivion, its obvious lack of prolificacy being the prime reason Wikipedia was created in the first place). 217.155.20.163 00:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I see, though I don't know Nupedia at all. I'd like to change the current Accountability drastically. In my opinion, all anonymous editors should do is to write edits summaries, and to explain about their edits in talk pages when they are asked to do so. They can make public their opinions whenever they want, like you. Nobody ask you(them) to login. OK? -- JungianPPP 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done it. I've revised Accountability drastically. This! :-) -- JungianPPP 10:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Violates foundation issues
How did this get marked policy? Seems to violate Foundation issues --Kim Bruning 21:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marked as rejected. I do like the part where people must explain every edit. That part is good. --Kim Bruning 23:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph below written by JungianPPP 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a difficult claim for me to sustain, unfortunately. However, never mind, because I have already revised Accountability considerably. I have just to ask you, the two people, some formal questions.
 * How did this get marked policy? I marked. And almost all editors seem to have already marked the importance and necessity of Accountability. In this Wikipedia encyclopedia project, the importance and necessity of accountability never seem to be rejected. Rather, accountability seems to be treated as common sense by almost all log-in editors. In fact, almost official policies don't hold water without many editors' performing accountability.
 * Ignoring this fact, why do you think this get rejected as a official policy?
 * The trouble is that anyone had not proposed that this Accountability should be Wikipedia's official policy, because it has been considered as if it were already Wikipedia's official policy. How, when and which proposal has been rejected by the community?
 * Even when I read Foundation issues, I don't know what you are talking about, unfortunately. Please teach me. This is also a difficult claim for me to sustain.
 * Actually, who violates Foundation issues?
 * What and why violates Foundation issues?
 * Even in Foundation issues, they performed their accountability.
 * In addition, according to Foundation issues, "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering" is "essentially beyond debate."
 * Therefore, there is no question that a Wikipedia's "official policy" recommend IP address editors to login and to perform their accountability and responsibility more equally and more conveniently.
 * This is also quite natural, if you don't want to thoughtlessly restrict IP address editors' abilities to edit articles.
 * Moreover, even after having Wikipedia's account, they can easily keep their anonymousness, unless they register their real full name exactly.
 * Sincere accountability is the foundation of democracy and any sound society, and the common sense in the advanced countries all over the world. Similarly, Accountability is one of the most important foundation of community, Consensus and all other policies and guidelines. You should be ashamed of having disturbed decent ordinary people's efforts which seem to elevate Accountability to Wikipedia's official policy. As long as all policies from Consensus to Ignore all rules are Wikipedia's official policies, Accountability should be automatically Wikipedia's official policy. This means, Accountability has already winned Consensus, regardless of its contents. If you have claims about its contents, please improve it, maintaining its quality. As far as Ignore all rules is the one of official five pillars of Wikipedia encyclopedia project, if Accountability is not Wikipedia's official policy, nobody need discuss on any talk ( discussion ) pages, like this.
 * The whole Wikipedia project, even Jimbo Wales, one of the co-founder of Wikimedia foundation projects, has apparently depended on and managed due to the accountability.
 * Moreover, there are also important policies and guidelines such as Don't be a dick, Ignore all rules, Use common sense, Be bold in updating pages.
 * Hence, there is obviously no problem in the eyes of the law, if anyone will elevate Accountability to Wikipedia's official policy.
 * Please don't reject Accountability as a Wikipedia's official policy. Instead, please make it an appropriate official policy by yourself, because it's already very very clear that accountability is the basis of Wikipedia's all guidelines and official policies. Frankly speaking, Accountability is the foundation of the whole Wikipedia encyclopedia project.
 * I have already revised Accountability drastically as it looks like an official policy.
 * Please teach me how Wikipedia's guideline should come to Wikipedia's official policy.
 * Please teach me how Wikipedia's official policy should be rejected as an official policy and come to Wikipedia's guideline.
 * Note that, in my view, I haven't yet officially propose that Accountability should come to Wikipedia's official policy, because I think Accountability should have been already one of the most important Wikipedia's official policies and I don't know how to elevate it to one of them. In other words, it is only that I have simply obeyed Ignore all rules, Use common sense, Accountability, WP:BOLD, WP:READERS, etc.

-- JungianPPP 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as essay
This page in its current form is almost entirely the work of a single user, who has tagged it first as and then  without consensus to do so. Other users who have commented on the page disagreed strongly with it, wondered how it got to that state, and tagged it as. I think is the best option here, as like essays it was written by and reflects the opinions of a single user. Please bear in mind that calling a page you wrote yourself "the most important new policy" does not make it one, and that a consensus to create a new policy, resulting from discussion with a wide range of users is needed for a proposal to be implemented – Gurch 16:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gurch on this one. I see none of the wide consensus that is required to consider this any more than an essay. It's simply too flimsy to be called such. --Agamemnon2 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Who, why, when disagreed strongly with it( Accountability ), wondered how it got to that state? No one did. To achieve accountability is one of common sense in advanced countries. Where do you live? I think or  is the best option here, as like policies it was approved by and reflects the common sense of many users. In addition, I think, anybody wouldn't like to discuss with idiot guys who reject Accountability as an official policy (or an guidline) of Wikipedia. In fact, it occurs not only here but anywhrere in Wikipedia. -- PBeaver 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Common sense is not a reason to tag a page as policy. A lot of people have to also agree with you that it's common sense. There has to be much more discussion than this. There needs to be the clear consensus of a lot of editors shown in this talk page; and as guideline talk pages go, this one is extremely thin. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? And I didn't tag a page as policy. See next section . -- PBeaver 13:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This page appears to run counter to, rather than follow, what most people consider common sense. It was previously considered a "rejected proposal", it certainly does not follow that it's now policy.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Even the "rejected" version was rejected without any effort, without proper reasons and without clear consensus of a lot of editors. And the current version has been entirely revised, following what most people consider common sense. If what  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  said is true, a lot of editors have already changed it appropriately. See next section . -- PBeaver 13:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. A proposal does not become rejected by a "consensus to reject", but by the "lack of a consensus to support". See WP:POL for details. Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes to this page since June.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as one of guidelines again
I put on the editing page of Accountability, not , because Accountability in Wikipedia is apparently very fundamental common sense and because it is too fundamental to add and explain.

However, as far as there are talk pages in Wikipedia, it is clear that they are all based on the assumption that Accountability should be achieved in Wikipedia. And it is very clear that any Wikipedians, even Jimbo Wales, can't reject this Wikipedia Accountability System. I don't know who and how many editors have created such a rational Wikipedia Accountability System, but it is very very obvious that this Wikipedia Accountability System has been already approved by an overwhelming majority.

Apparently this means that the status of Accountability should be or more than. About the necessity to achieve accountability, almost all editors in advanced coutries, probably including you, need not be taught by Wikipedia. Therefore, if you want to remove template from "extremely thin" Accountability, you should demonstrate the proper reasons to add a large quantity of contents to it and "get the clear consensus of a lot of editors shown in this talk page". Of course, you should show the contents to add to it in this talk page before appealing.

At any rate, do you live in one of mature democratic countries? I can't help wondering. If you can't realize the absolute necessity to achieve accountability, such an inhumane problem is just your own problem, not Wikipedia's one.

I am satisfied with "extremely thin" guideline as well as other editors who have passed by hurriedly without editing Accountability and without clicking this "talk" page, because I think almost all editors in advanced countries have no necessity to be explained about Accountability. Exactly speaking, almost all editors seems to be satisfied with the fact that there is a guideline( a policy ) titled "Accountability" as an important basis of other policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.


 * Anyway, the most important thing about Accountability is that it is very useful to crack down violent and/or dictatorial editors who seem to ignore or not know the necessity to achieve their own accountability.


 * Therefore, the second most important thing about it is that only such rude people can't support Accountability as neither one of guidelines of Wikipedia nor one of policies of it. Why should we "get the clear consensus of a lot of such incivil editors shown in this talk page"? We Needn't Even Discuss It.


 * Therefore, the third important thing is how many admins have been achieving their own accountability properly, because all general editors have to achieve their own accontability anywhere in WikiMedia Projects. So, the more admins haven't achieve their own accountability properly, the less possibility there would be for Accountability to become a policy of Wikipedia.

As mentioned above, it is clear why, what kind of people remove ( or  ) template violently without any proper consensus and without any effort to brush it up.

Though they insist "there needs to be the clear consensus of a lot of editors," evidently there have been already the clear consensus of a lot of editors about the necessity to achieve accountability in edit summaries and talk pages of Wikipedia. -- PBeaver 13:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your saying so doesn't make it so. Please demonstrate this "already clear consensus" rather than alluding to it?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Who, where, why, how many Wikipedians have appealed to eliminate all edit summaries and all talk pages from all WikiMedia projects? -- PBeaver 14:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not follow from the fact that people use edit summaries that this page is therefore policy.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Are you all right? I have never put template.


 * And I have never said that "Accountability" has been already officially approved as one of official policies. Therefore, I have requested a request for comment on Wikipedia policy or guidelines.


 * It is very stange that those like you all forget Wikipedia's free editing policy. If you have any slightest objection to the current WP:ACAB, all you have to do is to get consensus for the changes you want to make, not to violently remove template without proper reason and clear consensus and not to make any hasty conclusions in order to replace the Template:Proposed ( below )


 * with the Template:Rejected ( below ).


 * Why, Who, Where, When, How many decent Wikipedians rejected the proposal with proper reasons? Please explain them. Please achieve your own accountability.


 * Why can you say, "This proposal has been rejected by the community"? Please explain it. Please achieve your own accountability.


 * You haven't answered yet. Who, where, why, how many Wikipedians have appealed to eliminate all edit summaries and all talk pages from all WikiMedia projects?


 * How about you? Have you appealed to eliminate all edit summaries and all talk pages from all WikiMedia projects? If not, why have you never tried to brush up WP:ACAB so that it can be one of policies of Wikipedia?


 * Clearly, those who make a nonsense claim not to have WP:ACAB established as one of guidelines and policies, and forget Wikipedia's free-editing policy, have no license to oppose to  and reject , because WP:ACAB seems to be created to crack down such arrogant, unreasonable and uncivil editors.


 * This version are considerably different from the old version. Obviously, there are clear evidences of WP:ACAB having changed since then. Radiant! seems to have lied again and again. So, I can't agree with Radiant!.


 * And the most terrible mistake those like Radiant! made is that both versions above should not be violently "rejected" without any efforts and proper reasons. If someone wants to reject WP:ACAB as one of guideline and policies, he himself ( or she herself ) has only to make it a necessary and sufficient guideline ( policy ). If you can't or haven't tried to do, you can't have any license to lower the status of WP:ACAB, because it is very clear that such guys only want to do anything as they like without achieving accountability properly, and that WP:ACAB exists in order to rule such unreasonable editors.


 * When murderers and potential murderers reject the law that is likely to rule them, can you think the laws have been rejected appropriately by the society?


 * Likewise, when the persons, who haven't achieved accountability properly, reject WP:ACAB that is likely to rule them, can you think WP:ACAB has been rejected appropriately by the community? -- PBeaver 20:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What kind of status WP:ACAB should have?
I think, Accountability has been automatically one of the most important official policy since May 21, 2007. -- JungianPPP 10:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reaction

 * Great! Support! (i myself proposed.) :-) -- JungianPPP 10:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ehm, official policy? mike4ty4 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as an official policy. If Accountability is not an official policy of Wikipedia, all talk pages of Wikipedia are nonsense, and all articles become more doubtful. -- PBeaver 09:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC), 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC), 14:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Policies are not made by voting on them. What happened on May 21st, anyway?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where, when, who requested you to vote? -- PBeaver 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Radiant: it appears to be a few days after JungianPPP got involved in the proposal, and the second time they re-tagged it as policy. That's the only relevance to the date I can find, connected to this project page. SamBC(talk) 00:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and it's when this motion (RFC) was proposed. SamBC(talk) 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * With Radiant. We don't vote on guidelines/policies. A consensus needs to be shown here, and there is none. See the responses to your comment at village pump also. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where, when, who requested you to vote? -- PBeaver 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even with my rewrite attempting to improve the English, this doesn't seem to be terribly clear. If it means what I think it means, it definitely seems to be more of an essay discussing the almost subconscious aspect of "accountability" underlying many wikipedia policies and guidelines. SamBC(talk) 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your sentence itself doesn't seem to be terribly clear. And nobody can know which sentence you think doesn't seem to be terribly clear. First of all, please show us all such a sentence in a new section rather than making a series of complaints here. -- PBeaver 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Round 3
There must be some miscommunication here. You can't tag a page as a guideline unless a consensus is shown on this talk page. So far there's more objection to this page being a guideline than there is support for it, which is what led to it being rejected. I understand that you (PBeaver) feel it's common sense, but that's not enough. Other people need to support this as a guideline, and so far they don't. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 20:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This section is coming from, and due to the regulation of WP:RFC : the section title should be neutral. So, I had to change the section title you named for your vandalistic propaganda. Please be neutral. As I told before, Please don't ignore all general decent editors who needn't be demonstrated about Accountability by WP:ACAB.


 * As I explained before, you seems to be one of arrogant, selfish and dictatorial vandalists. In fact, YOU haven't tried to realize even the meaning of the fact that I put and  on WP:ACAB.


 * As I explained later, YOU haven't tried to realize even the meaning of the texts of and.


 * I have already shown what kind of consensus has been made in Wikipedia on this talk page and Village pump (proposals)‎ again and again. If you can't understand it, it's just your own problem.


 * And if someone want to reject WP:ACAB, all he ( or she ) has to do is to amend WP:ACAB by himself ( herself ), neither to remove template nor to replace  with  without any proper reasons and clear consensus.


 * Please read well or decipher well, and please catch the meaning of texts of Template:Guideline, Template:Proposed and Template:Rejected at least. See below.


 * As far as the template says, "This proposal has been rejected by the community."
 * if there is a person who can't realize that anybody can't put on WP:ACAB for a while ( more than one month, because very few editors have visited here ), it is extremely clear that such a person has to be regarded as a crazy vandalist, no matter what he (she) says. I began to resolve this  problem.


 * Likewise, if there is a person who can't realize the meaning of : "The following is a proposed'' Wikipedia.

The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption (which is not determined by counting votes).''"
 * it is extremely clear that such a person has to be regarded as a crazy vandalist, no matter what he (she) says.


 * Apparently, WP:ACAB has been poorly written. Evidently, I myself and all of you can't have added anything meaningful to WP:ACAB for a few months. To begin with, WE except vandalists need not be given a detailed description about the necessity of achieving accountability in Wikipedia by WP:ACAB. Therefore, I have to think, WP:ACAB requests only that you achieve accountability in the summary boxes and talk pages concered. I don't know what should be newly added to WP:ACAB. Personally, I just want to shave WP:ACAB. However, some guys insisted WP:ACAB needs much more work, because it is poorly written. So, even if WP:ACAB should lose weight in my opinion, I have to think it's already very reasonable, because even I myself needn't read it. So, anybody except vandalists can say in a confident manner, "'it is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.

However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.'"
 * What's problem with the descriptions above? You can even revise it, even when your revision is doubtful. Apparently, no problem for general decent editors. Therefore, if there is a person who can't realize the meaning and validity of the texts of the template, it is extremely clear that such a person has to be regarded as a crazy vandalist, no matter what he (she) says.


 * Based on such logics and facts above, everybody except vandalists can't feel the necessity to remove the template from WP:ACAB without any proper reasons and clear consensus, because everyone is assured to change WP:ACAB, keeping it as a.


 * Likewise, everybody except vandalists can't feel the necessity to replace the template with the  template, ignoring almost all general editors' facts and the meaning of texts of templates. Therefore, if there is a person who can't realize the meaning and validity of the texts of Template:Proposed and the injustice of the texts of Template:Rejected, it is extremely clear that such a person has to be regarded as a crazy vandalist, no matter what he (she) says.


 * What's problem? If you find any problems in WP:ACAB, it is very clear that you except vandalist can't and needn't change the status of WP:ACAB and that you except vandalists could easily resolve them by yourself. Do It Yourself. Don't complain to me. I'm not even an admin. I'm not even one of major authors. As far as you rejected WP:ACAB even as a, You could have already done it Yourself.


 * I just realize that WP:ACAB should be brushed up and changed into one of the official policies of Wikipedia especially by admins, as long as there are edit summary boxes, talk pages, policies and guidelines in WikiMedia Projects.


 * Don't Act Spoiled. '''The most serious problem that you should resolve rapidly is to destroy and improve the situation that Accountability has been rejected for a long time in spite of the very very clear Wikipedia Accountability System.


 * It's also very obvious that such a stupid contradiction can be created only by many arrogant, phlegmatic and dictatorial editors.'''


 * Do you understand what I'm saying? YOU, All Vandalists. Please don't make a series of complaints only to lower the status of WP:ACAB with terrible injustice to all general decent editors who needn't visit WP:ACAB.


 * For all general decent editors who needn't visit WP:ACAB, it is very clear that WP:ACAB is a guideline or someting more than a guideline, which title has been absolutely approved with full consensus by them. It also seems to be one of common sense. -- PBeaver 05:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PBeaver, would I be right in thinking that English is not your first language? I mean no insult by this; it's great that the English-language wikipedia has users and contributors who aren't native speakers. However, I think that it might be impeding discussion at this point - it's difficult to understand what you're saying a lot of the time, and some things are coming across as somewhat nasty. On the latter point, your apparent difficulties with English lead me to assume good faith, and assume for now that this was not your intention. Similarly your points referring to this page via different links and shortcuts in what looks like circular reasoning.

I'm not sure how this can be helped, although I'm happy to talk to you off page to help you present your points in clearer English. My main reason for mentioning this was to ensure that you are aware of this aspect of difficulty in these discussions. SamBC(talk) 09:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
First, I want to point out that I don't agree with this proposal (or whatever you want to call it). Actually, I'm not sure. I might do. I'm not sure I understand what it says.

Despite this, I've tried to clear up the English and make it more correct, conventional, and readable. I hope that I've maintained the meaning to match the intent of the original contributor(s). I feel that this is necessary in order to give the proposal a fair hearing, rather than dismissing it as being badly written.

That said, it's still not very well written. I removed a few sentences or points that didn't appear to actually say anything, and I may have missed the odd bit of strained English. It still doesn't make a great deal of sense, but I think it's somewhat less opaque now. SamBC(talk) 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
PBeaver, I think it may help if you tell us, concretely, what you're trying to achieve here. If I understand you correctly, you want editors to be accountable for their actions. If that is the case, please realize that they already are accountable - first to each other, second to those with the authority to block them, and third to the ArbCom. This is already outlined in several other policy pages. If I understand the situation correctly, you believe people won't be accountable unless we have a specific accountability polciy, whereas others believe that said policy is redundant to what we already have. Is that broadly correct?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  06:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to stick with language that's a bit more simplified, Radiant. Our friend probably won't know what "ArbCom" or even "redundant" means. No offense intended. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion
I've nominated this page for deletion. All are invited to comment at this page's deletion discussion.Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 14:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From the beginning I said, "Please brush up Accountability and make it one of fundamental official policies of Wikipedia." Why can you have been ignoring me like a crazy vandalist?


 * And why can you have been ignoring the meaning of the texts of Template:Guidelines, Template:Proposed and Template:Rejected ( below ) like one of that dictatorial vandalists?


 * In case of WP:ACAB, how many months do you think it takes before the community will make necessary and sufficient amendment and consensus?


 * Please don't forget that almost all editors needn't read Accountability. -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My Contents For YOU GUYS/GALS
-- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * Village pump (proposals)
 * Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Do you know Wikipedia:Accountability?#Round 2
 * 
 * ( Be Considered )
 * ( Important Information Only For Decent Editors )
 * ( There Is A Consensus That New Better Revision Should Come As Policy )
 * ( Must Go Together )
 * ( Recognize The Fact )
 * ( Do It Yourself )
 * ( YOU Yourself Demonstrate A Consensus About Its Being Policy )
 * ( A Mass Of Contradiction )

Round 4
( Be Considered )

I have to make some sections because some guys still haven't realized my simple intention. My intention is not to make Vandals disgrace "the symbol of Wikipedia Accountability System", this is, Accountability. Of course, I'm not a native speaker, as you know, and I can't realize why NONE of English native speakers can establish it even as a guideline. Japanese Wikipedians have already established ja:Wikipedia:Accountability.


 * GUYS like YOU ( who appear to be Vandals or potential Vandals, unfortunately ) apparently have ignored ( or haven't learned ) the most important core meaning of policy, guideline, consider, etc. If not, why can't you understand the meaning of "it is considered a guideline"? Or, why haven't you tried to understand the meaning of "it is considered a guideline" on the position of one of general decent editors?


 * Of course, "it is considered" is neither "it is approved by all" nor "it is determined by votes" nor "it is licenced by Radiant!" nor "it is authorized even by Vandals". Do you understand what I'm saying?


 *  As far as a lot of decent editors except Vandals have practiced Accountability without any complaints and without editing WP:ACAB, WE except Vandals have to admit, "it is considered a guideline or something more than a guideline." 


 * Therefore, the guideline should be put on Accountability.


 * Apparently there is silent consensus of many millions on this issue. I explained it again and again. But YOU ( who have to be considered Vandals and potential Vandals ) haven't learned ( or have continued to ignore ) the core meaning of each word. -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not call other editors vandals. This is an extremely derogatory term and can be considered a personal attack. People can be considered vandals if and only if their behaviour meets the definition of Vandalism. Hut 8.5 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PBeaver, I'm not sure if the difficulty here is with the English language, or with the English language Wikipedia. "XXX is considered a guideline" is generally understood to mean "considered by the community". A point made by one or more editors but not adopted by the community is an essay. This is the way the terms are used here. SamBC(talk) 23:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Round 5
( Important Information Only For Decent Editors )
 * Please try to understand the meaning of the texts of guideline and proposed correctly, on the position of one of general readers. If you do it, you except Vandals would understand that anyone can't replace guideline with proposed, because everybody except Vandals can easily understand WP:ACAB can be brushed up without changing its status only by the announcement of guideline in spite of that of proposed. Read well below.
 * The anouncement of proposed ( above ) lacks credibility, recognition and support for the fact that anybody still can easily amend it with common sense in spite of the proposal. Only guideline can give us the important information below :
 * " it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page. "


 * Therefore, the guideline should be placed on Accountability. -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PBeaver, I don't think you understand the meaning of these tags. This probably isn't your fault - you don't sound like a native English speaker to me. I will try and explain it to you.


 * Guidelines are pages which the Wikipedia community supports and which may have some exceptions. The Wikipedia community expresses its support through discussions on the talk page. If, and only if, the discussions on the talk page indicate the Wikipedia community supports the page, is it tagged with.


 * If someone wants to make a page - like this one - into a guideline, it is tagged with . The template says that it is proposed that this page becomes a guideline. The Wikipedia community can then discuss on the talk page whether or not the page should be tagged with.


 * Note that the two tags are not on the same page at the same time. This make sense. One says that it is a guideline, the other says that it isn't. Hut 8.5 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Round 6
( There Is A Consensus That New Better Revision Should Come As Policy )
 * I have said from the beginning, "'Please brush up Accountability and make it one of fundamental official policies of Wikipedia. Obviously, few persons have edited Accountability. Probably, for many editors, to achieve accountability is just one of common sense, so they didn't need to read and edit Accountability from necessity. But it should be established properly by the consensus of many Wikipedians.' ( Village pump (proposals) )"
 * And GUYS who have maneged to lower and/or eliminate the status of Accountability, this is, the symbol of "Wikipedia Accountability System", have said, for example, "'The page is also very poorly written, extremely far from the level of quality usually attributed to guidelines. I fixed the overview paragraph somewhat, but it still needs much more work before you can even think about making it a guideline.' ( by Equazcion at Village pump (proposals) )""'Pages generally need to be well-written...' ( by Equazcion at Village pump (proposals) )"


 * Therefore, the guideline should not be removed. -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Round 7
( Must Go Together )
 * Radiant! said, "'proposed' and 'guideline' are mutually exclusive"


 * Hut 8.5 said, "'it's either a guideline OR a proposal, NOT both,'"
 * but as I told above, BOTH must go together. So, I have to say, "It is difficult to agree with Radiant! and Hut 8.5 unfortunately."


 * Hut 8.5 also said, "Removing guideline tag until consensus is demonstrated"
 * but as I told above, consensus is demonstrated anywhere in Wikipedia from the beginning. Therefore, I have to say again, "It is difficult to agree with Hut 8.5, unfortunately."
 * Consensus has to be forged on the talk page through discussion for any proposed policy or guideline, whatever the Wikipedia community has said previously. Hut 8.5 19:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Round 8
( Recognize The Fact )
 * Who, Where, How many decent editors seriously insist that we should eliminate the necessity of achieving accountability in summary boxes and talk pages, where many decent editors have achieved Accountability? You still haven't answered as well as those who managed to eliminate it from "Wikipedia Accountability System".


 * As far as they couldn't, it is very clear that the title ( Accountability ) and the exisitence of the page titled "Accountability" at least have been already considered a guideline or something more than a guideline, regardless of its poorly written contents.

''' WE ( except Vandals ) can easily admit, "Accountability is considered a guideline or something more than a guideline in spite of odd tags such as rejected and delete, because a lot of decent editors, sometimes even anons, have performed Accountability without any complaints." '''


 * Therefore, the guideline should be placed on Accountability. -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Round 9
( Do It Yourself )
 * If you are concerned about its poorly written contents, it's just your own problem. Who can say this sentence is not good enough also could rewite it and say this sentence is OK. And you are guaranteed to amend it by yourself without changing its status of, even if you can't and/or won't.


 * Therefore, I have to say, it's difficult to understand what those who have managed to disgrace and/or eliminate are saying. It's very ridiculous, unfortunately. -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Round 10
( YOU Yourself Demonstrate A Consensus About Its Being Policy )
 * Fortunately or unfortunately, what YOU have been doing and saying also proves that the page titled "Accountability" has been a guideline or something more than a guideline, regardless of its contents. This is the fact.


 * Now, what should we ( especially editors who needn't visit and, therefore, edit WP:ACAB ) consider the status of WP:ACAB is? -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Round 11
( A Mass Of Contradiction )
 * How many policies and guidelines and something like those do you think there are in this Wikipedia?


 * I myself, and probably almost all general editors and readers, remember only the titles and their important key points.


 * In other words, WE don't care so much about how beautiful, how impressive, how readable, how understandable, how wonderful, how conventional, how dignified, how selfish, how stupid .. those sentences are. I think, the most important thing about the articles of Wikipedia encyclopedia, including policies and guidelines and someting like those, is whether the descriptions are neutral ( humane ) and correct ( preferable ).


 * Why? Can you think of ways in which Wikipedia must be full of beautiful passages of prose like A Collection of Literary Works?


 * Why? Can you think of ways in which every Wikipedian must be a great writer, while you are not a great writer as well as other Wikipedians? -- PBeaver 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please understand, PBeaver, that your English, while undoubtedly better than my grasp of any other language (well, maybe about the same as my French), is very difficult for some of us (at least, for me) to understand, especially where the discussion is about such abstract concepts. I know this isn't your fault, but it's not ours either. I think that some of the friction here is caused by misunderstandings, quite likely in both directions. So please try and be calm, not accuse other editors of being vandals (at least one of the people you disagree with is an admin, and while admins are not perfect, they don't usually stay admins if they start vandalising).


 * I will try to cover a few points. A page is only termed a guideline, and tagged as such, when there is explicit consensus for that form of words, and further development is then by consensus. Because what you term "accountability" is understood implicitly, there is no general feeling of need for a guideline regarding it. An essay on it, discussing how accountability is served by existing procedures, may well be of value. Lastly, as the English language Wikipedia, there is a need for all articles, and especially all policies and guidelines, to be in the English language, and clear and understandable in such. People with weaker English can still contribute, but they must understand that people will sometimes have trouble understanding them, just as they may have trouble understanding others. I think I know what you're trying to get at with this page, which is one of the reasons that I tried to improve the language. But please, the tack you're taking at the moment is really like trying to break a brick wall with your head. SamBC(talk) 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)