Misplaced Pages

talk:IRC channels/Misplaced Pages-en-admins: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:IRC channels Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:43, 6 May 2007 editDavid Gerard (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators213,066 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 21:07, 6 May 2007 edit undoDavid Gerard (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators213,066 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 5: Line 5:


:Furthermore, please reread ]. If they don't understand already, they're not clueful enough to be admins. - ] 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC) :Furthermore, please reread ]. If they don't understand already, they're not clueful enough to be admins. - ] 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::Hmm, that's way too harsh. Sorry for being asslike there. What I mean is, this is a description of what the channel is for, and that includes assuming good judgement already exists. If we have to detail good judgement, the reader shouldn't be here. If we have to detail the penalties for cluelessness, the reader shouldn't be here. If someone proves to be clueless on the channel, I kick them off - ] 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:07, 6 May 2007

Wording

Under "purpose", David Gerard prefers the wording, "You might be wrong!" Two other editors prefer, "You might be wrong about whether or not you really have a consensus, and you will be held responsible for anything you do, regardless of the IRC discussion that preceded it." Anyone else have an opinion? --Elonka 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Under "purpose", one of the channel wizards worded it a given way, and zero channel wizards disputed this - David Gerard 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, please reread m:Instruction creep. If they don't understand already, they're not clueful enough to be admins. - David Gerard 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that's way too harsh. Sorry for being asslike there. What I mean is, this is a description of what the channel is for, and that includes assuming good judgement already exists. If we have to detail good judgement, the reader shouldn't be here. If we have to detail the penalties for cluelessness, the reader shouldn't be here. If someone proves to be clueless on the channel, I kick them off - David Gerard 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)