Misplaced Pages

:Adminship survey/R: 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:Adminship survey Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:55, 16 February 2007 editPgk (talk | contribs)20,534 edits →Other← Previous edit Revision as of 19:57, 16 February 2007 edit undoJust H (talk | contribs)8,628 edits agreeNext edit →
Line 14: Line 14:
# Agreed per the comments above. ] <small>]</small> 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC) # Agreed per the comments above. ] <small>]</small> 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
# Certainly not, in most cases. There will be some where the matter really cannot go on record because of breech of privacy or possible libel--and there's no way of discussing in WP space without going on record. There should be very few of them, and when this procedure is used, it should be declared--as it sometimes has been. It is an obvious violation of the basic principles to have closed discussions--first, there will be cabals; second, it diminishes trust by the community in the decisions; third, it arouse a certain degree of resentment by those excluded. ''']''' 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC) # Certainly not, in most cases. There will be some where the matter really cannot go on record because of breech of privacy or possible libel--and there's no way of discussing in WP space without going on record. There should be very few of them, and when this procedure is used, it should be declared--as it sometimes has been. It is an obvious violation of the basic principles to have closed discussions--first, there will be cabals; second, it diminishes trust by the community in the decisions; third, it arouse a certain degree of resentment by those excluded. ''']''' 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
# Since apparently IRC logs aren't published, there should be no Misplaced Pages IRC Channel...period. The temptation of using it for smoke filled room deals is too great. ] 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

====Disagree==== ====Disagree====
#IRC should not be used to determine '''blocks''' without an on-wiki discussion or record of the IRC discussion. But for a borderline deletion or protection, it's a benefit to get an extra opinion or two. ] 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC) #IRC should not be used to determine '''blocks''' without an on-wiki discussion or record of the IRC discussion. But for a borderline deletion or protection, it's a benefit to get an extra opinion or two. ] 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:57, 16 February 2007

IRC should not be used in making admin decisions

Points to think about :

  • Possibility of Cabalism/Groupthink?
  • Is there a need for the use of IRC to make decisions? Is it necessary?
  • Is it a superior method compared to alternatives?

Agree

  1. I agree IRC should not be used in making admin decisions - We've an on-wiki forum for that called WP:AN and if it's secret you guys can sort it out by email pretty quickly in my experience. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. IRC has broken culture. If it had non-broken culture, it would be ok. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. We keep them logged here for a reason. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Better, in the long run, to keep this stuff out in the open. I can see IRC being used for a quick extra pair of eyes on something, but not for full admin-level decisions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. We are a wiki. We should use it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Absolutely and totally agree. No need for silly little secret discussions. Anything you say should be put onto the RfA itself, or another suitable page where everyone can use it. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Agreed, there has been growing talk of cabalism and a closed community with no oversight in communication has only fueled that further. There has been times where it is said "it was discussed on IRC", which means its discussed in a manner that you do not know what was said, who said it, and when. We have such an indepth manner here with "dif's" to keep track of discussions, there really is no reason decisions should be made outside that scope. --NuclearZer0 16:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Agreed per the comments above. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Certainly not, in most cases. There will be some where the matter really cannot go on record because of breech of privacy or possible libel--and there's no way of discussing in WP space without going on record. There should be very few of them, and when this procedure is used, it should be declared--as it sometimes has been. It is an obvious violation of the basic principles to have closed discussions--first, there will be cabals; second, it diminishes trust by the community in the decisions; third, it arouse a certain degree of resentment by those excluded. DGG 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Since apparently IRC logs aren't published, there should be no Misplaced Pages IRC Channel...period. The temptation of using it for smoke filled room deals is too great. Just H 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. IRC should not be used to determine blocks without an on-wiki discussion or record of the IRC discussion. But for a borderline deletion or protection, it's a benefit to get an extra opinion or two. Chick Bowen 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Chick Bowen. IRC is not a bad thing. To get a quick reality check, it's great, and doesn't clutter up AN with something relatively useless. For blocks of established users, it should obviously be on-wiki. Ral315 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Other

  1. Off-wiki communication is perfectly fine to make decisions, including IRC. So long as people understand that consensus on IRC does not count when you have to defend your actions. "We decided it on IRC!" is not sufficient justification. -Amarkov moo! 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Off-wiki communication is reasonable for discussing a situation. But it should never be offered as an explanation of an action. The reasoning behind the decision is the only explanation that should be offered. If the person making the decision can't explain the reasoning, they don't understand it well enough to act on it. GRBerry 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. What they both said. We're human, we can talk; but decisions should be based on Wiki stuff, and explained there. --AnonEMouse 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Many blocks etc. never get discussed on wiki, some since they are obvious and some because they need prompt action. The immediacy afforded by IRC or the like can add for at least a sanity check. But as above, ultimately the person who blocks makes the decision and takes the responsibility for it. Regardless, to try and outlaw it would be unpoliceable, make such a decision and any discussion which does happened gets pushed further away from a more general gaze and so is subject to less independant review, not more. --pgk 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)