Wikipedia:Adminship poll/H

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Future of the IRC admin channel?

It's been a year. The IRC admin channel is still criticized for group think and formation of ad-hoc admin actions, the recent one just a week ago. What should be done with it? Is it producing more heat than light?

[edit] Business as usual

  1. Gee, I am there every day and all I can say is that it is a benefit to Wikipedia. A lot of people have bought into conspiracy theories about the IRC channel, but seriously folks it is just a place we use to improve Wikipedia. Many people complaining about IRC don't have any information on the topic other than what has been said by other people who don't know what happens there. If people are conspiring then they are using private messages, not the IRC channel. I have read through the logs, it is just not happening. Admins don't use IRC to make consensus based decisions, but they do ask for advice so that they can use their own discretion better. Admins are allowed to use their own discretion, and they can get advice before doing so. Now if they screw up then it was their fault, not the forum they sought advice from. An admin who takes bad advice has made their own mistake, but that is not a conspiracy, or a back room decision. (1 == 2)Until 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    You do understand that your argument actually feeds the "conspiracy theory" though, right? Saying "I've read through the logs, it is just not happening" is a statement of trust. You are asking all editors outside of the handful (by comparison) that view that channel to "trust me, I've read through the logs". I agree that 99% of the use of the channel is harmless and probably helpful. The 1% drama feeding is not worth it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    I don't to see how people failing to assume good faith contradicts my arguments that it should be business as usual for the IRC channel. I do think that the 99% of the harmless and helpful aspects of IRC justify the 1% drama. If the 1% drama was based on reason I may feel different, but I am not going to accept the "Prove there is no conspiracy" argument which is basically what the "why should we trust you not to conspire" argument is. The little evidence that has been presented to indicate that it is a problem simply is not compelling to me due to the fact that most of it is 20% fact and 80% spin. (1 == 2)Until 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    I personally wasn't failing to assume good faith, and assuming that everyone that has a problem with an admin only IRC channel is somehow automatically assuming bad faith is, well, not assuming good faith...and so the story goes... Seriously though, I'm not trying to get in an argument, I completely believe that the vast majority of activities there are good. And also unnecessary. I've stated clearly (I thought), that there is however an authentic perception that the channel has a touch of cabalism/conspiracy/groupthink mixed in with the good stuff that happens there. I'm not advocating the removal of the channel for my own interests, I can read the logs anytime. I choose not to participate because of the perception of hierarchy where hierarchy is not needed. It's not just not needed, it's not helpful, collaborative, inclusionary, or wiki. The argument I've heard of along the lines of "well if it doesn't happen there, it will happen somewhere" is a false argument along the lines of OtherCrapExists" (or will soon). To sum up my diatribe (and please know, Until1=2, this isn't directly at you personally as I highly respect you and your volunteered time and work, and my apologies if that is how it is coming across,) but I strongly feel that a rights-based off wiki channel of communication completely violates the true spirit of Wikipedia, and it further develops the aura of unequal editing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I assure you the respect is mutual, reasonable people can disagree without a loss of respect. However I have never seen the wiki-way to require the absence of private communication. It is not even that rights based, many admins do not have access, and many that do have access are not admins. Other groups can also form IRC channels. Many of our users, admin or otherwise, use outside means of communication for the benefit of Wikipedia, and as long as this is not used to abuse consensus it is fine and even something I would encourage. (1 == 2)Until 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    There are editors (non-admin) that have access to the admin channel? Forgive me for my ignorance, but I had heard otherwise, that it was not allowed. Also, I don't have a problem with communication that happens off wiki (I choose not to do it, don't even hae email enabled, but I'm at the extreme end of the bell curve on that). My issue is with the exclusivity of the channel combined with the "per IRC discussion", which creates an inaccurate air of authority. If non-admin editors have access to the admin channel, that's news to me! Is that true? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, several non-admins have regular access to the channel, it has been that way for at least a year, most likely longer. I am the first to admit that "per IRC discussion" is a problem, but not a problem with IRC, a problem with any admin that thinks that is a basis for a decision. (1 == 2)Until 04:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Take/Keep admin decisionmaking to/on Wiki

  1. But do not remove the channel, which is useful to get a quick second opinion or sanity check. J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. The channel, 25% of the time is extremely helpful, 70% of the time is friendly discussion without all the trolling and nonsense of other channels, and it is incredibly rare that such incidents happen, then for some unknown reason, people blame the channel rather than the admin who did the action. Any admin who thinks IRC is a substitute for on-wiki discussion needs a slap upside the head and possibly a suspension from the channel. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. What Mr.Z said. Wizardman 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. For the benefit of us non-IRC users here, just leave discussion here. bibliomaniac15 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Here. The main problem I see with irc, is that, unlike here, logs aren't "open to anyone". As a matter of fact, divulging logs without all involved being aware is considered a Bad Thing. Keeping things on wiki just seems better, more transparent, and trackable for potential future reference. - jc37 21:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Mr.Z-Man has said it perfectly. Captain panda 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. What Mr.Z-Man said. the wub "?!" 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. The drama needs to go. The channel is, I think, a social inevitability. --Haemo (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Per Mr Z-Man, who nailed it perfectly. Black Kite 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. With the **DRAMA** that seems to come out of using the channel, even if it's something that really should be non-controversial, it's time that stuff be kept here for specific discussion of actions. Leave the channel for general discussion or socializing. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. How does one enact a ban of IRC? Otherwise as per Mr Z-man really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Good for second opinion on quick, probably non-controversial things, but for actually getting consensus? No. There's usually around 60 or so admins in the channel at any given time, but only about 10 of those are actually active, with (maybe) another 15 or so that respond when you mention their name ("ping" them). Nothing should be done "per IRC", if a full discussion is needed, it's gotta be here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Obvious utopia. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Mr Z-Man. Dorftrottel (warn) 03:49, April 21, 2008
  15. I told you Z-man should have passed his RfB. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Essential as part of our openness and transparency towards the public. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. This is not really a matter of choice. This is already a policy, save privacy and other small segment of issues. Why is this even brought up? --Irpen 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Move it to wmf servers under community control and jurisdiction. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. This was a fundamental principle. Hiding T 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. No real decisions on IRC. Malinaccier (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Obviously, as is current practice. — Werdna talk 02:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  22. As it always should have been. Singularity 04:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  23. Per J Milburn. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  24. I am putting my name here as well as in the "Business as usual" section because we already keep our group decision making on wiki. Getting off wiki advice and then using your discretion is not the same think as making an "off-wiki" decision. It is making a decision with your own discretion after getting private advice. As far as I can tell, nobody is using the IRC channels to come to any sort of group decision, and any action taken by an admin should be attributed to that admin. (1 == 2)Until 13:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  25. I must agree with Z-man, despite WP:PERNOM. Not being an admin, I can't check his figures; but the overall picture seems blindingly obvious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  26. The channel certainley is helpful, but I agree it is better to keep admin decision making on Wikipedia, as generally currently done. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  27. Open-ness is important. James086Talk | Email 08:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  28. Greeves (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  29. This is what is was always for. Zginder 2008-06-03T15:43Z (UTC)


[edit] Scrap it

  1. I still don't know of any substantive positive thing coming from IRC. Some people still haven't learned that the bad block decisions they make via IRC empower those who are at the receiving end. I can always get a quick second opinion at WP:AN if I need one. Grandmasterka 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Not against it in principle, but sick of the endless drama. -- Naerii 20:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. I have always been against it in principle. A private channel is anti-Wiki by definition and encourages the strengthening of cabals. --Wikiacc () 21:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. The IRC/admins channel and its defenders have done a great deal of damage to Wikipedia. The theoretical benefits are outweighed by the stunning amount of disruption the channel continues to produce. Discuss things in an open channel or on Wiki. The secrecy is not helping. --JayHenry (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Zero transparency - there are even arguments regarding which are the "true" logs when presented, and there is no effective community sanction on any abuse (even should there be proof of same). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. seems like more trouble than it is worth. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Destroy it. In the rare case of something truly confidential , we have oversight and arb com and OTRS. Open decisions, openly arrived at, is the general principle behind WP, and a private channel subverts it. I have refused to join it, and I hope to encourage new admins to do likewise DGG (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. It seems to nurture a problematic mentality and has produced far too many abusive and harmful decisions. Everyking (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. It's divisive and inflammatory. We have no control over it, but the Wikipedia community can distance itself from it and explicitly state that its use is considered inappropriate. We should agree that it cannot be used to defend any administrative action on-wiki, as that can only be justified here, within the community. If those that control the channel knew what was good for Wikipedia as a whole, they would have scrapped it themselves long ago. The fact that they did not reflects badly on them, and their commitment to building an inclusive community. DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Scrap it. Too much drama, and too many power trips and problems for some people. I have not entered the channel for ages now, and hope to keep it that way. I haven't missed out on anything, and I feel great! I encourage more people to stop joining. Majorly (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Burn pile. With gasoline. And a torch. And quickly. I'm utterly convinced that +/- 95% of the time, the admin IRC channel is perfectly functional, perfectly harmless, probably a bit of fun and in-jokey, perfectly sane, and perfectly useful. I'm also utterly convinced that the other +/- 5% of the time make it utterly not worth it. (Disclaimer) My percentages have a +/- 4% margin of error, as I've never been, and per DGG above, never will be, part of the channel.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Unless any and all actions that are decided "off Wiki" are required to be nakedly, transparently logged "on Wiki" -- posting of IRC logs, emails, etc., this is useless to the larger community. The needs of a minority of the admin population doesn't decide what is best for everyone. If "all" IRC logs are published in a place that any admin can review at-will, and no action that is formulated on IRC is allowed on-Wiki without full disclosure and logging, then sure, keep. Otherwise, it's doing far more harm than good. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. No. Transparency is needed, and on another note, so is better access. I've never known such a complicated system as IRC, but then that might just be me. Rudget 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Scrap it. Produces more problems than solutions. PhilKnight (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. First choice. Scrap the current channel. Let those who want chat in private all they want but there would be no illusion anymore that they are doing anything but illicit through discussing good users behind their backs. Remove any mention of such channel from Wikipedia, similar to BADSIGHTS. Those with poor ethics can exercise their freedom of communication in an illicit way all they want but would not be able to invoke any poor excuses. We don't host WR policies. We should not host the policies of #admins, at least for as long as they are intendedly kept in an ambiguous and morally indefensible condition of deliberate ambiguity. If they are official, make it clear and meaningful. If not,... well, we don't host WR policy on Wikipedia servers. --Irpen 04:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Shut it down. The potential harm outweighs any potential benefit. You can't stop people from talking on IRC but you can desysop any admins who have been using IRC to privately discuss Wikipedia matters. Publicly accessible logs would be an improvement, but there would still be private messages from admin to admin not in the logs. Off-wiki consensus does not apply to Wikipedia. Not to mention that unless an admin has a cloak, the IRC channel is an instant Checkuser for any other admin in the channel. There are only 28 users on Wikipedia with Checkuser access, and they must provide personal identification to the Wikimedia Foundation. Meanwhile, there are over 1,500 admins who can access the IRC channel, and admins don't have to provide any personal identification to anyone. --Pixelface (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other reforms

  1. Keep the channel but discourage its use except for very urgent matters. Use a public channel for chit-chat. If logs are not already available to all admins they should be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Do nothing as the wiki has no control whatsover over IRC. John Reaves 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but on the other hand, should it be "unoffically" sanctioned by Wikipedia? I can tell you, as someone who doesn't irc, it often makes me feel as if I'm "left out" of what's "going on" concerning whatever issue is at hand. (That said, there are several "off-wiki" ways in which people communicate. Several noticeboards, email lists, alternative wikis, and irc channels. Not to mention personal interaction such as email, and IMs, and so on. So, we should realise that it's out there, but I don't think we should offically "approve" it for admins, et al.) - jc37 21:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Proposal: Agree with John Reeves. You cannot control this, yet it should not be invisible to us. So I'd propose an Admin Chat, like the Crat Chat, in the case that consensus among admins is needed to do a controversial or semi-controversial task. Just a thought. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. We're still waiting on a solution from ArbCom about IRC, right? Right? :( shoy 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Removing the IRC channel to lessen the effects of off-wiki discussions will only move the venue elsewhere, most likely to another IRC channel. seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. I agree with John Reaves that WP has no control over IRC. hmwithτ 13:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. It's OK to have a channel for admins to discuss topics which are confidential, but it should NOT form the basis for any administrative action. Anybody blocking someone "per IRC discussion" should be desysopped on the spot. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. How about choosing admins who won't make bad decisions based on a few IRC comments? And simultaneously recognizing that people may be saying bad things about me on IRC right now but I don't really care? That would make this issue go away pretty quickly. IRC is a symptom, not the problem, and the focus on it generates a lot of shouting but no real solutions. People will always communicate off-wiki. MastCell Talk 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Make the logs public. ^demon[omg plz] 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. per Sjakkalle. - Philippe 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Second choice: define without ambiguity whether it is subject to the Wikipedia policies or not. If not, see the "scrap it" section above. Remove any mention from Wikipedia. We don't host the policies, rules, etc of Wikipedia Review either. If yes, make it clear, subject it to the community oversight (does not necessarily means publishing logs, just make its rules defined by policies written in the same ways like any others) rather than being Forrester's fiefdom. Current status of deliberate ambiguity passionately desired by some is morally indefensible. --Irpen 22:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. I was writing a long rant about this, but unfortunately my browser crashed and the automatic recovery feature unfortunately did not recover what I had written. In any case, I agree with ^demon: the logs should be made public due to the simple fact that anything that is discussed in the channel that someone wants to be hidden from the eyes of the community should not be discussed there. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)