Jump to content

Wikipedia:Adminship survey/T

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(06/11/02/06/06) The community should have direct say in IRC operator/Oversight/CheckUser access

[edit]

In principle; there is no proposal on how to go around implementing it.

Agree

[edit]
  1. Strongly - It's a must. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This had to happen months ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely. There's too much temptation to falsify evidence. I don't care either way on the ChanOps thing though since there should be no Wikipedia IRC Channel. Just H 20:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We are a wiki, not a cabal. The community should have a say in anything regarding Wikipedia. Yuser31415 22:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, or alternatively, we could have Jimbo do all decision making for us....(kidding) Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)11:09, Friday, 23 February '07
  6. I think we as the community need more of a say than what we have currently. Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes... just as it has now: everybody can vote and comment. What's more to it?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to IRC, disagree to oversight/checkuser

[edit]
  1. IRC Op yes, Oversight/Checkuser have real legal implications to the foundation so no. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could, please explain these real legal implications. Just H 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oversighted revisions have implications for the GFDL, while Checkusers are required to not-violate the privacy policy of the wikimedia foundation located here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Same. Arbcom know what they're doing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, but oversight/checkuser can be handled by ArbCom I think. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree completely. The Checkuser access is a touchy subject due to legal implications. However I believe the IRC issue, though the community is so small on IRC, I would not be surprised if it turns into a buddy vote situation. --NuclearZer0 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, then it would actually be a branch of Wikipedia. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If we decide IRC is still necessary, this is how it should be managed.--and it might get more people involved in it. DGG 19:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. checkuser/oversight has leagal implication, therefor a Foundation matter. IRC is an added means of communication. Agathoclea 23:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree per above. —Doug Bell talk 02:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yep, seems good per the recent instructions given to ops. Daniel.Bryant 04:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree, IRC has become a locus of abuse. Oversight and Checkuser, not so much.
  11. Oversight and Checkkuser per above. However, IRC is not as necessary and is not a legal system. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to oversight/checkuser, disagree to IRC

[edit]
  1. The community should have a direct say, but not necessarily a deciding vote, on oversight and checkuser, similar to arbcom. There should not be a dedicated IRC channel which has a necessariy and sufficient qualification for joining "being an admin". As that's the only IRC channel which seems to cause trouble, there's no need to change the other channels. #wikipedia is not Wikipedia. Αργυριου (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IRC has technical issues relating to it that oversight and checkuser do not. You have to be worried about, let's say, a user even being on IRC at a given time, registered nicks, etc. As for oversight and checkuser, it would be nice, as requesting privileges from the ArbCom is an intimidating task. It would be nice as long as it were not done in an RFA-like venue. Have an actual discussion on the Village Pump or similar. Titoxd(?!?) 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disagree

[edit]
  1. I don't see the big deal about chanops. If arbcom had jurisdiction over IRC (see above) than they could simply instruct a chanop to remove someone (they never institute blocks themselves, even though they're all admins). As for checkuser and oversight, the current system works fine, and since these are highly technical procedures general community trust is not the only issue. Chick Bowen 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I admittedly am not in channel 24-7, but I have never seen chanops ever used in the admins channel. Ever. #wikipedia- 99% of chanop actions I've seen I approved of, and the 1% were minor blocks that I think were probably acceptable, but a bit harsh. I don't mind ArbCom adding a few ops, but direct community input wouldn't make any sense, because many of the voters don't go on IRC, have no idea who's active in the channel, and in some cases, have no idea what ops do (#wikipedia ops, for example, mainly deal with kicking trolls spamming lines about administrators' sexual orientations- nothing where I'm particularly worried about abuse). Oversight and checkuser are obviously foundation issues. I also want to strongly endorse pgk's point that those who want oversight and checkuser often shouldn't have them. Ral315 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Can't see the big deal for IRC Ops, Oversight is only a stop gap solution and checkuser has privacy issues. I've also generally been of the view those who would actively seek out checkuser access are probably the last people I'd want to have checkuser access. --pgk 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't see the issue here or any need to change the current set-up.--BirgitteSB 22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oversight and Checkuser are extremely technical tools, and there are potential legal issues, as such I do not believe it to be either desirable or necessary for their use to change. As for the IRC stuff: I do not believe Wikipedia should be legislating on activities that take place outside of Wikipedia, as such it is really a moot point what happens to the IRC operator stuff. Rje 01:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Even though some channels are "Wikipedia channels", neither the community nor ArbCom nor the WMF has jurisdiction over them. If you disagree with a chanop, found your own channel (it takes almost 2 minutes). As for CU/O, only ArbCom/WMF should decide them. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

[edit]
  1. I disagree with IRC; that's not part of Wikipedia, so we don't need control over it, any more than we need over Wikipedia Review. As for Oversight and Checkuser, the community should be able to overrule a decision to grant access, but not the other way around. Oversight is fraught with legal issues, and Checkuser requires much more technical knowledge than I think most people realize (plus, again, legal issues). -Amarkov moo! 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A decision should be made on whether IRC is 'self' or 'other'. No, the community should not have the power to grant oversight/checkuser; I don't have a problem with how those are currently handled. Opabinia regalis 07:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Actually, Amarkov makes a lot of sense here - the community should have a way to say that certain individuals should be removed from having Oversight and Checkuser priviledges. These are positions of high trust, and if the community doesn't trust some incumbents there will be better candidates to hold the position. GRBerry 04:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it isn't too late, I'd like to point out that the Essjay incident would probably have been significantly less toxic if we had an established, functioning process for removing people from these positions other than "raise so much stink that Jimbo can't ignore it". GRBerry 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Amarkov. Grandmasterka 09:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree exactly with Amarkov. --N Shar 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tony Sidaway 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC) For technical reasons the Wikipedia community cannot control entities outside itself, so that rules out existing IRC channels. It would be a simple matter to set up an IRC channel with access levels dictated directly by a decision-making process taking place on the wiki, but this doesn't seem to have happened yet. Obviously it would be very undesirable to have a community veto on the others.[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminship_survey/T&oldid=1140260006"