Wikipedia:Adminship survey/R

(29/05/09) 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 - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 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 //  &#9775;  // 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. --Nuclear Zer0 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 Wikipedia IRC Channel...period. The temptation of using it for smoke filled room deals is too great. Just H 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Absolutely not. Not everyone uses IRC, so it makes it more difficult to watch the watchers. Decisions about and affecting wikipedia by admins should be open and transparent. I love the allusion to smoke-filled back-rooms by Just H, it provides an excellent expression of the concern. Agent 86 21:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Definitely not as per Agent 86. Yuser31415 22:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Shouldn't be a factor. I could have swore that IRC logs were supposed to be private, if that is true, then we may have a problem if people are using IRC as excuses. — Moe  00:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Definitely agree.  Process needs complete transparency on Wikipedia, not elsewhere. —Doug Bell talk 02:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) I can't even access it; I'm underclass. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Per my comments/response to questions at my RfA. A sanity check for basic things are borderline, but most of the IRC horror actions should be avoided.  Daniel.Bryant  04:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Off-wiki stays off-wiki. On-wiki actions get documented here. This is not hard. Opabinia regalis 07:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Agree. Nobody should ever say "per IRC discussion" or "this was discussed on IRC" or "[important person's name] said this on IRC". --- RockMFR 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Comments on IRC are not available to all those that may wish to see them and disappear once they scroll of the screen, comments on Wikipedia are viewable by all and remain forever. These IRC decisions really conflict with the notion that all admin decisions should be carried out with the utmost of transparency. While we're on the topic: I really do not like IRC at all, it is cliquey, it is divisive, and it really accentuates the oft repeated claims of cabalism. Rje 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) I don't really use IRC very much (if ever) & therefore would hate to hear something has happened on IRC that affects me. Spawn Man 02:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * God, I hate IRC, and I've never even used it. Grand  master  ka  09:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It escapes me why IRC is even necessary. The discussions behind admin decisions should be open for all to see. YechielMan 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) IRC might be useful for contacting people quickly. But any discussion and decisionmaking that has direct implications for the wiki, should be on the wiki. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Wiki related discussion should be visible to all, not just select admins. Jorcoga  ( Hi! / Review ) 11:27, Friday, 23 February '07
 * 4) All important decisions and especially admin decisions should be documented inside Wikipedia. We are purposing to encourage publicly of messages, and we aren't trying to "hide" anything. Referring to an IRC discussion when deciding things would often cause confusion.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   17:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Anything that reduces accountability is bad IMO. It is great for asking help, almost instant responses but only for actions which are non-controversial. That means things like "How do I block" are ok as opposed to "Should I block". James086 Talk  09:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree. Decisions made on IRC need to be ratified on-wiki, or otherwise they do not constitute community consensus. Tito xd (?!?) 00:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Decisions need to be ratified on-wiki?? What proportion of indefblocks do you suppose receive community discussion?  Surely under 1%. -ac —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.213.176.11 (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
 * How many of those are controversial? How many of the "so-and-so ganged up on me on IRC" cases are controversial? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 04:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree. Transparency is just all-around better. Crystallina 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No reason to have secret discussions on voting. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  02:02, 3 March 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)
 * Quick request for qualification: I assume that you would approve of asking to block a purely vandal-only account, vandalbot, or vandal-move-bot via IRC, yes? How about IPs vandalizing past last warning? I'm wondering if you mean no blocks at all, or merely no blocks of users with any good faith edits, or something else. Grace notes T  &#167; 02:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * Why is it "great"? You should elaborate more on that point. Just H 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I can go in and ask a simple question like "hey, look at the history of this page, not a ton of IP vandalism, but someone's complained about it to me; anyone think it's worth semi-protecting?"  Maybe it's worth it; maybe someone points out that it's just one single IP range adding false statements, and a small range block would suffice.  It's a relatively minor issue, but it's good to get input on something like that.  It also is a quick way of reaching many admins quickly; in the case of a serious BLP issue, Jimbo Wales, myself and about 6 or 7 other admins set up a quick channel to talk with a non-admin who was trying to help with the issue (which was ultimately resolved).  I'm not saying by any means that IRC should be the ultimate source of judgment, but it can help in minor situations.  Ral315 » 23:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just H 23:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the matter with asking the quick question on WP:AN/I? Isn't that what it's there for? —Doug Bell talk 04:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This is ridiculous. IRC is a technology.  You don't solve a social problem with a technological fix.  Everything done on IRC can be done with a conference call.  Secretive back room dealings have existed since the dawn of time and they will always exist.  The real issue here is that binding decisions have to be made transparently and receive approval from the full commmunity.  Issues can be discussed and clarified in private before being presented to save the general community from drowning in details.  This is how every social system works.  --Ideogram 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Tony Sidaway 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC) A good administrator does not arbitrarily reject any avenue of communication. I suspect that many supporters of this proposal have done so because they falsely believe that administrator decisions made after discussion on IRC are somehow worse then administrator decisions made (as the vast majority are) without any discussion at all.
 * 3) Sometimes there are things that need to be discussed between admins only (ie, not the entire world). Of course not-trivial matters should be discussed on AN/other, but not everything needs to be discussed in a committee. What would happen if people were to find out that there's a page where people can ask admins to block others without significant discussion, a place where people can request admins to protect pages without discussion, and even a process where pages can be deleted without the consultation of every other wikimedian? -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 21:21, 21 April 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 (squeak) 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)
 * 5) Off-wiki communication channels are useful and should not be banned. Any decisions that people may find contraversial need to be aired on-wiki.-- Birgitte SB  22:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Uncontroversial blocks or speedy deletes are perfectly fine for IRC, when a non-admin needs admin assistance. I'm less fond of admins deciding something on IRC unless their explanation of the action transcends the medium through which it was communicated. Wikipedia is, by etymology and in practice, quick. No harm in quickening if it's not abused. Grace notes T  &#167; 23:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) What GRBerry said, except that I'm probably more skeptical than him about the usefulness of IRC. Αργυριου (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree with pgk and Gracenotes, with the addition that it's probably not a good idea to discuss blocking experienced users off-wiki (except for in arbcom-l). --Interiot 14:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Comments on IRC must not be used to build consensus or to hide information from users. However, it is acceptable to use IRC to coordinate admin activity (as in dispatching troops to problem zones) or to decide on emergency actions. Emergency actions should always be discussed on-wiki afterwards, but coordination need not be. --N Shar 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Log, log, log, and then it's a perfectly safe tool. As long as it's not logged, it's a no-no to IRC oligarchy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)