Wikipedia:Adminship survey/S

Agree

 * 1) What at the end of this very long, survey we sneak this little nugget in? Absolutely support - you are wearing a wiki hat that day you punch jimbo at a meet-up - think you'll come back on-line and it will be all sweetness and light? Really? IRC should be just the same. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Not limited to admins, not limited to IRC. Major contributor to a website that purports to reveal personal information about wikipedians with intent to harass them? Not welcome here. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Yup.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) If someone is talking in their capacity as an admin offwiki, then they should be treated in tehir capacity as an admin. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, should apply to everyone. The things I've seen some people say about other users is disgraceful. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes because its an extension in some purposes of Wikipedia. You should not be absolved of civility simply because you went from the web page to the IRC server. --Nuclear Zer0 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) I have no problem with this. Incivility or abusiveness done as a Wikipedian should be addressed by Arbcom. Chick Bowen 17:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Absolutely. Catchpole 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Essentially, yes. And i would consider extending it to some off-wiki discussions about things usually discussed on-wiki--but I am not sure about this part. We want to encourage open discussion of WP, and knowledge about it.DGG 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Admins shouldn't be on IRC. Just H 20:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Personal attacks are never acceptable, no matter where they are. I worry about waht people may lump into incivility, but it could be taken into account as part of a pattern.-- Birgitte SB  22:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Admins should be civil in real life, in emails, on IRC, onwiki. Period. Yuser31415 22:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Yes, and limited to admins. I've had an admin tell me that I should discuss complaints about another admin off-wiki rather than on; same admin deleted the on-wiki discussion as an attack page. People with more power should be more restricted. Αργυριου (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Yes. I would expect admins to hold themselves to the highest regard and not make personal attacks, although thats becoming a growing fad. I would expect also that if another admin say another acting inappropriately, to say something rather than blow it off. —  Moe  00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Of course. IRC is part of wikipedia. Just like I think if an admin has been blocked for incivilty on another language wikipedia he/she should be held responsible... Someone may not attack someone on Wikuipedia, but then attack on IRC, hoping not to have their wiki account punished. Admins should be like the Queen, imagining there are paparatzi everywhere & that the slightest incivilty could be published on every magazine from here to Antartica. PR crew is not needed for admins thoguh... ;) Spawn Man 02:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Actions relating to Wikipedia (especially personal attacks on editors) are blockable/bannable offenses, even if they occur off-wiki. This applies to admins as well. --N Shar 21:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Off-wiki behavior that has on-wiki implications should be dealt with on-wiki. Note that two people in a private conversation doesn't qualify; if it doesn't get back to the wiki, it doesn't have to be dealt with.  --Ideogram 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)  Addendum: I agree with the comment below that this should apply to all Wikipedians, not just admins.  --Ideogram 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Actions that have a direct impact on the on-wiki collaborative environment (e.g. saying that so-and-so is a fucking dumbwit that should be banned from Wikipedia for utter stupidity) in an off-wiki forum populated by members which frequent Wikipedia poisons the editing environment in the same way as if they were made on-wiki. Tito xd (?!?) 00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Admins must be responsible and that should not end when they are absent from Wikipedia. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  02:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Tony Sidaway 01:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Absolutely. But why limit this to administrators?

Disagree

 * 1) It's a slippery slope, which I don't say often, but supporter #2 is already using this to propose banning all users who participate in another web site, that's just silly. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) The only off-wiki communication that should be regulated is that which negatively affects others (including, for example, the publication of another user's personal information, attack sites, etc.)  Personal attacks and incivility off-wiki are perfectly acceptable, in my opinion; while I don't condone such actions, they do not affect any parties directly, and it helps keep a civil atmosphere on-wiki.  Ral315 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Whilst I strongly disagree with the use of IRC, and the disgraceful behaviour by a minority of those that use it, it seems bizarre to me that anyone should be held accountable on Wikipedia for actions that take place off it. It is statistically certain that there are prominant editors and admins who have criminal records, should they be punished too for "letting down the Wiki"? One would hope not. Rje 00:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) IRC is like Vegas. What happens there, should stay there. Of course, I wish it didn't exist at all, but that's a different survey. Grand  master  ka  09:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) It's my belief that nobody should be held accountable on-wiki for what they do off-wiki. Wikipedia has dominion over Wikipedia and nowhere else. If someone is incivil over IRC, they can be kicked/banned (and I've seen it happen.) That's the way it should be handled.  . V .  [Talk 14:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree with everyone above in the disagree section. There is only one case where I believe off-wiki action warranted on-wiki sanctions. If someone's being an idiot on IRC/IM/another website, that's their choice. As Pierre Elliot Trudeau once famously said "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". What happens off-wiki stays there. If it spill over here, then it's a problem, but not until then. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other

 * 1) All Wikipedians, wherever they identify as Wikipedians. If their conduct their would be sanctionable if done here, and actually causes a disturbance here, has disrupted Wikipedia. GRBerry 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't consider this descriptive of our processes here as they currently stand. I do, however, support it as proscriptive advice for how things should work. Are you of the same, or different, opinion - asking as a clarifing question. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As it ought to be, not as it currently is. GRBerry 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Why just admins? If we are saying it's unacceptable, then it's unacceptable for everyone. I can't say I condone such activity, as elsewhere I can't see IRC behaviour as easily policeable, and I also see there is a whole lot of contextual difficulties when seeing bits of discussion etc. We also deleted things like WP:PAIN and the civility noticeboard (or whatever it was called) didn't last that long. What "sanctions" are being proposed? --pgk 20:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm not sure that people should be sanctioned just as if they said it on-wiki, but people who think we should pretend that incivility on IRC never happened are weird. -Amarkov moo! 01:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree, but this needs to be rephrased to include all editors, not just admins. —Doug Bell talk 02:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Indeed, everyone and not just admins.  Daniel.Bryant  04:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't care what's said off-wiki as long as it stays there. I'm much more concerned about people using IRC as an echo chamber for like-minded wikipoliticians than I am about bad manners. Opabinia regalis 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Per GRBerry and applicable for non-admins as well.  Tangentially, I think the argument I heard a while back boiled down to "There is no formal relationship between IRC and the wiki, so wiki standards don't apply to IRC, but IRC rules on log privacy have to be enforced on the wiki", which is just insulting. - BanyanTree 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)