IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/Policy ratification
The following discussion is closed. The policy passed as written.
All users who are able to receive (or currently have) admin rights on the English Wikipedia are entitled to access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. (For our purposes, "admin rights" is defined as the ability to delete and protect pages.)
This includes all users listed at en:Special:ListUsers/sysop, stewards (who have admin rights through the global steward group), staff (who have admin rights through the global staff group), sysadmins (who have admin rights through the global sysadmin group), and any former admin who would (theoretically) be able to go to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and be re-granted the admin bit upon request.
In the case of permanent imposed de-adminnings, the user shall lose access to -en-admins. In the case of temporary de-adminnings, the user shall lose access for the length of the temporary de-adminning.
| IRC account | Wiki account | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| AlisonW | AlisonW | |
| Angela | Angela | |
| bastique | Bastique | Support |
| BradPatrick | BradPatrick | |
| Chairboy | Chairboy | |
| DavidGerard | David Gerard | Looks reasonably sane. Needs an additional clause for ArbCom/Jimbo additions to the allowed list e.g. "or by ArbCom or Jimbo variation." Otherwise, good. |
| delphine | notafish | |
| Deskana | Deskana | Support. |
| Dmcdevit | Dmcdevit | I'll enforce it if the channel community wants it. Personally, I think it's better if the channel decides on a case-by-case basis whether there is consensus for someone's inclusion/exclusion, though. |
| Fennec | Fennec | |
| FloNight | FloNight | Support as currently worded without any changes. |
| FT2 | FT2 | All options on the table have good rationales; comfortable with all of them, no issue needing intervention. Abstain in favor of wider consensus viewpoint. |
| interiot | Interiot | |
| jacoplane | Jacoplane | |
| James_F | Jdforrester | Abstaining as I'm only an op ex officio. |
| JohnReaves | John Reaves | Looks good. |
| jwales | Jimbo Wales | |
| kibble | Cbrown1023 | Support |
| kim_register | Kim Bruning | I opposed this particular approach on the day the channel was founded (literally) , and I feel that everything that happened since then has basically vindicated my beliefs. I don't believe in the creation of exclusive clubs (like Esperanza). The original objective of the channel was to allow admins to communicate with OTRS and Foundation and etc in a closed channel. At the very least, OTRS and foundation and etc must have access. People who do have admin access on wikipedia, but are known to be untrustworthy on the foundation level should *not* have access for the same reason.
On the other hand, the channel's purpose and means seem to be drifting. We should seriously consider whether the channel still has a practical purpose at this point in time. If OTRS or OFFICE people are explicitly being excluded, I think the channel should be discontinued, as it will no longer serve its original purpose, and the original trade-offs which were made in favor of discretion no longer apply. |
| Krimpet | Krimpet | Support |
| kylu | Kylu | Support |
| lar | Lar | Support |
| mackensen | Mackensen | |
| Mark_Ryan | Mark | Support. If someone is no longer an admin — temporarily or permanently — they shouldn't be in the channel. Getting channel access back is so simple that I have no problem with shifting the onus of seeking channel access back to them after they regain their adminship (whether automatically or otherwise). |
| martinp23 | Martinp23 | support. We do this anyway, don't we? I oppose David Gerard's suggestion and it does not appear to have been discussed at all anywhere, and any change along that lines should come after the policy ratification. I also oppose Ryanpostlethwait's suggestion (while agreeing with tawker's). |
| Mike_H | Mike Halterman | Support |
| mindspillage | Mindspillage | |
| mnemonic1 | MGodwin | |
| Morven | Morven | |
| MZMcBride | MZMcBride | Support |
| Nishkid64 | Nishkid64 | |
| One_ | One | |
| PhilSandifer | Phil Sandifer | |
| Rjd0060 | Rjd0060 | Support |
| Ryanpostlethwait | Ryan Postlethwaite | Oppose removal of access for temporary desysoppings when the user automatically gets the bit back after their suspension. |
| sannse | sannse | |
| seanw | Sean Whitton | Abstaining for the same reason as James - I was never actually given ops aside from as a Group Contact. |
| Shanel | Shanel | |
| Tawker | Tawker | Oppose removal for when user voluntarily requests desysopping and can auto receive it back upon request |
| UninvitedCompany | UninvitedCompany | |
| YellowMonkey | Blnguyen |
Non-op comments
edit- KillerChihuaua -- Support