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 commentsEdit