Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,015
edits
Tardis:User rights nominations: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Comments and concerns
Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
:::I do also wish to distance myself slightly from OS25's concerns. I do think that, perhaps, more robust conflict of interest policies for admins might be something we should discuss? But under current policy I don't think what he's suggesting would be misplaced for you. It seems somewhat similar to Scrooge's decision to close the ''Monk'' thread after he was appointed admin. (Well, not quite, but there are some principles that are the same.) DiS found this very objectionable at the time and nobody else really did. '''''With that said,''''' I think it will ultimately be a non issue. Since any thread concerning NOTCOVERED I'm sure you'd wish to participate in, being instrumental in its genesis. So you'd be CoI'ed out by the principle of participating in the thread. (Though technically that's not ''explicitly'' against the rules, it's just a strong recommendation that closing admins not participate. But, you know, close enough here.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) | :::I do also wish to distance myself slightly from OS25's concerns. I do think that, perhaps, more robust conflict of interest policies for admins might be something we should discuss? But under current policy I don't think what he's suggesting would be misplaced for you. It seems somewhat similar to Scrooge's decision to close the ''Monk'' thread after he was appointed admin. (Well, not quite, but there are some principles that are the same.) DiS found this very objectionable at the time and nobody else really did. '''''With that said,''''' I think it will ultimately be a non issue. Since any thread concerning NOTCOVERED I'm sure you'd wish to participate in, being instrumental in its genesis. So you'd be CoI'ed out by the principle of participating in the thread. (Though technically that's not ''explicitly'' against the rules, it's just a strong recommendation that closing admins not participate. But, you know, close enough here.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
: Technically the "admins shouldn't close races in which they had a dog" thing ''is'' explicitly spelled out in policy at [[Tardis:Changing policy]], although it's ''worded'' as a best-practices there. ("(…) we try to avoid this for particularly controversial discussions, and especially for inclusion debates".) I agree with the general sentiment that the regular CoI best-practices are fine for the sorts of things Ottsel is worried about, and that I trust Nate to abide by them; I don't think it makes sense to ask him for a ''specific'' oath (in fact one could argue asking for any such thing goes against the precedent of OS12th's nomination and how the community responded to Amorkuz's last and maddest rant on that occasion — though that's a maybe, as in that instance the pledge he was asking for went ''beyond'' on-Wiki activities, which was the more starkly insane bit). | |||
: As for the time commitment, for what it's worth, I'd be happy to have a new admin on the team even ''if'' he rarely had the time to do thread closures. The general work of patrolling and resolving lesser issues on the regular is also very useful; and just because an admin has the ''power'' to close threads doesn't mean they have any given admin has ''duty'' to do so regularly. | |||
: I'm not entirely sure what you're even asking him re: style pluralism. Surely these are policy issues to be discussed in specific discussions later — and if your concern is that Nate disagrees with you about them and you wouldn't want him to use an admin position to ram through any objectionable changes, then surely that just folds into the CoI/"Nate shouldn't close threads he has an avowed stake in" question rather than being a separate bullet point? [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 09:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
: As regards | |||
== Bureaucrats == | == Bureaucrats == | ||
