Wikipedia:Off-wiki policy discussion

Discussions on Wikipedia forums such as the Administrators' noticeboard, Village pump, or the relevant Talk pages generate a significant amount of community involvement, but are problematic for a number of reasons.

Traditionally, the dialogue on the mailing lists has been the primary driver of new policy for Wikipedia, and to this day remains essential to our functioning. Like talkpages, mailing lists provide an opportunity for a threaded discussion which can be easily searched and reviewed in the future.

Some lists (such as the Arbitrators' list) are inaccessible to the public altogether, which provides for a number of essential benefits, and some disadvantages. Particular issues can be discussed on such lists in a frank and open way, without casting aspersions on possibly innocent users or alerting guilty users to the actions being taken against them. Further, policy discussions can take place in an atmosphere of calm without the interruptions of those who do not understand the full context of the policies being discussed. However, mailing lists, like IRC, deny the accused any opportunity to defend themselves, correct accidental or deliberate misrepresentations or to present alternate explanations for observed facts. Similarly, by keeping a conversation private, mailing lists can work to deny people a legitimate voice by excluding their point of view until after a "decision" has been reached, a process sometimes called caucusing.

Policy can never be dictated on a "consensus" from a mailing list alone, without consulting the broader Wikipedia community. Private Wikipedia mailing lists should be used only when appropriate.

Internet Relay Chat (IRC) is a common forum for policy discussions. At least one Wikipedia-related IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-admins) is restricted, though not, as the name implies, to administrators. Most channels have a "policy against public logging", which is in keeping with longstanding community traditions. This allows for a semi-private space in which users may be more open, joke around, and have more honest discussions, with the knowledge that publication of their conversations is discouraged. It has also allowed for distinctly improper conversations, in which ways to force other users from Wikipedia have been planned.

IRC is a fundamentally fluid medium. By its nature, it encourages spur-of-the-moment, creative statements. When users with administrative powers are also editing Wikipedia simultaneously with IRC chatting, this often results in beneficial actions such as focussing attention on problematic users and articles, and perhaps more rapidly than using other communications channels such as WP:ANI. However, IRC has also been used for trashing users perceived as "irritating", in practice, users with a record of disagreeing with the channel ops. Actions have sometimes been taken with insufficient record being kept of the reasoning behind the actions.

IRC discussion most often follows civility guidelines, if less strictly than on-wiki. Certain IRC users are entrusted with the power to kick and kickban unwanted contributors, a trust that has unfortunately sometimes been abused. Wheel warring is an example of the sort of problem that some people would prefer to solve with realtime conversation in an IRC channel, rather on the wiki itself.

IRC can also be used for the purpose of consensus-building, either for positive or negative purposes. There are those that believe that serious policy discussion should be common on IRC. Certainly, when action is being taken as a result of such discussion, participants should publicly post a copy of the conversation on Wikipedia.

• Wikipedia:Correspondence off-wiki
• Wikipedia:External discussion
• Wikipedia:Taking it outside