Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki policy discussion

Untitled

The comments below reflect an earlier version of this page, before it was rewritten by Jimbo.

Oppose Get real. Do you really think you can stop all off-wiki policy discussion? jguk 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I support this page a great deal - all policy changes should be on wiki, something I've been saying for months. This is a GREAT idea. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the theory is, it just can't happen (ie "is not able to happen") in reality! jguk 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is nothing we can (or should) do to stop people discussing WP and its policies by email, IRC, mail, smoke signals, carrier pigeon, or however the hell else they wish to do so. However, I would say that off-wiki discussions should never be considered binding, especially for potentially contentious matters (blocks, deletion, arbitration, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's thought of smoke signals yet but the carrier pigeon network should be up soon. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is terribly worded. It should be under a neutral title to gather consensus. Next off policy discussion is great as long as we make it clear all policy changes need to be supported by on wiki consensus and/or Jimbo decree. - Taxman ^Talk 21:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose first of all this is pointless since you can never force people to give up off-wiki forms of communication, and secondly the way it's phrased makes it sound like a rant and not a serious suggestion. Like it or not off-wiki communications are a large part of getting anything done on the project. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• See also RFC 1149. Radiant_>|< 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, using an avian network for data transmission, I guess the only stablity risk they'd have to deal with would be bird flu. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand the harm to openness you are concerned about, but feel the disadvantages outweigh the benefits in this case. --Improv 22:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think there are two issues here. Discussing policy on the mailing lists and IRC is ubiqitous, and there is little harm and several benefits to do so. There is no reason, and also no realistic possibility, of halting such discussions. However, I do agree strongly that consensus in these venues is not enough to enact new policies. Before any new policies or procedures are finalized, at least some discussion must occur on the wiki itself. - SimonP 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support, particularly the sections related to IRC and logging. It is my opinion that the "no public logging" rule is not only ill-advised, it's dangerous. It removes any accountability from actions that are precipated by IRC discussion, and hides evidence of certain types of vote-stacking from being reviewed publicly. My first visit to the IRC happened to be upon the day of the "userbox purge", as some have come to call it - and this highly disruptive action was clearly precipitated by events in the channel on that day. In addition, I was able to observe that rules of civility don't necessarily apply in the IRC, which certainly gave me a negative opinion of a particular admin when she made several statements to me that could easily be considered troll bait. And finally, I observed discussion about a user who was involved in an RfAr, where several admins openly stated that he was a dumbass, dipshit, and troll. What's the point of ArbCom if the decision is reached before the case is even off the ground? Allow public logging, and require accountability.

As for the mailing list, it's an open tool - anyone can review contributions to it, thus making it a very wiki-esque system. There is certainly accountability when it comes to the mailing list, and thus, I do not feel that this is a major issue. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 04:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• May I remind everybody that this is NOT a vote? >Radiant< 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Great idea. Now, how the hell are you going to enforce it? --Carnildo 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately clueless despite having been presented in the most sincere of good faith. "Considered Harmful" Essays Considered Harmful: "Because "considered harmful" essays are, by their nature, so incendiary, they are counter-productive both in terms of encouraging open and intelligent debate, and in gathering support for the view they promote. In other words, "considered harmful" essays cause more harm than they do good ... Typically, "considered harmful" essays gets written because someone has an axe to grind, and they feel like making that grinding process both public and dogmatic. This is a form of grandstanding, of course, but it is done with a purpose beyond simple publicity seeking. Usually such "considered harmful" essays are intended to draw attention to a little-known subject about which the author is passionate, or to highlight what the author feels to be a poor decision by someone else. In addition, there are those "considered harmful" essays that are written as part of a long-running argument that has gradually escalated." - Eric Meyer

You are about fifteen miles from the point

This suggestion is ridiculous. What you are suggesting is to basically remove the mailing lists (or make them basically worthless). The mailing lists are very useful. It is far easier to have a coherent conversation there, the formatting is simpler, the archiving is standardised, and it's easier to check you've paid attention to everything than it is with a watchlist. Now, all major policy changes *do* get made on the wiki. If you think otherwise, please make a citation.

You want to abolish the Arbitrators' list. Well, I'm sorry to put it bluntly, but that just ain't gonna happen. The ArbCom mailing list allows Arbitrators to have frank discussions without the pressure of participants sniping and being generally obstructive.

No serious policy matter takes place on a mailing list. Nothing is said in #wikipedia-en-admins that would be said on the wiki. Nothing is said of any substance at all in #wikipedia!

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• See [1]. "Jimbo writes to and reads wikien-l, and policy is discussed and announced there. You may not care to notice wikien-l, but it may care to notice you. It's part of the Wikipedia infrastructure; you can pretend it isn't, but that's you choosing to exclude yourself from the loop and nothing more." That seems a pretty clear statement that wikien-l is being used to make policy. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Also, I'm curious as to what kind of arbitrators' discussion requires that no one else even have read access to it. The only one I can think of is CheckUser. What else is there that can't or shouldn't be discussed openly, and why? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Part 1 is inaccurate. Policy is discussed there; sometimes things are announced there; never is policy *decided* there. Big difference.
  • Part 2: Arbitrators want to give opinions, as I said before, without the pressure of participants sniping and being generally obstructive. Is that really unreasonable? If it is, well, I'm not really sure that I can say any more to persuade you. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, in spite of that claim (Crotalus's 1st point), I am unaware of any policy that has actually been created from mailing list discussions, except for the recent "blank AFD debates" bit which was really a Jimboism. Policies do frequently get discussed there, but more along the lines of "this process sucks" - "no it doesn't" - "let's turn it off and see what happens" - "no, WP:POINT" - etc. Radiant_>|< 21:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal. The mailing list is a poisonous pit full of invective and can solve nothing except to increase the hostility between and among editors. I only occasionally dip into the archives and am invariably horrified by what I see. Were you to judge by the content of the mailing list, AfD and its sister xfD pages would be immediately deleted, and and anyone attempting to remove any pages from Wikipedia would be hounded out. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And the disadvantage to hounding out deletionists who want to damage the encyclopedia by removing information is...

That aside, though, I have to support this policy despite the disadvantage of making life less hard for those with the weird fetish for destroying the work of others known as "deletionism." There needs to be accountability and transparency in the policy-making process; if policies are decided offsite through unknown means and then simply announced here, then there is no accountability or transparency whatsoever. Rogue 9 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do see the point of what the person who wrote this is saying, but all in all I think I could not support it unless it was toned way, way down. I could support something like:

• "The admin IRC and mailing is for frank discussion of cases (individual editors and pages, usually). Admins are encouraged to bring broader policy discussions into the community as soon as practicable."
• "The use of private, secret mailing lists for any serious policy discussions is not encouraged. Again, editors are encouraged to bring policy discussions into the community."

The main mailing list is not really off-Wiki; anyone can subscribe to it. If there are private mailing lists (besides the one for admins), I don't think WP should be providing support for that, if it is; let people do their own networking. The point that the mailing lists generate too much data -- well, if you tried to bring all that data onto talk pages you would need constant archiving and it would be harder to make sense of the discussion. Zoe, if what you say is true about the emails, then 1) maybe its better to keep that poisonous pit in its own seperate place, and 2) it sounds like its just people ranting, anyway -- after all, xfD pages have not been deleted, so the person's point "policy should never be dictated on a "consensus" from the mailing list alone without first consulting the broader Wikipedia community" -- is this actually happening? Herostratus 04:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've always thought that the mailing list is the most thoughtful Wiki-related space, at least in terms of intelligent discussion and general conversation about the direction Wikipedia should be moving in. Nothing ever comes of it and that's how it should be, no policy is decided there. There's plenty of well considered debates and general commentary...no harm comes from it, there's way worse off-Wiki conversations that go on. Rx StrangeLove 07:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I do take offense to you simply linking a speculative thread on a lightly-moderating open forum that isn't officially connected with Wikipedia as an example of "bad off-wiki discussion". I've seen far worse in the official IRC channel. Except you can't conveniently link that, because, you know, there's a "no accountabilty" rule (excuse me, "no public logging").--Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  There is no official IRC channel, and no policy is decided there. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I've always thought that the mailing list is the most thoughtful Wiki-related space. Are you reading the same mailing list I am? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I believe I am. There's less hysteria, less sharp shooting and it has a tendency to linger on topics longer letting ideas develop a little more. It's also a little more open to new ideas, it doesn't shout them down as fast as on-wiki. It's probably a matter of fewer participants...it's a calmer place. Not perfect and there's point scorers there but overall a nicer environment for strategic discussion. Nothing ever really comes of it, there's a lot of navel gazing that goes on but that's ok. Rx StrangeLove 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Previously discussed?

It seems to me that this was brought up years ago on the mailing lists talk page... but that discussion was abandoned after they failed to reach consensus... Paul^C/_T+ 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Off the mark?

Perhaps this proposal should not be called "Off-Wiki policy discussion considered harmful", but "Off-Wiki policy decisions considered harmful". Clearly it's not good to have very small numbers of people making major decisions on their own in secret (trying to hide it off-wiki), and I would suggest that this is already at the level of unwritten policy. Trying to stop all off-wiki discussion on the other hand is certainly not a good idea. The mailing lists and IRC channels are fast, efficient methods of discussion, and in my opinion the more discussion the better.

Editors should be encouraged to be more thoughtful about policy, and if having more avenues of communication helps this, then they should be promoted. --bainer (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The admin IRC channel

I've written extensively on this (ironically to the mailing list?). Thoughts on admin-only IRC channels and RC patrol. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC policies

See also meta:Talk:IRC channels for some older discussions on whether policy decisions should be banned on IRC. Angela. 01:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Great idea!

I think we need next to write Wikipedia:Editing Wikipedia considered harmful. Consider the ridiculous load it places on the servers and the need for a complicated piece of database software and a Byzantine server structure. Compare instead our mirror sites, which can just serve static HTML very fast and are frequently one-person sites. This will also make it easier for us to reap the cash bonanza of Google ads, like the mirrors do. It's an idea whose time has come - David Gerard 11:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The mailing lists are the primary driver of ultimate policy

"The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia."

I consider this to be as true today as ever.

In general, I consider this entire policy proposal to be confused on several important points.--Jimbo Wales 03:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have written a counterpoint

Wikipedia:Off-wiki policy discussion considered essential expresses the original and true ideals of Wikipedia much more than this terrible misguided proposal.--Jimbo Wales 03:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is rejected

This policy is clearly a statement of a concept which has been considered and rejected overwhelmingly and completely and continuously throughout the entire history of Wikipedia. There is zero chance that it could ever be accepted because it is incoherent and wrong about just about every essential point. There is something sensible to be said about off-wiki policy making, and some of the problems associated with it, of course. But the idea that it is 'wrong' or somehow in violation of Wikipedia's principles is just massively confused. --Jimbo Wales 03:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New comments

Stats on mailing list participation

This is a result of parsing the level of participation from the mailing list. The top five contributors to the mailing list made as many contributions as the bottom 144.

Rank	Contributor	Number of posts	Overall %	Cumulative %
1	geni	189	8%	8%
2	Tony Sidaway	147	6%	13%
3	Alphax (Wikipedia email)	112	4%	18%
4	Peter Mackay	109	4%	22%
5	Ray Saintonge	105	4%	26%
6	Anthony DiPierro	94	4%	30%
7	David Gerard	82	3%	34%
8	Steve Bennett	81	3%	37%
9	Sam Korn	68	3%	39%
10	Chris Jenkinson	56	2%	42%
11	Justin Cormack	54	2%	44%
12	Stan Shebs	52	2%	46%
13	Haukur Þorgeirsson	52	2%	48%
14	Matt Brown	50	2%	50%
15	John Lee	50	2%	52%	15 people made over half of the contributions to the mailing list
16	Fred Bauder	45	2%	54%
17	Ryan Delaney	39	2%	55%
18	Fastfission	38	2%	57%
19	Sean Barrett	36	1%	58%
20	jayjg	36	1%	60%
21	Kelly Martin	35	1%	61%
22	Rob	34	1%	63%
23	Rob Smith	33	1%	64%
24	MacGyverMagic/Mgm	33	1%	65%
25	charles matthews	32	1%	67%
26	Jay Converse	31	1%	68%
27	Phil Boswell	29	1%	69%
28	Jimmy Wales	29	1%	70%
29	SCZenz	27	1%	71%
30	Kirill Lokshin	25	1%	72%
31	Sam Spade	22	1%	73%
32	Travis Mason-Bushman	21	1%	74%
33	slimvirgin at gmail.com	21	1%	75%
34	Andrew Gray	20	1%	76%
35	Matt R	19	1%	76%
36	Brock Batsell	18	1%	77%
37	Bryan Derksen	17	1%	78%
38	Garion1000	17	1%	78%
39	Ben Emmel	16	1%	79%
40	Michael Snow	15	1%	80%	40 people made over 80% of the contributions to the mailing list
41	Katefan0	15	1%	80%
42	Snowspinner	14	1%	81%
43	Anthere	14	1%	81%
44	Carbonite	14	1%	82%
45	stevertigo	13	1%	82%
46	Philip Welch	12	0%	83%
47	Jon	12	0%	83%
48	Jake Nelson	12	0%	84%
49	Guettarda	12	0%	84%
50	grm_wnr	12	0%	85%
51	Geoff Burling	12	0%	85%
52	Nathan Russell	11	0%	86%
53	Delirium	11	0%	86%
54	Stephen Bain	10	0%	87%
55	Nick Boalch	10	0%	87%
56	Wikiacc	9	0%	87%	... 71 people have between 9 and 2 contributions to mailing list, or 11% of total discussion
126	prgibbons at ou.edu	2	0%	98%
127	Joy S	1	0%	98%
128	Andreas Hoerstemeier	1	0%	98%	... 50 people have only 1 contribution to mailing list, or 2% of total discussion
175	Willis, Harry	1	0%	100%
176	XaosFluX	1	0%	100%

I noted that January was approximately twice times the average size for 2005, so I went back to october, but the distribution is almost identical. I'll only reproduce the top few rows here:

Rank Contributor          Number of posts   Overall %  Cumulative % 
1    geni                 176               8%         8%
2    Anthony DiPierro     155               7%         15%
3    Alphax               152               7%         21%
4    Tony Sidaway         148               6%         28%
5    David Gerard         130               6%         33%

I'd welcome comments on this. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, #3 in October and January... probably #140 in between though. The great thing about email is that you can attend to it when you're offline - which for me is pretty often. Alphax ^τεχ 13:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also much easier for me to participate on when I'm at work, and generally a format much better suited to serious policy discussion. Wiki discussions force you to summarise your entire argument into a paragraph. Email lets you develop an argument over several paragraphs. I feel vaguely embarrassed to be in the top 10 though. Stevage 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm #50? Surprising. I considered myself just a dabbler in the mailing list. :{ Johnleemk | Talk 09:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just don't pretend there is no..

Some lists (such as the Arbitrators' list) are inaccessible to the public altogether, which provides for a number of essential benefits. First, particular problems can be discussed on such lists in a frank and open way, without potentially accidentally casting aspersions on innocent users. Second, 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.

Internet Relay Chat (IRC) is a common forum for policy discussions. At least one Wikipedia-related IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-admins) is restricted to administrators only. Also, according to Wikipedia:IRC channels, some channels have a "policy against public logging", which is in keeping with longstanding community traditions, and allows for a semi-private space for users to joke around, have honest and open discussions, without fear of every word spoken being permanently recorded.

Excellent, talk behind the regular ("logged") users' back. Since an encyclopedia loves definitions, I will add some:

Clique - A small exclusive group of friends or associates.

Cabal - A conspiratorial group of plotters or intriguers.

Which one is #wikipedia-en-admins/arbitration list? how would I know, because I'm not allowed in. I'll assume the latter. --Anon84.x 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied from "Wikipedia talk:Out of band communication considered harmful."

If not the namespace problem, this could have been an article with WP:FAC potential...

...because it strikes into the core of the problem. Just my thought. --Irpen 20:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want it, you can have it:

Wikipedia is now vast. It is so vast that, at any given moment, most people have no idea who you are. When one is a new user, one does a few edits, gets a few kind words, responds, and gets a few more. A few more edits, and one establishes a small group of known contacts. A bit more, and a person is perhaps on WikiProject X or Y. If one passes an RFA, there is even more good feedback. A telling post or two here or there, a problem solved, and one can get to feel pretty famous. In other words, all the users end up with circles of admirers and mentors, friends and supporters, and this is an alluring part of the experience, even if it is the "wikister" part. All the same, we all go out into the deep waters of Wikipedia and get brought up short by someone saying, "Who the hell are you to express your opinion?"

It's natural, therefore, to have circles and to feel frustrated when what is plainly right to you and your circle is being viewed suspiciously, or even dismissively, by others. There is a temptation to want to tell people how important you are, to demand that they respect you. This is a temptation to sin and evil.

IRC, and even small projects, allow us to move the fence posts in, to define our spaces carefully, to set up our own Venn diagram where only those like us are communicating. So long as we remember that "our" group, whether that is the IRC monkeys, the article authors, the taggers, the categorizers, or the checkusers or arbitrators, is the tiniest small part of the site, it's ok, but when our frustration at not getting the wider community to admire us or give in to our demands forces us to smaller and smaller and, most importantly, quieter and monologic areas, it is dangerous. Any discussion or discussion area that is not available to the entire site cannot legislate, militate, or organize the wider site. Any group cannot force its will on the rest. Even arbitrators are arbitrators at the mutual consent of the wider site. Anything done in secret is invalid as policy or guideline. Geogre 01:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Though the phrase "IRC monkey" and the term "militate" might need changing. Also, the term wikister might be unclear to some (I'm not 100% sure what it means). Carcharoth 09:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. "IRC monkey" is the default name Mozilla/Firefox's Chatzilla gives you when you use it the first time, so I was trying to joke a bit. However, to be more neutral, it should probably be "IRC talker." "Wikister" is perhaps a private joke as well. I have, elsewhere, ranted about how Wikipedia is divided between the encyclopedia and the wikister (the Friendster of Wiki) and that the two have been in tension since the project started. "Social networking side" is more neutral. The "militate" is the only one I still agree with, although you're free to change it to something less vehement, because I was trying to suggest that all groups of friends rally troops and charge into the field with their private associations, and that's the problem. Talking is good, and sharing interests is good, but going off to a homogenized discussion area is a bad idea, whether it's Schoolwatch or that IRC channel, to create an army. Geogre 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated at

Wikipedia:Off-wiki policy discussion to some degree. Even essays probably shouldn't fork. - brenneman ^{L} 14:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But, they're obviously different. That one is wrong, and this one is right. Perfectly clear, right? Friday (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Looking at the talk page, I see Jimbo weighed in over there. See:

• Wikipedia_talk:Off-wiki_policy_discussion#I_have_written_a_counterpoint
• Wikipedia_talk:Off-wiki_policy_discussion#Of_course_it_is_rejected

Though that was back when that page was asking for (near) total rejection of mailing lists and IRC channels. I am persuaded by some of the arguments on that page that off-wiki communication is needed, and I think maybe this essay should be retitled as something more neutral, like "Long-term disadvantages of off-wiki discussion" (as this essay considers more than just policy discussions). Carcharoth 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this was written in response to a specific problem. And, yes, it's inaccurate to say that all IRC communication among editors is automatically harmful, so I've probably overstated the case, here. Anyone wants to fix it, feel free of course. Of course, maybe this should just go away for being redundant. Policy discussion is almost certainly more useful off wiki than on- this was aimed more at things like deciding to make a block based on off-wiki conversation. Friday (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I hang out in IRC all the time, and seek advice there, but I'd never say I did something because IRC said so (or someone on IRC said so). Hopefully I'd only take an action because I was convinced on its merits, and I'd state those instead. Someone who basis their authority solely or primarily on IRC is an open proxy and should be blocked accordingly...Mackensen (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll second Mackensen, with a caveat: He's sensible, many others are not. I've seen "Hey gang, I've got this idea to <insert pestiferous concept here>" followed by a gattling-gun of thoughtless "Go for it!" responses as well. While it cannot match the miasmatic funk of the mailing list, it certainly beats it for making bad things happen with celerity. - brenneman ^{L} 03:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Many users use private communications. E-mails for one. Indeed individual talk page discussion can form friendships too. And although anyone can read it, it isn't possible to watch all talk pages - so subgroups exist. Whilst IRC excludes some, IRC is at least (usually) fairly public and has a cross-section of the community involved. Do bad cliquish decisions originate in IRC? Heavens, yes. But they originate also on wikiprojects and in many nooks and cannies of this vast project. Good thoughts, worked out after long and careful discussion come from all these places too. We're better to judge the outcome than the process. If the idea, thought, or decision is bad, then slam it. If not then praise it. Ultimately on wikipedia, every deleion, protection, block and even every post is the unilatteral action of one user, for which they are individually responsible.--Doc 09:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• We seem to all agree: existance of off-wiki talk good, relying on the talk for on-wiki actions, bad. Is that about right?
  brenneman ^{L} 10:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Correct. We should always be encouraging more communication, not less, with the caveat that you will individually be called upon to justify your actions. Mackensen (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. I think this essay has it wrong as it stands, because IRC is not harmful in and of itself. Decisions need to stand on their merits, though. Who said what when (urging a decision or action) is not justification, justification must come from sound principles. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is an acceptable statement of Friday's point of view. I happen to think he's factually incorrect to state that "someone on IRC said it was okay" is often cited as justification for an action. But if that's what he thinks then he's entitled to have his say. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does IRC specifically discourage accountability?

One of the things I've been shocked to see, in the few times I've visited the #wikipedia channel on IRC, is that posting of the logs is such an unallowable thing that violators will be banned from the channel. This seems like pure disadvantage, with no offsetting advantage. Am I missing something? Are we not specifically encouraging people to behave badly in this venue by making it a crime to expose what's said there? Does a secret venue help the project in some way? Friday (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I was always under the impression that it was a freenode thing, at least for #wikipedia. With the admin channel, it has to do with the possibility that a sensitive topic (e.g. WP:OFFICE) might be discussed. Mackensen (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. As I alluded to above, perhaps this whole essay is stupid or misguided, I dunno. I've heard the horror stories about what goes on in IRC, but how much of a problem is it really? The main thing I'm concerned about is such astoundingly poor on-wiki behavior that I can only assume the troublemakers are being encouraged by their buddies in some back channel. I'm disgusted by the occasional comments I've seen to the effect of "you're being watched by me and my friends, and we're putting you on the enemies list", but I suppose I lept to the conclusion that IRC is where the unknown watchers hang out without any actual evidence. Really, to be fair, I suppose we need to seperate the bad behavior from our guesses about what might be causing it, eh? Friday (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think much of it is overblown. Consider: at any given time there are about four dozen admins lolling about, not doing much of anything. I have, on occasion, seen a discussion that would qualify as a "horror story," but the person in question was usually angry (and ready to do something stupid) before they showed up. I've also seen instances where said person was calmed down by others and an atrocity prevented. I really don't see much encouragement happening and think the presumption, absent evidence, is just that. Now, I can only speak for what happens in #wikipedia-en-admins, #wikipedia-en-checkuser, and #wikipedia-en-arbcom (the latter two go days without anything being said). I know there's a channel out there called #wikipedia-en-cabal, or some such, which is at the center of the (failing) admin bid by Rory096, but I've never been in there nor do I know anyone else who has. Despite the name, I don't think the Real Cabal hangs its hat there. Mackensen (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen, if there are admins out there capable of committing an "atrocity," they need to be identified and desysopped, not calmed down. As for the horror stories, there are plenty, including information from check user being discussed, which is a violation of both the check user and privacy policies. There are totally unacceptable personal attacks on editors, and in general a bullying atmosphere with certain editors encouraged to act as attack dogs for others. I was stunned the first time I saw it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of at least one such instance, and that user is no longer a sysop. I can't say I've observed much "attack dog" behavior, maybe I'm on at the wrong times (I never see you there, for that matter). Mackensen (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone who went a time or two and was unhappy with what they saw probably wouldn't come back. The only conclusion I'm able to draw from what I'm hearing is that a certain amount of bad behavior goes on there, but there's disagreement over how much. I'm still not remotely convinced that such a channel does more good than harm, but I realize there's no making it go away either. So maybe all that's left to do is to make sure that the problems with such communication are clearly explained. I'm also not at all convinced that policy pages should specifically recommend using IRC, but that's a question for those individual talk pages. Friday (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing that would help is a willingess on the part of those in the channel to clean their own house. Without going into specifics, I think that's happening already. Mackensen (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Both m:IRC channels and Freenode's channel guidelines say that the default is assumed to be that channels don't publicly log. But that channels can post a notice that public logging is okay in that channel, in which case people can.

#wikipedia-en-admins was set up explicitely to prevent disclosure of discussions by Jimbo, OTRS folks, etc., so that clearly shouldn't be logged. And #wikipedia has had logging issues by Brandt (google "Wikipedia Hive Mind Chat Room"), so there's probably resistance to logging that as well. --Interiot 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

New admin IRC discussion

Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops, with a specific mandate to keep Wikimedia IRC channels polite and courteous. Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder for the Arbitration Committee 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [2]

End copied section

placeholder - brenneman 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll note that in the October discussion I made the same points that I've made now. My views haven't changed. Now, my sanity might be a different matter... Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any way that consensus will be reached. Basically one side is not willing to negotiate, is ignoring requests to take things down RfC, and is basically trying to disrupt WP until they get their way and the targets of their wrath are desysopped/blocked. SirFozzie 02:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Err, that doesn't gel at all with my impression. That (why not name names, let's not be coy) Giano's call for resignations/deadm-minning/arbcom-spill/whatever are extreme, there are certianly several reasonable voices covering a large spectrum of opinons on this matter. Comments like that only serve to polarise, and add nothing to the debate. - brenneman 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that extreme. Whatever evidence he's tossing out there was enough for Arbcom to step up and say something, for sure. The simple, logical answer is this - discussion involving how to handle problematic or controversial situations should never take place off-wiki. If there's a question as to whether a situation may be problematic or controversial, it is. If administrators are found to ignore this directive, then they should be removed immediately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant "extreme" not in the sense that it was wrong/insane/partofthevastrightwingconspiracy, but only that it was an outlier: To my knowledge he's the only person calling for it. - brenneman 02:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Add Geogre, and the rest of Giano's group in there. When comments like If this is merely round two of a three round fight, if we have to wait for yet another horrendous case of star chamber blocks and rallying to destroy users, then that's a disgrace that proves that it's not what you do, but who you know. and folks using open proxies to disrupt the thread. That's 90% of the folks disagreeing with the ArbCom announcement that they are putting additional Channel Operators in the admin channels to help keep things civil. It's obvious from the discussion that they consider themselves justifying disrupting WP because "some admins had been mean to them on IRC". They do not want change, they want retribution. SirFozzie 03:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Beg differ Jeff; some of these discussions can't take place on-wiki; particularly those in which checkuser, oversight, or even the dreaded OFFICE come into play. Let me add that many discussions can easily take place in both places, but some simply cannot. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE is separate from everything here, and has no place in this discussion, and, as I understand it, checkuser/oversight has specific processes in place already. Are thoe not being followed? Keep in mind, as well, that if you're saying that checkuser/oversight issues are being discussed on IRC, security obviously isn't an issue. We need to end the secrecy, not make excuses for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. They are being handled privately, but the checkuser/oversighter is found via IRC. Sometimes the matter is of the utmost moment, and it is simply faster to use IRC than to email. Mackensen (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, I hate to say, that's a major problem. If security is why we can't have them take place on wiki, why the hell would one use such an insecure medium such as IRC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you maintaining that the wiki is more secure than a private discussion between two people and only two people, when each knows who they're talking to? Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. i'm maintaining that, if security is the issue, IRC is a horrid medium to use, not matter if you believe that the person you're talking to is who you think they are or not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, it's been my experience when I am asked (as, say, a commons admin consulted about an image, or a level 10 op asked about access), or when I ask in turn (as, say, someone seeking a checkuser, or seeking clarification on an OFFICE request I just got from Danny) that the initial request might come in over a public channel, but it's vague and non specific. The details are discussed, in real time, in a private query, one on one. That's not leaky. But it IS a lot faster than email. The times I have carried out OFFICE actions, or carried out deletion of images from commons to combat main page vandalism, no possible email system could have communicated the details as fast. IRC needs reform? Sure. But IRC is bad? IRC can be replaced completely by on Wiki stuff or by email? No way. Some things move too fast. I haven't said much but I surely am tired of this IRC isn't good for anything line of thinking. It's just not supportable. Now, I suppose talking someone out of a block COULD be carried out on AN/I but it's not as efficient. ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lar, those are good examples of private stuff where fast communication is needed. IRC (and e-mail) is good for those. What it isn't needed for is people on IRC asking each other whether a block of an established user needs to be carried out (blocks of trolls and vandals, maybe). For an established user, simply go to their talk page, or engage them somewhere on-wiki, and follow the dispute resolution process. Complain about them at ANI, but don't huddle on IRC and try to 'solve' a non-existent problem by gathering up the backing for a block. Nothing that I've seen Giano accused of needed to be handled on IRC. It could all have been handled by talk page conversations. I suggest that the admin IRC channel be open to all admins, and be limited to asking for advice on admin housekeeping matters (merging page histories, technical processes, and so on) and reporting trolls, vandals, and urgent requests for checkuser and oversight stuff, but the channel should not be used for debating the substance of an argument (eg. which way to close an AfD, whether something justifies a block or not). Even if an admin might want someone to hold their hand, or back them up, any action they take on-wiki they need to be able to justify on their own and on-wiki, allowing others to contribute to the resulting debate, which needs to take place on-wiki, not off the record. Carcharoth 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's a logical answer. During Giano's most recent block, Jimbo discussed for some time the possibility of unblocking or reblocking Giano, in the admin channel, and he was trying to privately get in contact with Giano to discuss the issue. Should Jimbo be de-admined immediately? I'm not sure what the specific concern over discussion of blocking is. (conspiracies? civility?) I've discussed a specific ethical issue related to blocking someone before with a friend who's otherwise unfamiliar with Wikipedia, was that wrong? --Interiot 03:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is Jimbo, we know full well none of this applies to him whether we want it to or not. Should he have come to AN/I or something to do it, though? Without a doubt. The "specific concern" is that issues with users that need not be private are being handled in a private venue that shows no apparent consistency as to who's privy to the discussions, and that it is causing harm to the userbase. Transparency is key. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Jimbo is Jimbo". I sometimes wonder how long that argument will last? Another 5 years, another 10 years. Is a Jimbo-figure only needed at the start of a project like this, or is it needed all the time? And if so, who eventually replaces Jimbo (obviously I'm looking far into the future here). Carcharoth 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to #admins

This section is unsigned on purpose, use it as a sandbox, it's mostly culled from ANI and does not by default represent my views. - brenneman 02:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Removal of channel
  1. Pointless, it will exist anyway
  2. Current incarnation has official imprimatur & corrupts noobz
• Restriction to admins
  1. "Trusted" non admins allowed in
  2. Trusted by whom?
• Removal os chanop rights for some
  1. Application process on-wiki
  2. Removal process on-wiki
• Addition of new, saner admins - Implemented, and David Gerard as well
• Add new items here

Works fine

No Changes needed (this is my view. SirFozzie 03:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

• If there are new, credible and sustainable allegations of uncivil behaviour in the admins channel in the future, then use dispute resolution.
  • Is incivility is the root cause

Yes. Both Ways (I think one side is greater then another, but my feelings are well known at this point) SirFozzie 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Are there possible problem behaviors that are not overtly incivil

I'm honestly not sure: The only thing I can think of is "off-boarding", ie on-Wiki decisions made off-wiki only. I think the best way to settle that would be a reminder that while discussions and sounding boards may take place off-wiki, that no decision should solely be made on off-wiki discussion. Let's not tie everything down in rules and regulations. SirFozzie 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The key is not to prevent off-wiki decision making. That is unavoidable. The key is to require the reasons for the decision to be provided on-wiki, and with more than a perfucntory "as discussed on IRC". Be prepared to repeat your IRC reasoning, or whatever reasoning you have, on-wiki. If challenged on-wiki, carry on the discussion on-wiki. Simple. Carcharoth 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • How would any posible dispute resolution step deal with
    • IRC being "out of bounds" as far as policable behavior (FB's note suggest this has changed), and
    • How would evidence be presented?

There is enough admins now in the channel that any "cabal" would be find it hard slogging to try anything in front of all of those (probably logging) users. Confirm that whole, unedited logs can be sent privately to the ArbCom for use in any RfC or RfAr if need be. I would specifically invite Giano and/or Geogre, under STRICT behaviour parole, to join the channel. It's time they put the money where their mouth is, and being inclusive... can't hurt to try, right? SirFozzie 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your notion of Giano and/or Geogre being "under STRICT behaviour parole" in order to be "invited" to join the channel is insulting and absurd to those of us who have a clue about the kind of behaviour by actual chanops that has been going on there--that went entirely unchecked as late as Christmas and the New Year. And how is it that Geogre would in your estimation require an invitation at all? He's an admin. It's purely for reasons of principle that he doesn't frequent the admin channel. Bishonen | talk 17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

The principle being that he'd much prefer to complain about IRC cabals? And give me a break, Bishonen. Every time Giano and Geogre open their mouths and say the kind of stuff like I copied above, they push the neutral voter further and further away from their side to the point where folks like me come into the discussion that say "Even if they were wronged, they still don't need to be such an annoyance about it." SirFozzie 17:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

These principles here. Bishonen | talk 18:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Considering the user's other statements that I have read(just one of which is copied above), I consider it nothing more then a smoke screen covering the fact that folks did something he didn't agree with and he wants them punished, and won't stop disrupting WP (yes, I use that phrase deliberately) until they're punished. Even if it's honest, I suggested Giano and Geogre get access to the channel for exactly that reason so they have their verifiability that they're looking for. SirFozzie 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I have been an administrator at Wikipedia since early 2004. I opposed the creation of the channel as unnecessary and liable to abuse when it was proposed. I have absolutely no need for it, because I read WP:AN/I. I am not interested in passing my free time chatting with Kelly Martin and Cyde. Therefore, I cannot see any reason to go to that channel, and it should not be necessary for me to go there to have its people behave themselves in a constructive manner. Since David Gerrard gleefully announced that no one can do anything about any one on there without James Forrester or his permission, that sounds like, to borrow a phrase from Tony Sidaway, "coup d'etat!" If he is happy that he has no need to listen to Wikipedia or its resolution bodies, then Wikipedia certainly doesn't need to be linking to that snake pit with its pages. Geogre 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, "SirFozzie," please consider showing some policies I have violated and press the issue in dispute resolution, if you believe there to be a case. Otherwise, please stop insinuating darkly that I pour my time and effort into thinking up "smoke screens." Perhaps you have the hours to waste, but I do not. I wrote that essay before this current round of nonsense sprang up, worked on it consistently, and it reflects my views. IRC has its uses, but it also has dangers built into it by its very medium. We can be rational and try to figure out best practices, or we can be hysterical and screech that it is absolutely great with no oversight. You choose as you are capable of choosing, but "I hate the guy" is not a refutation: it's an indictment of your own personality, not of my arguments. Geogre 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, if it makes you feel better, call me Dave or David. It's my (real) first name. It's rather amusing how you tell me if I have a problem with your edits to take it to DR, when I suggested above that if you and Giano have a problem with the "IRC gang", as Giano so quaintly put it, that you folks open up a Dispute Resolution RfC or RfArb with the responsible parties. I'm glad that you recognize a good idea when you see it. SirFozzie 22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins is part of wikipedia

• #wikipedia-en-admins may be off-site, but it is part of wikipedia. It was proposed [3], given specific mandates [4] and announced on the WikiEN mailing list [5]. It continues, by all accounts, to be a place intended for discussion among wikipedia admins for wikipedia issues. The foundation donates money to irc in recognition of its importance to wikipedia. [6] All actions there, including who becomes channel ops, should be accountable to the arbcom and the wikipedia community. The latest posting by the arbcom only partially acknowledges this [7], they need to do better. To start with, a complete review of channel ops should be done - on wiki and transparently (for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel only). --Duk 05:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now cancelled all wikipedia donations, and advise others to the same. Donating our time is enough from now onwards, if the money is ro be wasted in this fashion. The whole thing is now ridiculous if Cyde, Mackensen and their friends want to inhabit a private world of spite then let them, so long as it is poweless and all opinions which eminate from there are shunned, ignore or laughed off, then what the hell. The place is and its occupants are thoroughly discredited. I don't see there is a lot more to say, I shall not be funding them but ignoring the actions and views of all IRCadmins and no-nadmin cronies from now on. I advise all others to do the same, thus leaving wikipedia a better place. Giano 07:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you done slandering me in public? You've got your precious logs and you know full well that whatever IRC conspiracy you believe in, I had no part in it. I've wasted the past two weeks of my life trying to mend fences; that I was always unwilling to fully capitulate is no doubt what doomed me. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He said that if you wanted to, and he merely implied that it was his feeling that you did. That's not a slander. It's his conclusion based on how he reads the evidence. He's entitled to form that conclusion, as you are entitled to form the conclusion that he's wrong or acting out of personal slight. Disagreement is not attack. I'm getting really offended (therefore attacked?) by seeing so many people act as though another person stating an opinion is somehow attacking.

Also, if Giano had said exactly the same thing, and if he had taken it out of the subjunctive, if he had said, "Mackensen most of all wants to..." but done it on IRC, and repeated it every hour or so, would you have any recourse? Would you have any way of controlling it? Would you think that he should be sanctioned? If so, then think about four or five friends going at it every day, every night, trying to tar Giano or any of the others who've asked for accountability. Geogre 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, they're not interested in changing things for the better, they just want retribution. SirFozzie 15:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, s/he's saying it again. Aren't you lucky, dear "neutral voter" (voter..?), that "they" don't believe in blocking for personal attacks? Bishonen | talk 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Thought it was quite obvious from my nick, my gender. Just like the agenda of Giano and crew are quite obvious from their (numerous) statements. It's not a personal attack if it's the truth, you know.. SirFozzie 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, if "they" believed in blocking for personal attacks, then there would be templates and blocks galore. If those who spill crocodile tears over "personal attacks" behaved as they expect others to, we wouldn't be having a problem. If they expected others to behave as they actually do, we'd be in a mess, but an honest one. The above user is making an explicit attack on Giano, and he or she is doing so in the name of preserving a world free of attacks. She or he is more than willing to claim to know the intent, the purpose, and the objective of those who disagree with him or her, but all without questioning, listening, or engaging honestly. That's the sign of someone being dismissive, reductive, and intolerant. A person, in short, demonstrating an inability to work in a peer edited project. (1. You haven't stated your "gender," and 2. gender is not sex.) Geogre 19:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(indenting a bit, we're starting to run out of space here) Once again, Geogre, truth is an absolute defense to NPA. And as for your last statement, I'd sincerely look at who's being disruptive and working OUTSIDE WP procedures to try to get their way. It isn't me. I find it intensely amusing that you are accusing others of being dismissive, reductive and intolerant, because if you look at just about every statement you've made over on AN over this has been at least two of the three. And just so it's STATED (since pointing to the Sir part of SirFozzie didn't help), let me clear the air for the record. I am a male, born and raised. SirFozzie 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said on WP:AN - we either need to accept that Wikipedia has oversight (not in the Wiki-concept of the word) over the Wiki-related IRC channels, or the pages on Wikipedia and Meta pointing people towards these channels should be excised. Proto::► 13:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Having just said this over at WP:AN, I agree entirely. Bring it fully into the fold, or throw it out into the cold. If stuff like Giano is complaining about happened at one of the Wikipedia 'attack' websites, then what recourse would he have? Note that the ArbCom banned links to Encyclopedia Dramatica. They could ban uses of phrases like "discussed on IRC", and demand they be replaced with full on-wiki justifications. At the moment, Giano can complain about wikipedia IRC because it looks official, but in fact (I think) it isn't (despite the donation above - which I believe was a reaction to the death of Rob Levin). The mailing list post doesn't explicitly say this, but it does mention the death. Carcharoth 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that official/unofficial is a useful distinction. I think it's better to say that all off-wiki communication is loosely subject to Wikipedia rules, and could possibly be brought up in an arbcom case, especially if someone intentionally goes off-wiki to try to circumvent wikipedia policy. For instance, if someone wishes to personally attack someone regarding a Wikipedia issue, and sends an email instead of doing it on-wiki, then that should be admissible in an arbcom case, even if it's not done using Wikipedia servers.

Also, I don't think the references to IRC will ever be fully excised. For instance, Brion and the devs need an off-wiki real-time place to discuss fixing wikipedia when it goes down... that place has long been IRC, and it would be a bit strange to insist that the dev pages have their IRC references removed due to an unrelated dispute. --Interiot 18:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's #wikipedia-en-admins that has caused special problems; it holds a unique amount of power and influence, has special status from the way it was set up and needs to be dealt with. --Duk 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Whatever people may think about IRC in general, the general channel is far too populated to get into a narrow "ratf*cking* mode (the term is from the CREEP and Donald Segretti), but en.admins -- which is populated by special non-administrators and not populated by most of the administrators -- has been a nexus of sabotage. This is demonstrated. Geogre 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be shut down just so that people don't have to come up with these fanciful ideas of what goes on in there, and so that others can check for themselves what the atmosphere is really like. I've been in the channel a fair amount of time, and while there have certainly been a few statements that shouldn't have been said, it hasn't been anything remotely approaching a nexus of sabotage. --Interiot 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore the below. In fact, Interiot, what I have been saying for ages now is that "check for themselves" would be nice, as it would allow for checks in general. However, when it's "invitation only," that hardly allows such a thing. When the chanops threaten to kick ban people for merely asking people to cool it, and this is proven, it's dark. There are two ways to solve the matter outside of killing it or taking away its links. One is to have anyone able to see or anyone able to post logs. The other is to have a set of rules of comportment for discussions that might stifle some liberties of conversation. Barring those two, I think we are back to "shut it down." I see so few advantages, so few legitimate uses, for the channel that I can't see any compulsion to have it (as opposed to the general channel or AN/I or the mailing list or e-mail). Meanwhile, built into the clubhouse structure of it (as David Gerrard tells us that ArbCom needs the permission of James Forrester and him to make any changes in current personnel) is every bit of obscurity, and built into the "no posting of logs" is every bit of unaccountability, that our worst critics could ever imagine. Geogre 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice, but they'd just allege that "the conspiracy went underground to their own channel." I really think that if they have a problem with the folks, they need to file a RfC/RfArb, and then live with the results (or leave cause of the results). This is an end run around proceedures. SirFozzie 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooooooh, and what will we do after that? You know what "they" will do, so perhaps you can tell us what we're having for dinner and what we think about the basketball tournament and other dark mysteries. Sheesh! Geogre 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were going to ignore this, Geogre? Am I getting under your skin a bit? Maybe you now understand how a large percentage of folks on AN/ANI feel about your constant attacks and insinuations? Let me say this. As I said before, having been on IRC before (before you ask, no, I've never been on the admins channel, and I don't have any need to or desire to), I can understand why they would want to make it invite only. I HAVE been on the general WP channels on IRC when I was dealing with a vandal a few months back, and there's pretty much so much cross-chatter and garbage that you couldn't get a word in edgewise. I DO think it should be pretty inclusive, however (which is one reason why I suggested you and Giano get access), after all, rather then continuing to get your information 2nd hand and to cherry pick what makes your case best, let's see if anyone has anything to say when it is basically to your face. SirFozzie 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Who runs the #wikipedia-en-admins channel and who do they answer to in that regard? What is the chain of command? And is the following quote correct? --Duk 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

...as per Freenode policy, any channel with the word Wikipedia in it is an official, sanctioned to, and belonging to the Foundation channel. It doesn't matter who wants to put what there, if its not offical, it can't go there... [8]

I found this post from the mailing list, which includes: "The one thing that'd immediately turn me off of the idea of this channel is if it becomes clear that the person in charge of the inviting won't invite you simply for being an admin. There's a difference between a chat room and a clique room." - can I ask if this has become the case? Are people refused access to the channel, despite being admins, if they ask? I ask because in one of the AN/ANI threads, someone said they asked to join and never heard anything more about it. Carcharoth 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple people who can add people to the channel. For what it's worth, I ended up being one of them, and I wasn't told to exclude any person or group (unless they'd been added and then later removed for a specific reason), so I've been adding anyone who's an admin. IMHO, having a diverse group of people is always good.

If an admin contacts one of the people listed at WP:IRC and doesn't get a response, they should presume the person is busy and contact someone else mentioned on that list. --Interiot 21:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I also refer to the converstions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive69#Are_we_all_deficient_administrators.3F where it's suggested that #admins is badly named and is in fact open, but that badlydrawnjeff can't get in. - brenneman 01:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear what method BDJ used to request access (did he message one of the people who are listed as chanops?), but BDJ isn't an admin, so that's the most obvious reason. There's been so few admins added, that as far as I know, there's no formal procedure for deciding when an non-admin should be added. If a non-admin is interested, JamesF might be the best person to ask, since he has (from a technical standpoint) final say in who's added and who isn't. --Interiot 17:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned it twice at AN at the discussions at hand, after being told that it wasn't limited to just admins, given that folks like Kelly Martin were granted access. The most obvious reason is that it's not open, although people involved with the channel falsely claim it is. Of course, keeping it as an elite club only serves the admins interest and not the interest of the encyclopedia, so the point has been made pretty clearly already. I didn't expect to get an invite anyway - I'm not an administrator and I'm not "special" like other folks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kelly and Tony were granted access long before they were de-admined, they weren't added as special cases. Whether they're kept in the channel due to laziness, or due to an active desire to keep them in the channel, or due to a lack of any formal process for adding/removing people, I don't know. The only actual special case I know of is Gmaxwell, who was added early on, when the channel did have an ostensible encyclopedic use (keeping semi-confidential information semi-confidential), and I imagine he was evaluated based on whether he was trustworthy enough regarding that. --Interiot 17:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thus the problem. My understanding is that KM's access continued after she "resigned," and I'm not sure about Tony. That there were special cases simply proves my point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the end result going to be?

As far as I can tell, from reading the discussion above, the end result is that #admins is going to move to something without Wikipedia in the name. Thus it won't be as official, and won't be as accountable, but it will largely have the same people and the same conversations. Is that what we really want? --Cyde Weys 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree, and as I said to Geogre elsewhere, let's not automatically say it won't work, because then it becomes a self-fufilling prophecy. Instead, let's see if the issue continues (although I do think an invitation should be extended to both Giano and Geogre) and take it up from there on a User Conduct basis SirFozzie 23:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would #admins choose to change their name rather than be held accountable to the community? Think about it. --Duk 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The end result I'd like to see is that #admins gets "redirected" to #wikipedia. I've said this many times, I'll say it again:

• I lurk in admins a fair percentage of the time.
• I am fairly well aware of what is said there.
• It's mostly either useless or not nice.
• I have _never_ seen anything useful done that would not have been just as well placed on the main channel.

I also did some rough stats on "contributions" in the channel, and there are not any suprises there: Over the 60 hours I had logs for, six people made up over 50% of the commentary, and twenty-one people made up over 70%. It's not the open and clear debate area it was intended as, it's an echo chamber. The disadvantages are multiple:

• Once something is a backwater, it discouraged further diversity. I only lurk because the chances of getting meaningful dialog are slim, any plurality of views gets stamped.
• Noobz can get "advice" from an unrepresentative sample on behavior, and tacit direction on how it's ok to behave.
• It gives the appearance of a clique, if nothing else.

I try not to venture into pop psychology, but I can't help it here: The tenacity with which the few who use this channel cling to it when compared to the utility derived from it and the problems it creates surely must make one wonder about the motivation? This isn't an abandonment of good faith, but a simple observation on human behavior. It's nice to feel special, it's good to have a circle of friends, and even at my ripe old age I deeply enjoy time spent in the shed with my mates.

But it's not a "wikipedia" shed.

brenneman 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Those who claim that the Wikipedia admins channel serves no useful purpose seem to have one thing in common: they have not actively participated in useful activities co-ordinated or discussed using that channel. Those who claim that the use of the channel is problematic seem to me to be indulging in wishful thinking, for the only problem concerning the channel that is apparent here is the amount of nonsense written about it on the wiki.

I'm agnostic on the question of dissolution of the channel; in my opinion you could remove the channel at any time but it couldn't halt the air of frank paranoia that has built up. That paranoia will continue to haunt Wikipedia as long as nonsensical allegations are given credence. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't paranoia when they really are out to get you. :] As to not participating... well, I'm on the channel, and I just got to read about how ridiculous my comments on this page have been... of course, I hadn't actually made any comments here before now, but it's good to see that there's no basis to the claims of incivility and bashing people on the channel. :] --CBD 18:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a shame if we wrote-off comments, even negative ones, on what we've written as "bashing" (whatever that might be). IRC is actually in my experience a far more civil environment than the wiki. It's very difficult, in my experience, for those who have made the most vile personal attacks on this wiki to keep them up on IRC. I discussed the possibility of inviting Giano to the admins channel for this reason, but others rejected this. The admin IRC channel is in fact almost free of the kinds of intemperate and unhelpful attack that we've seen here and on WP:ANI in recent days. Well you'd expect that, really--it's a channel occupied mostly by admins.

I'm not really sure I understand the comment on what you said (or didn't say). Perhaps someone saw one of the many ridiculously incorrect statements about the admin channel that have been made on this page, and mistook the author of the comment for you? --20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)

The question remains as to why you still have access, Tony, unless I'm reading you incorrectly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given Fred Bauder's statement on AN concerning the channel a few days ago, signed "for the Arbitration Committee", it seems fair to say that that group of experienced Wikipedians felt there was some issue that needed to be addressed, even though there is wide disagreement about how severe the problem(s) were and what is the best way to address them. In the past couple of days, though, it appears that the on-wiki situation has calmed somewhat. I would urge that any comments that could have the effect of restoking unnecessary drama could best be avoided. Newyorkbrad 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Brad, as always, you have the thread. Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Tony Sidaway did not want it to calm down, the arbcom have no one to blame but themselves, they had their chance to sort this out, and failed - miserably! Giano 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)