[19:03:47] <Barras> OK, let's just start guys.
[19:03:54] <iDangerMouse> Fine.
[19:03:58] <PeterSymonds> We can use the on-wiki agenda.
[19:04:06] <PeterSymonds> Point by point if you like.
[19:04:16] <Barras> Firstly, welcome to everyone in here, nice that you are here, etc etc.
[19:04:18] <Spitfire> Ah, alright.
[19:04:23] <Spitfire> The etherpad agenda isn't very good, anyway.
[19:04:28] <Spitfire> At the moment all it has is "#get rid of all ops"
[19:04:28] <Barras> the agenda list can be founbd on-wiki, see the topic.
[19:04:38] <PeterSymonds> There's much to be said for that, Spitfire.
[19:04:39] <jem-> Thanks, Barras :)
[19:05:02] <dungodung> can we lower the sarcasm levels to the bear minimum, please?
[19:05:16] <Pine> I think we're going to need to move very expeditiously if we're going to get through all of the agenda in one meeting.
[19:05:33] <iDangerMouse> Good luck with that.
[19:05:45] <PeterSymonds> Public logging then. A number of people have suggested its abolition.
[19:05:53] <-> whym_away is now known as whym
[19:05:56] <tommorris> logging: just fucking do it already. for all channels. and host the logs on wikimedia.org. publish all the logs yourself and (a) the accusation of OMG SECRET CABALS can be rebutted by saying "yeah, mostly we talk about each other's poop and Lady Gaga and whatever" and (b) it no longer is a nuclear bomb one can let off by releasing.
[19:05:56] <Barras> Also, please note that if it turns out that people feel like doing only jokes here and stuff and go away from useful discussions, I will moderate the channel and kick people out.
[19:06:35] <Pine> I say, keep the no public rule. There are concerns about IPs showing up among other issues, and we can't oversight things on IRC like we can on-wiki.
[19:06:45] <tommorris> so, don't put the IPs in.
[19:06:51] <tommorris> on the official logs.
[19:06:59] <PeterSymonds> We can remove joins/quits/parts quite easily.
[19:07:04] <Fluffernutter> The main trouble I see with public logging is that while each person can control what he himself says (i.e. "If you don't wantpeople to know X, don'tshare X"), they can't control what others say (i.e. "Hey did everyone know so-and-so is X?", and we have no irc-analogue to "oversight" which can remove outing, IPs, etc
[19:07:12] <Spitfire> But less easily if someone c/ps someone's IP address.
[19:07:18] <dax> I note that Ubuntu manages to publicly log most of their channels, and I've never seen issues with IP copying.
[19:07:26] <dungodung> well, IPs or no IPs, I still maintain that NPL is an unenforceable rule
[19:07:34] <tommorris> Fluffernutter: if you host them officially, oversight the terrible things.
[19:07:34] <shimgray> that's a good point, to be honest. if we log ourselves, in a sensible fashion, there's much less impetus to do third-party logging
[19:07:49] <masti> it's a dead rule anyway
[19:07:53] <tommorris> plenty of open source projects and other communities have public logging. let's stop being paranoid and live the openness we preach.
[19:08:01] <Pine> Who has the time to do oversight of the official logs for all X number of channels?
[19:08:07] <Philippe> I'm going to be a little bit uncomfortable with hosting them on-wiki, if that's what we're talking about.
[19:08:14] <purplepopple> WM-AU has started logging their AGMs and no complaints that I have heard from people. Oversighting done of stuff. Just easier.
[19:08:14] <shimgray> so let's do it ourselves and do it well. could toolserver run a logbot that strips out personal details in parts/joins?
[19:08:21] <QueenOfFrance> tommorris: how does that solve anything.
[19:08:23] <Fluffernutter> tommorris: well, if we say "public logging allowed", what's to keep us from publishing the sanitizedlogs onwiki, but Joe Troll from dumping uncleaned ones everywhere else?
[19:08:34] <LorentzFactor> Why do logs need to be cleaned?
[19:08:39] <QueenOfFrance> ...
[19:08:42] <iDangerMouse> Would create, a derp sort of drama.
[19:08:49] <purplepopple> IP addresses, outing, slander
[19:09:03] -*- Fluffernutter notes that I agree that public logging is impossible to prevent. I just really think we need to sock away the issue ofprivacy before we can manage actually allowing the logging.
[19:09:04] <masti> people are logging it anyway
[19:09:15] <masti> it only allows us to kick a logger
[19:09:15] <purplepopple> People come in and announce admin on en-wp is real name this and is child molester.
[19:09:21] -*- DeltaQuad agrees with Fluffernutter
[19:09:25] <LorentzFactor> public channels are akin to real life, you should have no expectation of privacy, period as period...
[19:09:29] <tommorris> Fluffernutter: Joe Troll can already do that. but as Rachel Maddow said: "The single best thing about coming out of the closet is that nobody can insult you by telling you what you've just told them."
[19:09:30] <Maire> logging is one thing, publishing the logs ia another
[19:09:35] <QueenOfFrance> purple is quoting something that already happens tons of times.
[19:09:38] <The_Rock> Hola Laura_Fiorucci!!!!!!!!!!!
[19:09:39] <whym> I noticed some channels are logged under http://bots.wmflabs.org/~petrb/logs/?C=M;O=D
[19:09:52] <whym> are we using the infrastructure?
[19:10:00] <PeterSymonds> LorentzFactor, well, obviously if we're hosting them under Wikimedia, then we need to consider that there are rules about privacy that need to be maintained.
[19:10:06] <purplepopple> Besides which, there are loggers already that people know are sharing because of their quit messages and no one is doing. Lots of people sit there looking for trouble by logging.
[19:10:07] <Philippe> OK, from the WMF angle, I could care less about logging; I care about where they're hosted. :)
[19:10:23] <ow> Whether or not we keep the logging rule, it needs to not be a long-term bannable /offense/
[19:10:23] -*- AlexJFox says sorry for being late
[19:10:31] <Spitfire> I think really first you need to sort out whether or not we want to ban logging.
[19:10:31] <iDangerMouse> Why can't we vote on it first? And then discuss it?
[19:10:36] <LorentzFactor> PeterSymonds, rules of privacy , yes, however, for example, do these rules of privacy apply to publically (without expectation of privacy) photos, eg. paparazzi photos of celebrities
[19:10:39] <Laura_Fiorucci> The_Rock: :D
[19:10:42] <LorentzFactor> which I feel fall under similar rules as such
[19:10:48] <Fluffernutter> Philippe: off the top of your head, what do you guess the privacy requirements for storing the logs onwiki would be? Clean out all IP/nick matches? What else?
[19:10:55] <LorentzFactor> since no expectation of privacy in public space in real life, should match those of public places on the net
[19:10:57] <ow> Like, "Don't log please", rather than "If you release a log we will ban you for 1 year, and then when you come back we'll keep kicking you because we're worried you might release logs again"
[19:10:58] <The_Rock> Laura_Fiorucci ya llegúe de mi viaje
[19:11:10] <The_Rock> estuve en los llanos orientales Laura_Fiorucci
[19:11:15] <Philippe> Fluffernutter: I'm not an attorney; I'd have to ask them. But I would say those things that you mentioned; any outings; anything that constitutes libel or slander....
[19:11:23] <shimgray> so human-read.
[19:11:25] <Philippe> We're talking manual review process.
[19:11:29] <Fluffernutter> Sounds like a ton of work for oversighters and/or log-cleaners
[19:11:34] <QueenOfFrance> LorentzFactor: yes, if somebody publishes libel somewhere, it has to be taken down.
[19:11:54] <DeltaQuad> a job Fluffernutter doesn't really want to do :P
[19:12:10] <DeltaQuad> mind you neither would I
[19:12:11] <Philippe> We're also talking about a likely increase in OTRS tickets and calls to my office.
[19:12:13] -*- Thehelpfulone walks in
[19:12:15] <Barras> Being a meta OS, I don't really need or want more work to clean up logs there.
[19:12:20] <shimgray> okay, question. how tricky is it for the log script - which doesn't have to be realtime - to just retroactively pull anything said by someone then banned or kicked, before publishing?
[19:12:26] <Thehelpfulone> so the current logs for #wikimedia-tech and the like are hosted on WMF Labs
[19:12:33] <Fluffernutter> taking it offwiki would obviate the "legal" needfor that sort of cleaning, but the concernswould still exist even if we hosted it somewhere else entirely - I imagine people would be very concerned about publication of their IPs, etc, based on their participation in something-wikimedia
[19:12:34] <shimgray> logs all day, purges probable bad material, posts 24h later
[19:12:34] <tommorris> so, because of the various log releases, we have de facto public logging. we currently tell people "NO PUBLIC LOGGING. (except we kind of know there is going to be public logging, enjoy the shits and giggles when the logs get released.)"
[19:12:44] <geniice> Fluffernutter not really. automate the logging process to avoid liability and use robot.txt to keep it out of google
[19:12:53] <QueenOfFrance> Thehelpfulone: the times where there's outing, it's not viable to clean it up there tho
[19:12:53] <shimgray> anyone kicked is unlikely to have been saying anything productive enough to be worth keeping
[19:12:54] <Thehelpfulone> in particular the bots project, and there are users (such as myself) who have the ability to oversight the logs by removing the public outing stuff that we've had in recent weeks
[19:13:04] <LorentzFactor> QueenOfFrance, that's actually an interesting area, however, I feel it is incorrect to assume that published logs containing libel would show grant liability to wikipedia
[19:13:06] <QueenOfFrance> Even to clean it out of the silly logbots that log on !command it's a pain
[19:13:16] <whym> Thehelpfulone: and some zh channels are logged there for whatever reason (minor point)
[19:13:16] <DeltaQuad> geniice: how the hell would you do that.
[19:13:20] <LorentzFactor> the issue here is that logs are published as archives of statements made by individuals
[19:13:21] <iDangerMouse> Creating a bot to remove IPs only is possible.
[19:13:29] <QueenOfFrance> LorentzFactor: it's more of a question of being decent people than liable.
[19:13:30] <LorentzFactor> and not those of the wiki, as an article containing libel would be
[19:13:32] <shimgray> & if we automatedly cut [most of] this stuff before posting, we don't ever have to hassle about oversighting it
[19:13:42] <tommorris> the bullshit with logging and trolls and so on is why I don't hang out in #wikipedia-en at all anymore.
[19:13:45] <QueenOfFrance> Giving a platform to troll and outers is not something you should condone so easily.
[19:13:49] <Spitfire> Alternatively: move to a network which provides IP cloaking by default.
[19:13:57] <iDangerMouse> tommorris: Trolls, are at #wikipedia too.
[19:14:05] <purplepopple> It isn't just the initial commentator, because context clues by others re-inforce the point.
[19:14:11] <Fluffernutter> Spitfire: that would helpthe IP issue, but not the outing/trolling issue
[19:14:11] <geniice> why bother with oversight. If its on IRC its hardly oversight level of secret so regular deletion would do
[19:14:19] <LorentzFactor> since the article , wikipedia is liable for the content since it is purported to be factual, versus a log, which differs in it's publicated manner.
[19:14:20] <Thehelpfulone> Petan's log bots don't even store IP and join/parts AFAIK
[19:14:24] <purplepopple> Plus, at least in the case of #wikinews , I know we've had conversations about confidential sources.
[19:14:25] <Thehelpfulone> geniice, it is when people are outed
[19:14:30] <AlexJFox> Could we not archive IRC logs but have them available only to a select group, similar to CheckUser? Then all info/IPs can realistically be left in tact and if someone wanted to query a log they could request someone to do so?
[19:14:34] <UAwiki> Spitfire: move out from freenode?
[19:14:40] <Fluffernutter> geniice: you are very wrong. The outings that happen on IRC are 100% as bad as onwiki, and often worse
[19:14:46] <DeltaQuad> shimgray: the issue is *how* how are you going to find me saying x person is x thing that needs oversight...
[19:14:48] <QueenOfFrance> Yep
[19:14:48] <shimgray> purplepopple, oh, we can probably see what the bickering was broadly about, but we wouldn't have the IP or the rantings
[19:14:50] <Spitfire> UAwiki, indeed.
[19:14:55] <QueenOfFrance> I've dealt with the irc outings
[19:15:03] <iDangerMouse> UAwiki: Moving out of Freenode, wouldn't be sensible. I work on Ubuntu, and other Linux projects, as well as Wikipedia
[19:15:04] <QueenOfFrance> anybody that trivialize them ought to be ashamed
[19:15:05] <Pine> I don't see what's so bad with the status quo. People can and do log privately, but public posting of logs is prohibited.
[19:15:05] <LorentzFactor> QueenOfFrance, point is, if a news paper or other such, displays chat logs containing libel, even if the paper meets all criteria of libelous claim, (known to be false, causes harm, is defamatory etc.)
[19:15:07] <Thehelpfulone> AlexJFox, that still has a cabal connotation with restricted access
[19:15:07] <QueenOfFrance> They're just as bad
[19:15:09] <odder> Spitfire: I guess that moving out of freenode is out of the question.
[19:15:15] <Spitfire> Indeed.
[19:15:16] <shimgray> DeltaQuad, odds are, if you're mouthing a lot of shit, we throw you out. bingo, great flag in the system
[19:15:16] <LorentzFactor> the publication of said logs, is itself not libelous...
[19:15:17] <QueenOfFrance> and we have a responsability to do what we can to prevent it
[19:15:19] <geniice> Fluffernutter yes but once they've happened on IRC people with admin level acess are probably well connected enough to know about them anyway
[19:15:37] <ow> Keep in mind there are two things in question here, 1) Do we allow people to publish logs; 2) Do we have an officially logged channel
[19:15:40] <shimgray> AlexJFox, functionally, we already have this (consulting private logs). wouldn't change much
[19:15:48] <LorentzFactor> ow, I doubt one can enforce A)
[19:15:50] <Fluffernutter> geniice: Not sure I'm understanding you. You mean that if someone's outed on irc, it's because they're important enough to know how to contact oversight anyway, so it'snot a problem?
[19:15:52] <purplepopple> shimgray: But if some one says PERSONX is REALNAME and works for COMPANY. And then two or other three people respond directly to that with everyone knows, etc. etc.
[19:15:56] <Philippe> LorentzFactor: under what law? Are you going to defend us in every country in the world? :) It still costs us money.
[19:16:11] <DeltaQuad> shimgray: ok, i mouth a lot of shit, then change IPs, still doesn't change much, i'm still being logged
[19:16:11] <ow> LorentzFactor: Exactly, and that's what everyone needs to come to terms with first, imo
[19:16:14] <tommorris> okay, another argument in favour of publishing our own logs: you don't get selective logs published and people getting quoted out-of-context.
[19:16:16] <shimgray> purplepopple, if you're having confidential discussions in a public channel, you should really move to a private one
[19:16:27] <geniice> Fluffernutter no if someone is outed on IRC the outing is probably effective enough that there is no point in trying to keep it secret from admins
[19:16:29] <shimgray> public channels = not confidential, by definition
[19:16:33] <QueenOfFrance> LorentzFactor: honestly, I don't care whether we're liable or not
[19:16:38] <QueenOfFrance> that's a separate discussion
[19:16:46] <QueenOfFrance> but I find your idea that we should aid outing horrifying
[19:16:52] <QueenOfFrance> and frankly unwikipedian
[19:16:55] <purplepopple> shimgray: Except it happens. Troll comes in, outs an admin, then people askin about it/tell the troll to shut up as everyone knows.
[19:16:59] <LorentzFactor> ow, indeed, the fact is simple. Public channel is in "public", whether network based or real life, a public place has zero expectation of privacy,
[19:17:10] <AlexJFox> I suggested this in -en: Any "official" wiki channel should be restricted to those with wikimedia project cloaks and only logs from those channels can be taken into any form of consideration on-wiki.
[19:17:12] <tommorris> QueenOfFrance: we can prevent outing completely by shutting down all the channels.
[19:17:12] <Fluffernutter> geniice: I can think of three or four outings that have happened on irc that are nevertheless not common knowledge among admins (that I know of)
[19:17:17] <LorentzFactor> QueenOfFrance, how does that aid anything? it's simply a record,
[19:17:17] <ow> LorentzFactor: Correct.
[19:17:26] <LorentzFactor> what is done with it, is really not here nor there.
[19:17:27] <shimgray> purplepopple, do people really do that? in a way that makes it verbatim clear? I see "yes, very nice, f- off you idiot", but not repeating of the claims
[19:17:30] <odder> AlexJFox: this is a bad idea; what about newbies coming in to us that do not have a cloak?
[19:17:31] <QueenOfFrance> tommorris: very constructive.
[19:17:35] <iDangerMouse> Well Trolls , shouldn't get a warning, Fluffernutter, and I are seeing the damn annoying Troll everyday, danny..... something, should be banned for a week or more.
[19:17:37] <shimgray> oooh, cloak-only logging
[19:17:39] <Fluffernutter> AlexJFox: well, technically speaking none of these channels (except perhaps #wikipedia-en-help) are "official"
[19:17:40] <shimgray> REALLY GOOD IDEA
[19:17:49] <LorentzFactor> editing said logs, removes the very basis of "factual" reporting / publication that is core to wikipedia, no?
[19:17:50] <AlexJFox> odder, simple enough to have 'filter' channels to direct queries
[19:17:52] <Fluffernutter> shimgray: that's not bad!
[19:17:54] <shimgray> it's like an opt-in version of my solutiomn
[19:18:06] <AlexJFox> There's many avenues of communication that are not IRC
[19:18:07] <geniice> Fluffernutter lots of things in the deletion logs aren't common knowledge. The question is could an admin that wanted to find out. If yes then oversight is pointless
[19:18:09] <shimgray> sure, we'd get some context lost, but we'd keep most of the discussions
[19:18:10] <DeltaQuad> tommorris: your not even thinking about the potential privacy issues which need to be dealt with first
[19:18:10] <LorentzFactor> since the logs are no longer actual logs, but edited and modified publications
[19:18:27] <Fluffernutter> Cloak-only logging could work - cloaks could easily be pulled from those who engage in privacy violations
[19:18:36] <AlexJFox> Fluffernutter, exactly
[19:18:43] <Pine> I'm in favor of the status quo. Private logs, yes. Publishing people's quotes in public with their specific permission, yes. Public logging, no.
[19:18:47] <iDangerMouse> Other way you can get rid of trolls on IRC, is fairly simple. IRCOP powers, kill them.
[19:19:07] <iDangerMouse> Ban the trolls from the server, is another option of keeping Freenode troll free.
[19:19:18] <LorentzFactor> iDangerMouse, I don't think you fully understand how the internet works...
[19:19:21] <AlexJFox> When talking about appeal type channels, there should be a layer of security that has the intention of identifying people, the cloak system is perfect for this
[19:19:22] <LorentzFactor> :)
[19:19:24] <tommorris> DeltaQuad: no, I'm simply saying we've got dead letter law. we can say "no public logging!" all we like, but public logs will still be released by trolls and arseholes. publish our own logs and you take a big fucking weapon away.
[19:19:29] <Fluffernutter> Pine: The main issue with the status quo is that if the only logs released are released by trolls, those logs are "valuable" in a sense, because only the trolls have them to give. If they're available as a matter of course, suddenly they're notmuch use to the trolls.
[19:19:42] <masti> tommorris, +1
[19:19:45] <iDangerMouse> LorentzFactor: I do, some Trolls, are quiet regular, and have the same IP ranges.
[19:20:00] <DaBPunkt> Pine: nod
[19:20:08] <ow> tommorris: The other thing that concerns me, I mean technically "no public logging unless you specifically let the users of your channel know that it's logged" is a /freenode/ rule
[19:20:09] <LorentzFactor> iDangerMouse, and if those IP ranges are from a university and you ban from freenode what amounts to a whole swatch of uni students?
[19:20:16] <geniice> http://ircarchive.info/p10239.htm
[19:20:25] <AlexJFox> We should stay relaxed about social type channels and have an agreement that we disregard and logs that materialise from them. People need to have somewhere they can let off steam and not be punished if someone disagress with it.
[19:20:27] <ow> but #wiki* is the only set of channels with people running around like ants looking for possible public loggers
[19:20:29] <shimgray> Philippe, from a legal perspective, would "probably sanitised" logging like cloak-only be less troublesome?
[19:20:30] <AlexJFox> disagrees*
[19:20:43] <iDangerMouse> LorentzFactor: A temporally ban could be used, a period of 24 hours?
[19:20:45] <QueenOfFrance> ow: that's been going on since ~2006.
[19:20:48] <DeltaQuad> tommorris: i'm not disagreeing with you on that point. I'm saying that we control the privacy a lot better (not perfectly obviously) now, than publishing the logs ourself, or even allowing public logging
[19:20:52] <Fluffernutter> ow: the only one, or the only one you watch enough to know about it?
[19:20:53] <Philippe> shimgray: That one's beyond anything I feel comfortable addressing; I'd want to ask a lawyer
[19:20:59] <tommorris> we are also misleading people by saying "no public logging". there will be public logging.
[19:21:19] <LorentzFactor> iDangerMouse, well, considering I know about 30 students at the local university who regularly are on freenode in various channels, I don't think you should ask ME if that's ok, but rather them.
[19:21:21] <AlexJFox> tommorris, then we don't say it
[19:21:26] <odder> ************* ok folks, let's start wrapping up this discussion ***************
[19:21:29] <ow> Fluffernutter: The only one I watch enough to know about it, obviously. I'm not aware of the existence of others, but I don't watch every single channel on freenode.
[19:21:32] <dax> iDangerMouse: okay, and for all of your trolls that use open proxies and thus care little about hostname bans?
[19:21:35] -*- Fluffernutter is under the impression that many of the trolls we see doing stuff like this in #wiki* channels are known on the networkfor doing similarstuff in other channels
[19:21:37] <odder> *********** there's many more points coming in ********************
[19:21:39] <dax> iDangerMouse: or botnets, or ...
[19:21:39] <AlexJFox> We let people know that some people will log as there is NO physical way to prevent it
[19:21:49] <Pine> tommorris: we can say "public posting of logs is prohibited" rather than "no public logging"
[19:21:51] <purplepopple> No public logging means on WMF projects for use in retaliation.
[19:21:58] <masti> Pine, makes sense
[19:22:00] <QueenOfFrance> odder: actually this is by far the most important point
[19:22:02] <shimgray> Pine, those are functionally the same thing
[19:22:04] <purplepopple> That is my understanding.
[19:22:13] <AlexJFox> The crux of the matter is not, do we allow logging in this channel or that channel, it's do we regard logs from this channel as anything we can take into account on-wiki
[19:22:13] <QueenOfFrance> Pine: how is that different
[19:22:17] <shimgray> "public logging" is private logging made public
[19:22:22] <iDangerMouse> dax: If it's the same troll, and isn't registered to freenode, kill it?
[19:22:32] <ow> Okay, quick proposal, we change to this: "We ask that you not publish logs without the permission of those involved, but understand you are in a public channel and as such have no assurance of privacy."
[19:22:33] <AlexJFox> If yes then realistically, no-one is safe to exercise freedom of speech
[19:22:43] <AlexJFox> ow, fine with that
[19:22:43] <LorentzFactor> I'd say around 9/10 people log channels with their client's default settings...
[19:22:51] <QueenOfFrance> LorentzFactor: made up stat.
[19:22:52] <LorentzFactor> disallowing "logging" is just, well, not gonna happen tbh
[19:22:54] <Pine> ow: I prefer a stronger prohibition.
[19:23:03] <LorentzFactor> QueenOfFrance, well not really just incorrectly said
[19:23:04] <Fluffernutter> ow: that sounds good, but then what's the background enforcement? If people publish logs anyway, do we just frown at them? Kick them?
[19:23:16] <AlexJFox> Pine, it's unenforcable if you want to maintain an open-door policy on the channels
[19:23:17] <shimgray> that amounts to no enforcement, that statement
[19:23:23] <tommorris> Fluffernutter: well, our current prohibitions don't seem to be doing much good.
[19:23:24] <iDangerMouse> Fluffernutter: remember derp used to post logs online ? Got banned.
[19:23:26] <iDangerMouse> Simple.
[19:23:33] <QueenOfFrance> LorentzFactor: no, all people w/ webchat aren't logging
[19:23:35] <LorentzFactor> about 90% of irc clients have enabled logging by default, I think irssi doesn't usually, soem forks of xchat ,
[19:23:37] <QueenOfFrance> and that's a good % of people
[19:23:42] <LorentzFactor> web based clients
[19:23:42] <AlexJFox> Unless you all use an encrypt/decrypt script or something :p
[19:23:50] <Fluffernutter> iDangerMouse: this discussion is happening largely because of peoplelike derp and how hard they are to keep out
[19:23:51] <shimgray> (other than under the fine system of using m:dick as our primary policy)
[19:23:51] <ow> Fluffernutter: We frown at them. Trying to kick them isn't going to do any good, they can (and do!) come back under different hosts/nicks/etc and then paste much MORE logs just out of spite
[19:23:52] <purplepopple> Except you can log with a web client. It is called copy/paste.
[19:23:53] <Pine> AlexJFox: it is enforceable in the sense of banning offenders and potentially suing them for copyright or privacy violations.
[19:23:53] <LorentzFactor> their client CAN'T that's the point, "default settings"
[19:23:54] <LorentzFactor> note.
[19:24:05] <QueenOfFrance> webchat has no logging
[19:24:07] -*- tommorris just likes to note that he is a member of numerous non-dysfunctional online communities who proudly publish all their logs.
[19:24:08] *** Mode #wikimedia-irc +o Barras by ChanServ
[19:24:09] <DeltaQuad> LorentzFactor: that's private logging, a whole different issue
[19:24:09] <AlexJFox> Pine, you've got zero chance of suing based on IRC...
[19:24:11] <QueenOfFrance> and at least 2/10 have xchat
[19:24:16] <QueenOfFrance> hence you're wholly mistaken
[19:24:16] *** Mode #wikimedia-irc +m by Barras
[19:24:22] <Barras> OK, little break.
[19:25:02] <Barras> As you can see, it is like impossible to keep track of this discussion here and it is unlikely to reach some goof conclusion.
[19:25:36] <-> Philippe is now known as Philippe|Away
[19:25:41] <Barras> I'd like to simply move on with the next topi.
[19:25:44] <Barras> topic*
[19:25:50] *** Mode #wikimedia-irc -m by Barras
[19:26:01] -*- AlexJFox gasps for air
[19:26:03] <DaBPunkt> what is the next topic?
[19:26:10] <odder> * LTAs (long-term abuser) - especially LiteralKa, derp
[19:26:11] <Spitfire> LTAs
[19:26:20] <Barras> ^
[19:26:20] <dungodung> to hell with them
[19:26:24] <Barras> ^
[19:26:25] <iDangerMouse> Okay chill.
[19:26:35] <shimgray> quick question - is this including people who are banned from WM projects and continually hang around the channels?
[19:26:38] <iDangerMouse> Next topic Barras, please.
[19:26:43] <DeltaQuad> Barras: quick question, so are we going to ask everyone on wiki then about logging, like an RfC?
[19:26:43] <Barras> LTAs
[19:26:47] <shimgray> (naming no names)
[19:26:51] <Spitfire> shimgray, no. Only LTAs on IRC.
[19:26:55] <Fluffernutter> I've heard from many community members (mostly in #wikipedia-en, since that's the prime trolling grounds) who simplyaren't comfortable being in a channel with people who are known to use the channel to abuse others
[19:27:07] <Barras> DeltaQuad: That might be the best way, a discussion on-wiki can be followed better and so.
[19:27:11] <-> James_F is now known as James_F|Away
[19:27:13] <shimgray> yes. #wikipedia too
[19:27:14] <ow> What makes an LTA an LTA?
[19:27:18] <iDangerMouse> I left Wikipedia, for sometime, because of the logs were being posted online.
[19:27:21] <Barras> It is not possible to sort this in a meeting on IRC.
[19:27:24] <dungodung> ow: time
[19:27:32] <Spitfire> A long term pattern of abuse?
[19:27:56] <Spitfire> shimgray, the topic of whether or not on-wiki bans should be considered within IRC is another matter entirely.
[19:28:06] <Fluffernutter> Yeah, basically time and pattern. Someone who goes off once or twice is very different, in a clear way, from someone who hangs out in the channel pretty much solely so that they can harass or annoy others
[19:28:13] *** Mode #wikimedia-irc +o dungodung by Barras
[19:28:14] <Spitfire> (something which maybe should be considered at some point, but isn't on the agenda here)
[19:28:21] *** Mode #wikimedia-irc +o PeterSymonds by Barras
[19:28:28] <ow> Well for example, I just recently saw KrandonBillion made it to the LTA list
[19:28:38] <AlexJFox> ow, who decided the LTA list?
[19:28:44] <ow> exactly my question
[19:28:44] <DaBPunkt> what is "abuse" in this context? flooding? trolling? despite?
[19:29:04] <iDangerMouse> DaBPunkt: Annoyance, harassment...
[19:29:04] <dungodung> any kind of bannable offense?
[19:29:15] <DaBPunkt> ok
[19:29:16] <AlexJFox> There needs to be more community consensus on practically every aspect of IRC, realistically
[19:29:26] <Fluffernutter> ow: do you know why that person is on the list? Because if so, it's a bit unkind of you to be pasting that nick here
[19:29:29] <Barras> DaBPunkt: Everything that disturbs the channel normal happenings.
[19:29:30] <dungodung> AlexJFox: that's not really possible :)
[19:29:37] <AlexJFox> But I'm happy that the GCs have the best intentions
[19:29:59] <iDangerMouse> Well, Good night everyone, have to go to my aun'ts funeral tomorrow.
[19:30:03] <-> Philippe|Away is now known as Philippe
[19:30:05] <AlexJFox> There does need to be more 'definition' though, We need an RfC after this meeting
[19:30:17] <AlexJFox> Goodnight and good luck, iDangerMouse
[19:30:20] <DaBPunkt> gn8 iDangerMouse
[19:30:36] <Fluffernutter> I should point out that in the past few weeks, an email discussion list has been started for ops to discuss issues of channelmanagement
[19:30:42] <DeltaQuad> AlexJFox: we need several RfCs iirc
[19:30:47] <AlexJFox> DeltaQuad, agreed
[19:30:48] <Fluffernutter> the hope is that will give us somemore central discussion ground
[19:30:51] <odder> Fluffernutter: that's one of the next points
[19:30:54] <Pine> I would prefer to have, as others have suggested, a list of LTAs, the reasons that they're on the list, and related details.
[19:31:02] <shimgray> in principle, anyone who is a long term recidivist abuser should be banned indefinitely. it's just defining "long-term recidivist abuser"
[19:31:09] <purplepopple> RfCs across different Wikiprojects?
[19:31:19] <PeterSymonds> I think we have that, Pine.
[19:31:20] <AlexJFox> purplepopple, on meta:IRC I would think
[19:31:21] <-> Iztravelz is now known as DeltaQUad
[19:31:22] <Philippe> purplepopple: we could use Meta
[19:31:27] <-> DeltaQUad is now known as DeltaQuad
[19:31:29] <Fluffernutter> shimgray: well, there are a few people who feel that long-term banning on irc just shouldn't happen, no matter what the offense
[19:31:30] <Pine> PeterSymonds: if we do, I haven't seen it.
[19:31:38] <PeterSymonds> Thehelpfulone knows where it is.
[19:31:42] <AlexJFox> Fluffernutter, I'm one of that school
[19:31:42] <Barras> Not everything can be solved the way it is solved on-wiki. We need to remember that IRC != Wikipedia. There are things we probably better discuss on wiki, but that is not possible for everything.
[19:31:45] <Thehelpfulone> hmm?
[19:31:46] <purplepopple> Translation: Does #wikimedia-glam , #wikinews, #wikimedia-commons behavior lead to #wikipedia-en ?
[19:31:57] <odder> ?
[19:32:22] <Pine> I think purplepopple is asking if bans for LTAs are channel-specific or IRC-wide
[19:32:27] <ow> Is the LTA list controlled exclusively by GCs?
[19:32:33] <Thehelpfulone> oh yes Pine there was a link to a doc on the ops mailing list
[19:32:33] <Fluffernutter> Personally, I think that by the time someone is on their third, fourth, fifth "last chance", we're abusing our community by valuing that person's right to be in a channel over the community's right to not be disrupted
[19:32:35] <ow> Pine: I believe they're supposed to be IRC-wide
[19:32:46] <purplepopple> And if you're doing something on wiki to discuss, will it be only on English Wikipedia?
[19:32:53] <DeltaQuad> +1 Fluffernutter
[19:32:54] <PeterSymonds> ow, no, because we had nothing to do with an LTA list.
[19:32:55] <Pine> Thehelpfulone: ok I'll go back and try to find it.
[19:32:59] <AlexJFox> ow, how can there be with seemingly no connection between channels other than the #wiki*
[19:33:01] <ow> Pine: I think being on the LTA list = "being k-lined from the network, in as much as #wiki* ops are able to make that happen"
[19:33:20] <shimgray> Fluffernutter, I can't understand that. The wikis are far more important to our community, and we ban there. Why privilege non-community members who just want to be dicks because they choose a support project to abuse?
[19:33:21] <Jamesofur> purplepopple: in general IRC discussions have happened on meta
[19:33:27] <DeltaQuad> purplepopple: any RfC/discussion will likely be on meta
[19:33:29] <purplepopple> I doubt if the decision is to do an RfC on English Wikipedia for all WMF related IRC channels, Commons, Outreach and Wikinews will go along with that. Wikiversity almost certainly no.
[19:33:33] <DaBPunkt> Each channel should be on its own. I doubt wikipedia-de would be happy if wikipedia-en makes the rules who is allowed to join
[19:34:11] <Pine> DaBPunkt: in my opinion this is why we have GCs and the op mailing list, to coordinate among ops in various channels
[19:34:13] <odder> Maire would say that IRC is part of Wikipedia, I believe? :-)
[19:34:18] <AlexJFox> DaBPunkt, happiness is irrelevant imo.
[19:34:24] <masti> definetly if we need IRC wide rules it has to be project wde discussion on meta
[19:34:33] <masti> *wide
[19:34:35] <dungodung> I'm inclined to think that there shouldn't be a Wikimedia-wide enforcement of banning LTAs
[19:34:38] <purplepopple> Wikinews is vitally important to supporting en.wikinews work.
[19:34:43] <PeterSymonds> I agree with dungodung.
[19:34:58] <masti> me too
[19:35:03] <shimgray> we don't privilege LTAs on the mailing lists, we don't privilege them on the wikis, why does IRC not have permanence?
[19:35:07] <Fluffernutter> dungodung: do you mean in the sense of "copying wiki bans to irc?" or in the sense of "a ban from one irc channel shouldnot apply to any other channels"?
[19:35:10] <Maire> odder: it depends ;)
[19:35:26] <dungodung> Fluffernutter: the latter
[19:35:37] <odder> Maire: I was under a different impression, you know.
[19:35:47] <dungodung> Fluffernutter: but I'm indecisive on the former
[19:35:52] <AlexJFox> We should maybe use ChanServ and channel information to identify the project to which that channel belongs then
[19:36:00] <Pine> I am not in favor of copying Wiki bans to IRC. I'm willing to support IRC-wide bans of IRC LTAs but only after some meaningful due process.
[19:36:11] <Fluffernutter> dungodung: ok, but then there does have to be a line somewhere, no? Like, "If so-and-so pastes links to someone's naked photos in channel X, and then enters closely-related channel Y, we just...sit there?"
[19:36:17] <purplepopple> That should probably be done on a project level.
[19:36:29] <dungodung> Fluffernutter: well, yeah, common sense should be respected
[19:36:30] <Romaine> Pine: please stick to English channels only
[19:36:41] <dungodung> Fluffernutter: and I was kinda hit with the idea of "similar channels"
[19:36:42] <Fluffernutter> ah, if only common sense abounded as much as it ought ><
[19:36:49] <dungodung> like how #wikipedia and -en are so tight
[19:36:49] <purplepopple> My understanding of en.wikinews policy is pretty much a ban from en.wikinews translates to #wikinews, though not necessarily the other way around.
[19:36:50] <Philippe> if only it were common
[19:36:57] <Pine> Romaine: hence "only after some meaningful due process."
[19:37:01] <dungodung> that they could be considered one virtual channel
[19:37:01] <Maire> odder: I do remember
[19:37:02] <masti> we even encourage banned people to seek other admins on IRC to reconsider on-wiki-bans
[19:37:10] <DeltaQuad> dungodung: make sure we note that common sense should be respected, otherwise we'll have idiots who try and enforce the reverse
[19:37:22] <Jamesofur> Just like on wiki I think there are issues with 'just' doing it on a project level. You certainly don't want one group owning it all but at some point we are losing too much by letting trolls just bounce from channel to channel until they bother the operators there long enough (especially for channels with limited operators)
[19:37:30] <Romaine> I don't think that for example #wikipedia-nl will allow such, so please just English
[19:37:31] <Jamesofur> eventually we want a way to do a global action or decision
[19:37:41] <Fluffernutter> yeah, what DeltaQuad says. We sometimes have people saying 'Well X isn't explictly disallowed, so if you try to stop it you're breaking the rules"
[19:37:58] <shimgray> there are certainly periods when #wikipedia-en is unusable because of someone trolling - in the classic, traditional, being an aggressive and unpleasant person sense of trolling
[19:38:06] <dungodung> heh
[19:38:07] <derp> If i may comment, we can do separate bans for IRC and on en.wiki.
[19:38:08] <derp> the two should not be allowed to mingle.
[19:38:32] <Fluffernutter> why not just speak under whatever nick you're watching this conversation as, derp?
[19:38:34] <purplepopple> I had a troll in a chatroom I couldn't get rid of who kept being disruptive and logging. That became a problem and no one would solve it. Inclusiveness was the order of day over supporting WMF project work.
[19:38:35] <Spitfire> Giratina, why join with a second connection to say that? o.o
[19:38:39] <shimgray> these people may not be banned onwiki, it doesn't matter, but they're still making the channel unusable on a semi-regular basis
[19:38:39] <PeterSymonds> Jamesofur, I do agree, but IRC makes this sort of thing very difficult, on both a technical and social level.
[19:38:47] <Spitfire> Seems a bit unnecessarily time-consuming.
[19:39:16] <Fluffernutter> purplepopple: yes, that's a weakness of tech communities a lot of the time. Valuing inclusiveness over functionality
[19:39:17] <dungodung> well, on wikipedia and wikimedia, if a user is blocked on a lot of projects, they are often gblocked. that could apply to IRC as well (although there's no such thing as a Wikimedia-IRC-ban)
[19:39:22] <Romaine> just as I noticed in the announcement, this chat seems primairily or otherwise solely be orientated to English channels, talking about "global" things sounds like an emperor who is trying to enforce actions outside their language region
[19:39:25] <ow> Sorry I'm late on this comment, but if the LTA list is channel specific, having it in the topic of an ops channel dedicated to #wiki* entirely is problematic, because it doesn't specify who is supposed to be banned from what channel
[19:39:26] <Pine> We could do what we sort of do now, and have IRC-wide bans more or less imposed at the discretion of whichever ops happen to be around.
[19:39:40] <christel> tbh it sort of makes sense, if i was someone named on your LTA and i felt that you might ban me from all wiki* channels i probably wouldn't speak under the nick you didn't associate with me ;)
[19:39:45] <Jamesofur> PeterSymonds: aye, it would have to be a social decision that was then done either manually technically or through some bot run by the GCs but I do think we want to make a social decision process so that people can point to it as a reason
[19:39:50] <derp> Altough one user can stay on one particular project.
[19:40:17] <ow> derp: No one is going to kick you out of here as long as you're not causing problems, please just stick in here rather than popping in and out ;p
[19:40:17] <Thehelpfulone> Pine, that doesn't work because then other ops override those bans
[19:40:33] <Fluffernutter> christel: would you not give any thought to "oh hey they asked me not to be in here, over and over, because i was violating rules? So maybe I shouldjust not go into this channel?"
[19:40:39] <derp> ow: don't go aspie.
[19:40:57] <Jamesofur> obviously if we do anything like global irc bans or wiki--> irc bans (for any projects) we need to think about exceptions like the unblock channels
[19:41:12] <DeltaQuad> what Thehelpfulone said +1
[19:41:20] <Fluffernutter> Jamesofur: in theory, #wikimedia-ops serves that purpose
[19:41:21] <AlexJFox> Jamesofur, yes we'd need some form of appeal channel
[19:41:23] <DeltaQuad> no +2 :P
[19:41:29] <ow> also with regards to Fluffernutter's "fourth, fifth chance" thing - part of the problem is time involved. I don't care how many chances you've had, after say, a year rolls around, another chance is warranted.
[19:41:32] <derp> +1 with AlexJFox
[19:41:38] <Jamesofur> Fluffernutter: aye, places like that and the unblock channel
[19:41:41] <QueenOfFrance> -ops has served as appeal channel for ages
[19:41:43] <QueenOfFrance> without problems
[19:41:51] <christel> Fluffernutter: i cant say it is a situation i am familiar with so i honestly don't know -- i can think of a number of reasons why i could want to evade though (because i felt wronged and wanted revenge, because i actually wanted to contribute positively and choose to do so under a different nick, or because i wanted to see what, if anything, people were saying about me, etc)
[19:41:57] <AlexJFox> Then stick with that, but it needs a permanent open door
[19:42:00] <derp> QueenOfFrance, my appeals got declined, a lot, from THAT channel.
[19:42:03] <purplepopple> What Thehelpfulone said, especially if you have different interpretations of policy. What if I ban some one as disruptive because they want me to give them wMF grant funding 24/7 and some one else says "Let's keep them to encourage them to contribute?"
[19:42:15] <purplepopple> Which gets down to the finer point of what becomes disruption?
[19:42:18] <derp> Plus, the Arbitration Committee has no power on IRC.
[19:42:26] <Jamesofur> the fact that appeals are an option does not mean that they will be granted automatically :)
[19:42:30] <derp> purplepopple, crapflooding, trolling.
[19:42:39] <odder> derp: it does, maybe not on enwiki, but it does.
[19:42:44] <QueenOfFrance> derp: so if the appeals didn't get declined it would work? Please, the hwole point of an appeal channel is to handle appeals, not necessarily grant them.
[19:42:45] <DeltaQuad> QueenOfFrance: the only problem with ops is it's treated the same as other channels, some don't get a chance at appeal
[19:42:50] <Fluffernutter> ow: that seems to be a fundamental philosophical mismatch between people like you and people likeme, in that you default to "Person with a history of abuse has shown no signs of changing, let's give themanother chance" while I default to "Person with a history of abuse has shown no signs of changing,and untilthey do they're still banned"
[19:43:02] <Pine> Perhaps, as I think I've suggested, we need to separate the LTA list from the ban-on-sight list, and have consistent treatment of each list. LTA might not always mean ban-on-sight.
[19:43:07] <AlexJFox> Someone earlier mentioned "bannable offence" surely we have a definition of bannable offence somewhere?
[19:43:07] <shimgray> sure, we can't easily define "abuse" in all cases. but we shouldn't let that stop us not acting on abuse when it's obvious
[19:43:10] <Spitfire> DeltaQuad, some don't deserve a chance.
[19:43:12] <purplepopple> Trolling can be sophisticated. There is a regular in one channel who likes to PM people on one channel and often expresses homophobic, sexist, anti-immigration attitudes.
[19:43:15] <derp> ArbCom is just a bunch of weedwhackers.
[19:43:22] <DeltaQuad> Spitfire: agreed
[19:43:25] <Philippe> ladies, gentlemen, and Jamesofur …. I have to bail. If there are further questions for me or the WMF, please send them to Jamesofur and he'll get them to me :)
[19:43:26] <QueenOfFrance> DeltaQuad: that's not generally the case, we've handled at least half a dozen appeals from derp, same goes for everybody else
[19:43:32] <ow> Fluffernutter: That is an accurate assessment, yes.
[19:43:34] <derp> purplepopple, Ottva?
[19:43:34] <purplepopple> LAter Philippe. Thanks for participating
[19:43:37] <AlexJFox> bye Philippe
[19:43:43] <AlexJFox> d'oh
[19:43:52] <Jamesofur> AlexJFox: passed on :p
[19:43:58] <AlexJFox> Thanks :p
[19:44:08] <DeltaQuad> QueenOfFrance: i'm only saying sometimes, not all the time
[19:44:11] <derp> Ottava Rima used to do a lot of Drama.
[19:44:17] -*- AlexJFox pokes DeltaQuad toward RfC
[19:44:43] <purplepopple> derp: No, others.
[19:44:46] <ow> Fluffernutter: But you can't see if people have changed if they're banned, and in a sense, the desire for another chance can be construed as a sign of change (Or, it may be a sign of wanting another 5 minutes of disruption)
[19:44:53] <christel> i'm not sure how you'd be able to tell whether bob had changed in order to unban him if he er, was banned and thus unable to show you he had changed -- though i'd be very curious to learn how that would be determined :)
[19:44:56] <derp> purplepopple, true.
[19:44:59] <Pine> RFC or more discussion on the ops mailing list. I think this is less contentious than public logging and we might come to a consensus on either the mailing list or an RFC.
[19:45:04] <ow> but a few minutes of disruption is an acceptable cost to see if someone has changed.
[19:45:13] <DeltaQuad> AlexJFox: yep, RfCs like shit after this :P
[19:45:23] <AlexJFox> hehe
[19:45:26] <shimgray> hmm. I think we can probably agree we have not much philosophical agreement on the underlying issue here
[19:45:44] <Spitfire> Ho Shirik
[19:45:45] <Fluffernutter> ow: certainly you can. they can express remorse to the ops, they can apologize, they can commit to not disrupting in the future. But if they can't/won't do those things in a believeable manner, why would you believe that they've changed with no outward sign?
[19:46:05] <DeltaQuad> Pine: mailing list is worth shit when it comes to coming to a consensus
[19:46:15] <Pine> Fluffernutter: I hope that we're logging appeals and subsequent behavior in Thehelpfulone's LTA spreadsheet or whatever it is.
[19:46:18] <ow> Making someone who is potentially in the process of changing grovel and beg for forgiveness is a bit counterintuitive.
[19:46:21] <dax> "in a believable manner" is not easy to do over IRC when you're talking to someone who thinks you're a troll
[19:46:23] <shimgray> DeltaQuad, I think we can probably use it to formulate an RFC, though
[19:46:33] <Fluffernutter> But yes, as shimgray says, this philosophical lack of agreement is really the crux of much of this whole issue
[19:46:37] <odder> IRC channel with > 20 speakers is worth shit when it comes to forming a consensus, DeltaQuad
[19:46:39] <DeltaQuad> agred shimgray
[19:46:42] <DeltaQuad> *agreed
[19:46:53] <christel> showing remorse/apologising/promising not to do X or Y again are just words though and words are cheap -- if you've no intention of doing ought bar troll you'll have no problem lying l)
[19:46:59] <shimgray> w/ summaries of the various positions, even if we ourselves disagree violently about them ;-)
[19:47:07] <derp> I'm sorry, but i gotta watch Commission Charbonneau...
[19:47:16] <derp> bye.
[19:47:19] <dungodung> shall be missed
[19:47:22] <DeltaQuad> odder: i'm just comparing mail list to RfC. feel free to advertise the RfC on mailing list
[19:47:28] <dungodung> can we move to other points, please?
[19:47:30] <Pine> Do we need some equivalent of ArbCom to handle appeals?
[19:47:47] <Pine> Anyway, next topic...
[19:47:49] <Fluffernutter> ow: Saying "I misbehaved but I won't be doing that anymore" is not grovelling or begging, and if you're unableto understand what you've done wrong and express that, you're unlikelyto actually be *able* to behave any better
[19:47:59] <whym> I wonder if this subtopic was missed? "
[19:48:00] <whym> Is generating statistics without quoting text "public logging"? Privacy concerns of that.
[19:48:00] <dungodung> the discussion seems to be branching in unnecessary directions
[19:48:33] <Fluffernutter> dungodung: side effect of trying to cram five meetings' worth of topics into one
[19:48:34] <AlexJFox> Yup
[19:48:45] <derp> Yep.
[19:48:46] <dungodung> I wouldn't consider aggregate data public logging
[19:49:00] <AlexJFox> So who's the sock of derp in here then?
[19:49:11] <PeterSymonds> Let's not get sidetracked.
[19:49:12] <dungodung> sigh
[19:49:16] <AlexJFox> wish freenode had +D
[19:49:29] <dax> AlexJFox: rather easy to find, if you know how to look :3
[19:49:48] <shimgray> next point?
[19:49:49] <Fluffernutter> Giratina, AlexJFox. For whatever reason he prefers to draw attention by joining as derp insteadof speaking as Giratina.
[19:49:57] <AlexJFox> I'm not whoising the whole channel
[19:50:02] <AlexJFox> Oh.
[19:50:03] <dax> AlexJFox: /who
[19:50:10] <Pine> Can we move to the next topic please? :)
[19:50:12] <Apheori> Guys, could you stay on topic? Whatever the topic even is...
[19:50:12] <AlexJFox> same old
[19:50:16] <AlexJFox> please continue
[19:50:18] <DeltaQuad> anyway, I have to run. I have to go home and study for two midterms tomorrow
[19:50:27] <AlexJFox> Good luck DeltaQuad
[19:50:27] <-> DeltaQuad is now known as Iztravelz
[19:50:34] <Iztravelz> ty
[19:50:34] -*- purplepopple needs brekky
[19:50:46] <shimgray> ban evasion?
[19:50:55] <dungodung> Responding to ban evasion - kickban on sight, or kickban upon bad behavior being repeated?
[19:51:03] <Fluffernutter> dungodung, PeterSymonds, Barras, & co: I think it's obvious there's a lot of very long-winded topics that need discussion. Is there any way we could do more of these meetings, spaced out in the near future, rather than trying to fit everything in today?
[19:51:09] <dungodung> another contentious topic
[19:51:12] <PeterSymonds> Probably for the best.
[19:51:13] <AlexJFox> what Fluffernutter said
[19:51:21] <Spitfire> IRC is not a good venue for these discussions.
[19:51:25] <dungodung> pro
[19:51:30] <Spitfire> It does not tend to spark discussions which lead to good conclusions.
[19:51:33] <Apheori> Why not kickban on sight if you're sure it's it and otherwise on bad behaviour repeated?
[19:51:35] <AlexJFox> Spitfire, ironic huh?
[19:51:46] <Apheori> Since a lot of the time you're not even sure if it is it or not...
[19:51:48] <Fluffernutter> dungodung: My response to ban evasion usuallydepends on the levelof misuse. If it'ssomeone who can be mildly annoying, meh, no need to kick on sight. If it'sa LTA, etc, then remove on sight.
[19:52:01] <dungodung> well, this topic is a real no-brainer for me, but there's great disagreement
[19:52:05] <shimgray> if we keep a hard no logging rule, and that's what the ban's for, kick on sight
[19:52:09] <shimgray> that much is obvious
[19:52:20] <Fluffernutter> yes, logging is sort ofaspecialcase,because the "behavior" is invisible
[19:52:22] <ow> that's the problem, a lot of this depends on how we react to NPL
[19:52:28] <Fluffernutter> NPL?
[19:52:31] <shimgray> otherwise, I tend to "leave them be unless they say something, and 98% of the time saying something is stupid, then kick"
[19:52:33] <ow> no public logging
[19:52:40] <Apheori> How else would you react to it?
[19:53:33] <AlexJFox> dungodung, your thoughts?
[19:53:36] <ow> Apheori: My point is, if someone is banned for public logging, then you have to ban on sight if they evade if you're trying really hard to enforce the no public logging rule
[19:53:46] <ow> I think also there should be a time consideration
[19:53:49] <dungodung> kickban when they make troubles
[19:53:49] <Fluffernutter> Spitfire: well, another discussion venue wouldalso be ok.But I think it'sobvious nothing's getting solved here, today, in this convo
[19:54:10] <ow> X is banned for 3 days, X comes back 5 minutes later, well then you kickban them for evasion, but if they come back say, a day later, welllll see if they cause trouble
[19:54:30] <dungodung> (and abolish NPL, so you wouldn't need to ban on-sight for NPL-breaking LTAs)
[19:54:34] <tommorris> a permaban is for life, not just for Christmas.
[19:54:52] <Fluffernutter> What about if X was banned for pming people abusively, ow? You can't see that in-channel, so as far as you know they're evading and behavingperfectly. Until you find out they pm'd a death threat to someone or whatever
[19:55:01] <Apheori> If someone is banned for public logging, they're banned same as for anything else, but with added incentive to actually remove them. Where is the ambiguity?
[19:55:07] <ow> in other words, consider "Is their ban evasion a clear attempt to cause more trouble?"
[19:55:19] <dungodung> Fluffernutter: pming is freenode-wide imho
[19:55:27] <Apheori> Why should it matter if it's an attempt to cause more trouble? Banned is banned.
[19:55:29] <dungodung> you don't have to be in a channel to harras people that are in it
[19:55:41] <Fluffernutter> dungodung: yes, but usually the sort of people who do pm-spam enter a channel to find nicksto pm
[19:55:54] <Apheori> dungodung: Some folks also block pms from folks not in a channel with them.
[19:56:00] <AlexJFox> I think the problem here is wiki-IRC is an infant compared to wiki. People expect what works on wiki to be easily ported over to IRC, but it just doesn't work that way. IRC is too different and dynamic compared to wiki.
[19:56:02] -*- purplepopple agrees with dungodung
[19:56:02] <ow> Fluffernutter: Honestly? I don't know. I think something like death threats should be taken to FN staff. I also think that by the time they've evaded and joined the channel they already have the channel nick list, so /kick'ing them again won't accomplish anything in terms of stopping their abuse
[19:56:07] <dungodung> Apheori: ah, nifty
[19:56:30] <christel> ow: i think something like death threats should probably be taken to the police :)
[19:56:35] <purplepopple> Bad example: Female IRC users get lots of guys joining channels to find women to talk with via PM but do not say anything in channel.
[19:56:41] <Fluffernutter> AlexJFox, agree. We're sort of trying to mash together the non-contemporaneous rules of wikis with the instant action of IRC,and they don't fit allthat well
[19:57:03] <AlexJFox> Exactly
[19:57:04] <Fluffernutter> What purplepopple says is something I've heard from more than one chatter with a "female" name
[19:57:17] <AlexJFox> We need a whole fresh start on IRC rules and regs
[19:57:27] <AlexJFox> then make the links between those and wiki policies
[19:57:32] <mabdul|busy> purplepopple: you and your feminism... as always XD
[19:57:46] <purplepopple> It isn't feminism issue mabdul|busy
[19:57:53] <dax> "female IRC users get harassed on IRC" isn't feminism, it's obvious
[19:57:55] <purplepopple> I also get PMs on #wikipedia-en-help
[19:57:56] <Pine> AlexJFox: our guidelines are on the agenda for later in this meeting.
[19:58:05] <purplepopple> Rather than ask on channel, I get PMs.
[19:58:18] <AlexJFox> Good stuff
[19:58:19] <purplepopple> It gets silly when I have my nick saying |sleep in it.
[19:58:47] <Apheori> Wait, sometimes I get really weird pms too - is that why?
[19:58:48] <ow> purplepopple: AntiSpamMeta gets pms from people in there too sometimes, I think some people just PM everyone on the nick list looking for help, without paying any attention whatsoever ;p
[19:58:59] <purplepopple> There is also the fun part of people PMing users on IRC assuming they are admins on Wikipedia who can doo all sorts of favours for them.
[19:59:02] <Fluffernutter> But so I think the point that was being made by these examples is that it'sall well and good to say "only kick if you see the disruption", but that ignores that lots of disruptin can and does go on that ops don't see in-channel
[19:59:42] <AlexJFox> Hello mrmist
[19:59:46] <ow> The point of kicking/banning/quieting should be entirely focused on keeping the content of the channel itself clean, as a last resort
[19:59:46] <dungodung> straying from the topic again..
[19:59:51] <Apheori> And even if the one isn't currently disrupting in-channel, just having it there will make anyone it may have harassed decidedly uncomfortable...
[20:00:12] <shimgray> Fluffernutter, "if someone sees that disruption"?
[20:00:18] <shimgray> ie, act on reports
[20:00:22] <purplepopple> The only way at times to get the troll to go away is to provoke them in channel to try to get a silence, which is worse than the PM stuff at times because it creates added disruption.
[20:00:25] <Fluffernutter> yes, also what Apheori says, which goes back to the issue of "freedom of LTAs" vs "freedom of the community"
[20:00:31] <dungodung> PM-spam is only one example of abuse, but there are many, more obvious examples
[20:00:43] <ow> purplepopple: That's entirely wrong
[20:00:53] <ow> Provoking someone in channel is bad, period
[20:01:07] <Giratina> is that what Ottava used to do?
[20:01:10] <purplepopple> ow: But being exposed to abuse via PM is okay?
[20:01:21] <ow> purplepopple: That's what /ignore, /umode +g, etc is for
[20:01:22] <Fluffernutter> Especially if one is forcedto do it because ops won't remove someone who's harassing channel users. That;s definitelya bad sign.
[20:01:35] <AlexJFox> purplepopple, if you can't /ignore then it's no-ones problem but your own
[20:01:38] <purplepopple> ow: And then they change their nicks, etc.?
[20:01:49] <purplepopple> And they do it to multiple people?
[20:01:56] <Giratina> purplepopple, changing IP, ident, real name?
[20:02:11] <AlexJFox> /ignore takes seconds
[20:02:13] <ow> purplepopple: /ignore is usually something that can be done based on IP. If they're changing their IP to evade an ignore they can just as easily change their IP to evade a ban
[20:02:15] <purplepopple> I can think of on user who likes to PM women and chat them up and share their homophobic, racist views with them.
[20:02:28] <-> Pine_ is now known as Pine
[20:02:36] -*- odder is quitting this very unproductive meeting.
[20:02:43] <Giratina> purplepopple, that one? I remember.
[20:02:55] <Apheori> Given that some current ops also often won't act until after they have personally talked to the user, purplepopple is entirely right.
[20:03:01] <AlexJFox> purplepopple, you can /ignore more than they can change IPs
[20:03:07] <purplepopple> So yes, disruption happens on PM that drives them off.
[20:03:40] <purplepopple> AlexJFox: I have gotten the lecture more times than I can count that ignoring people (and letting others know you have them on ignore) is worse than disruption.
[20:03:43] <AlexJFox> PM abuse is the last thing we need to worry about when we can't agree on the basic functionality of a channel
[20:03:53] <AlexJFox> Don't run before we can walk
[20:04:07] <Fluffernutter> AlexJFox: well, it's all part-and-parcel of whether to allow known problem users in a channel
[20:04:08] <Giratina> AlexJFox, how would you handle if you got 100 pm's in 10 seconds?
[20:04:25] <Ironholds> or 100 /pings, or 100 /memos, or...
[20:04:27] <AlexJFox> agreed Fluffernutter, but establishing the one will help to establish the other
[20:04:41] <Apheori> My IRC client crashes.
[20:04:41] <purplepopple> Functionality of a channel depends on the channel. Sometimes internal policies work well. #wikinews and #wikipedia-en-roads generally work pretty well with current policies.
[20:04:51] <Ironholds> AlexJFox: it seems like answering the *wider* question is a good way to find an answer to the narrower one, not the other way around.
[20:04:53] <AlexJFox> Ironholds, all ignorable
[20:05:12] <AlexJFox> to me the wider question is around the channels
[20:05:12] <Giratina> AlexJFox, let me show you, are you aware of Colloquy for iOS?
[20:05:14] <AlexJFox> not the PMs
[20:05:31] <purplepopple> AlexJFox: But if you ignore them and then get told ignoring them is WORSE than dealing with their abuse because it disrupts channel functioning and isn't inclusive?
[20:05:38] <AlexJFox> Giratina yes I'm aware, but we are going off on massive irresolvable tangents here
[20:05:47] <Ironholds> what purplepopple said. And I don't think I've ever said that before ;p
[20:05:48] <AlexJFox> purplepopple, deny recognition
[20:05:50] <AlexJFox> don't tell them
[20:05:53] <Apheori> Nevermind pms specifically, however; why should our users be told that such behaviour is acceptable and that it is up to them to ignore it themselves?
[20:06:03] <Apheori> That just seems wrong.
[20:06:13] <Ironholds> AlexJFox: why? It doesn't WORK
[20:06:21] <whym> Is generating statistics without quoting text "public logging"? Privacy concerns of that.
[20:06:30] <ow> haaang on a second
[20:06:32] <whym> oops sorry
[20:06:34] <Ironholds> we tried letting some problem users in, and by "we" I mean "some of the GCs and ops decided without asking the actual channel users"
[20:06:38] <AlexJFox> Ironholds, I'll be honest, I've had a few (not many) unsolicted PMs
[20:06:42] <purplepopple> AlexJFox: And when you miss the part where the person you are ignoring is the centre of everyone else's attention and others realise you're ignoring them and give you shit?
[20:06:45] <AlexJFox> It's easily handled
[20:06:47] <Ironholds> they kept spamming us, kept logging, kept doing everything else
[20:06:56] <Ironholds> denying recognition *does not drive them off*
[20:06:58] <Apheori> Kept harassing users...
[20:07:12] <Apheori> And yes, the proper term is harassment.
[20:07:15] <Ironholds> AlexJFox: yeah, you've had a few PMs and it was easily handled. My heart goes out to you. When you're getting 50 at a time, call me, yeah?
[20:07:16] <ow> I'd like a simple yes or no to this: Yes or no, is the purpose of bans/quiets/kicks purely to keep the in-channel content clean and positive? If no, then what other purposes should they have?
[20:07:29] <christel> Apheori: is it though? i get shedloads of spam in the post, i can choose to go on one of those "dont give me unadressed crap" lists yeah? just like i can go +g on irc -- however, what i cant do is expect the postman to vet what comes through the letterbox in order for me to not have to take a stance on whether to get offended by it/having to ignore/bin it etc
[20:07:33] <Ironholds> ow: to protect the basic integrity of the channel and the wellbeing of its users.
[20:07:42] <AlexJFox> Ironholds, what client do you use?
[20:07:47] <Ironholds> which goes a lot father than "no saying rude words"
[20:07:48] <shimgray> ow, plus logging issues (where policy relevant)
[20:07:56] <Ironholds> AlexJFox: mIRC or Xchat, depending on the machine
[20:08:13] <purplepopple> As I understand it in #wikinews and #wikipedia-en-roads , kick/quietting is done to allow collaborative work to be more effectively done on project space.
[20:08:17] <AlexJFox> mIRC is exactly what I use
[20:08:18] <Apheori> christel: Have you had anyone target specifically you?
[20:08:28] <AlexJFox> I could provide you with some sort of PM management script
[20:08:29] <Fluffernutter> ow: no. It's to keep our channel and its users from being victimized and to keep the *environment* of the channel clean and positive
[20:08:39] <christel> Apheori: yes
[20:08:45] <Ironholds> I think we're maybe getting down a tangent: the problem here is not PMing, it's a general attitude of harassment and abuse from a specific group of users
[20:08:46] <Giratina> like communist china?
[20:08:53] <Apheori> Sending pictures taken of you while in your house...
[20:08:57] <Ironholds> kickbanning maybe doesn't solve the PMing perfectly. Maybe not.
[20:09:07] <Ironholds> but it solves the hell out of the other problems.
[20:09:16] <AlexJFox> Ironholds, once they've got the nicklist, you're all vunerable to PM spam
[20:09:25] <AlexJFox> Keeping them off the channel in the first place helps that
[20:09:27] <Ironholds> AlexJFox: it's almost like you didn't read what I wrote.
[20:09:32] <Apheori> Little notes making reference to how much they like you...
[20:09:35] <AlexJFox> But then we come full circle to how long a ban lasts
[20:09:43] <ow> Fluffernutter: Fair enough. So, when a user or two is capable of taking action on their own, is it the ops job to do it for them? E.g. if a couple of users are being harassed in PM, should an op kickban the harasser, or should the small handful of users just use /ignore?
[20:09:43] <Ironholds> and short of someone writing a Punch Someone In The Face Through The Internet script there's not much else that can be done.
[20:09:44] <AlexJFox> Ironholds, I did, sorry
[20:09:47] <Apheori> Comments about the connection you share...
[20:10:03] <Ironholds> Apheori: you know creepy people and should stop inviting them to your house.
[20:10:09] <AlexJFox> Apheori, indeed.
[20:10:11] <ow> Apheori: Freenode staff gets /lots/ of creepy harassment
[20:10:12] <Fluffernutter> ow: IMHO, if someone is using our channel as a springboardto harass others, they're poisoning the environment of the channel and should be removed
[20:10:24] <Ironholds> agreed
[20:10:29] <AlexJFox> Ironholds, I can't even keep track of this conversation
[20:10:35] <Apheori> christel: When this happens physically, it is called 'stalking'. It is illegal. It forces people to change identifities and move to another province.
[20:10:37] -*- purplepopple agrees with Fluffernutter
[20:10:39] <Ironholds> and, no offence, dude, but "staff get harassment" is not an out or a defence
[20:10:41] <Fluffernutter> ow: Otherwise you're saying "Well YES he's harassing you, but his right to harass you as he likes is more valuable than your right to not be harassed"
[20:10:52] <Ironholds> I'm staff for the WMF. So far I've been harassed a shitton more on IRC than from my job
[20:11:06] <Giratina> ie on facebook, i'm being stalked by a girl.
[20:11:10] <Ironholds> although I've got pretty creepy harassment as part of my job. Don't let you job-stalkers think I'm being mean about you, you do wonderfully creepy work
[20:11:18] <christel> Apheori: that's pretty special, i cant say i've had people turn up in my garden to take pictures through my windows no. i've had someone send my neighbours pizza once a week for a year (they got the address wrong) -- that was rather amusing, and i've had numerous graphic explanations of how people were going to kill me
[20:11:19] <AlexJFox> lol
[20:11:19] <Apheori> Anyway, what Fluffernutter said.
[20:11:42] <Apheori> christel: Well, that was the analogy you seemed to be making, and the parallel behaviour to which I was referring on IRC.
[20:11:47] <christel> that said, i do hope you contacted the relevant law enforcement units :)
[20:11:53] <dax> I wouldn't really call it "lots"
[20:11:56] <Apheori> There is outing, there is harrassing pming, there is stalking.
[20:12:03] <ow> Fluffernutter: No I guess the non-politically-correct version of what I'm saying is "You don't have to be harassed: Toughen up a little, or learn to use /ignore"
[20:12:04] <Giratina> christel, i did :)
[20:12:12] <Ironholds> ow: are you kidding?
[20:12:46] <Apheori> ow: That is not how Wikimedia works, on IRC, wiki, or community in general.
[20:12:48] <Ironholds> you can /ignore PMs. How do you ignore people logging, or using the conversation to try and work out who the hell you are IRL so they can out you and fuck with you?
[20:13:06] <Ironholds> sure, kickbans do not solve for this perfectly, but they disrupt the shit out of it *IFF* we actually use them.
[20:13:06] <AlexJFox> Ironholds, it does come down to that in a sense, I'm not making light of you being harrassed, but we will NEVER solve the PM issue as a community, nor do we have a right to. It's down to the individual.
[20:13:09] <-> mabdul|busy is now known as mabdul|food
[20:13:10] <-> mabdul|food is now known as mabdul|dog
[20:13:10] <AlexJFox> We can offer advice
[20:13:13] <AlexJFox> but that's it.
[20:13:14] <Fluffernutter> ow: This is what I don't understand about what you're saying: So we have user:X, who likes to pm harassment to people. We have user Y, who likes to be a normalperson, engaging in normalchat in -en. What reason do you have for retaining user X in -en,especially if they're driving away user:Y?
[20:13:27] <Ironholds> AlexJFox: again, we're not talking PMs. We weren't talking PMs the last two times I said we weren't talking PMs specifically, either
[20:13:32] <Giratina> AlexJFox, but not legally standing.
[20:13:50] <Ironholds> what Fluffernutter said
[20:13:59] <AlexJFox> Ironholds, you mean work out your real-life identity>
[20:14:03] <AlexJFox> ?*
[20:14:14] <Ironholds> quite! And then post accusations that I'm a fucking rapist where google can get at it
[20:14:19] <Ironholds> and even if you go "well, Y should just never talk about anything not relating to IRC" - okay, fine
[20:14:28] <Ironholds> so explain to me how we tell that to every single new user, who is also at risk?
[20:14:32] <purplepopple> Example I have: Every time I was in #wikimedia-au for a while, I had a Canadian user demanding I try to get them funding because WM-CA was incompetent and had things to do. They wanted me to go WMF to plead on their behalf.
[20:14:33] <Giratina> Ironholds, mind the language.
[20:14:47] <Ironholds> and why the hell should my behaviour be so limited because "ops are for keeping the channel polite!"
[20:14:48] <purplepopple> They could not hang out in #wikimedia-ca. They would not leave me alone when I was doing stuff.
[20:14:53] <AlexJFox> Ironholds, restrict official channels to cloaked users only. Stick to official channels
[20:15:04] <AlexJFox> Will go someway to helping
[20:15:09] <ow> Fluffernutter: My reason is that I strongly believe that kick/ban/quiet should be the /last/ course of action for almost any circumstance
[20:15:11] <AlexJFox> May not solve it completely
[20:15:11] <Fluffernutter> AlexJFox: for the moment, the notion of "official channels" doesn't exist as you're using it
[20:15:12] <Apheori> AlexJFox: So what are our users supposed to do?
[20:15:15] <Ironholds> AlexJFox: okay. Hands up, group contacts who wish to restrict #wikipedia-en to cloaked only?
[20:15:19] <purplepopple> And they would harrass others in the chapter to try to get them money. I couldn't do work with others because of $$$ requests. Who is more valuable for WMF projects?
[20:15:26] <PeterSymonds> I don't like the idea.
[20:15:30] <Ironholds> because it's never been done. Does anyone want to do that, or commit, right now, to doing it?
[20:15:30] <AlexJFox> Fluffernutter as I said waaaaaay up there ^ I know.
[20:15:36] <AlexJFox> But it's something for the RfC
[20:15:46] <dungodung> nope
[20:15:54] <masti> AlexJFox, that like banning IPs from editing wiki
[20:15:59] <AlexJFox> not at all
[20:16:07] <Ironholds> Okay, can we at least have kickbans, please?
[20:16:13] <Ironholds> if the GCs are rejecting a more stringent mechanism.
[20:16:15] <AlexJFox> The requirements of a cloak are minor
[20:16:18] <purplepopple> RfC on meta won't be honoured on #wikinews, #wikipedia-en-roads, #wikimedia-commons, #wikiversity .
[20:16:18] <ow> Ironholds, PeterSymonds, dungodung: Actually, having a secondary channel in which only cloaked users were allowed to join, that is a kindof nice idea, I think, maybe
[20:16:19] <Fluffernutter> ow: Ok, assume you've spoken to X. You've said "Hey you know, this harassment isn't cool. You're frightening our users. You need to stop it." They've continued doing it. Now what do you do? Continue to tell Y to jfi, even though X is misusing the channel in defiance of a request to stop?
[20:16:26] <AlexJFox> and why would you even BE in wikipedia-en if you don't contribute?
[20:16:34] <PeterSymonds> I don't see the point.
[20:16:34] <AlexJFox> not for help, we have a help channel
[20:16:39] <dungodung> me neither
[20:16:40] <AlexJFox> not for appeals
[20:16:41] <Ironholds> AlexJFox: actually, a lot of people show up confused by the channel
[20:16:46] <purplepopple> Lots of people are in there if they don't contribute for social reasons.
[20:16:50] <Ironholds> "can I ask random people here?"
[20:16:56] <Ironholds> "someone help me with my homework"
[20:17:00] <AlexJFox> Utilise help more
[20:17:09] <Apheori> Plenty of people just hang out.
[20:17:11] <Giratina> Ironholds, that french translation guy right?
[20:17:12] <AlexJFox> guys/girls, I'm trying to suggest fixes to your problems
[20:17:16] <AlexJFox> That's all
[20:17:21] <purplepopple> We had some one show up in #wikinews once confusing us with #wikileaks who wanted to drunk chat about how we were fasicsts for nto taking Assange's side.
[20:17:25] <Ironholds> AlexJFox: sure, and dungodung/peter just shitcanned them
[20:17:26] <AlexJFox> people are obviously very passionate about the issues here
[20:17:28] <Apheori> Out of curiosity, are outing and other forms of what would be considered harassment on-wiki acceptable on IRC?
[20:17:31] <christel> Apheori: i dont disagree with you about bob needing to be removed from channel if he harasses alice and john and makes them feel uncomfortable btw -- i just dont think the ops team can be expected to STOP such harassment from occurring -- as in, they can only be reactive, not proactive and thus it is good for the alice and john to know that they can also /ignore bob until the matter is dealt with :)
[20:17:33] <AlexJFox> but I see few solutions being suggested
[20:17:37] <Ironholds> so. If that's not acceptable, can we have kickbanning back, consistently, please?
[20:18:05] <ow> Fluffernutter: Pretty much. It would depend on the extensiveness. If lots of people are saying "Hey I'm getting harassing PMs", then maybe a kickban is reasonable. If one or two people are complaining about harassing PMs, I tell them "Just ignore the person."
[20:18:21] <Ironholds> AlexJFox: yes, people are very passionate. When people have accused you of being a rapist, registered offensive domain names in your name and disrupted your place of work with them, you might understand why.
[20:18:57] <AlexJFox> Do you attribute that solely to information gained from IRC?
[20:18:58] <Apheori> christel: Stopping it is exactly what they should be expected to do as soon as it is reported or noticed or known, as opposed to just ignoring it and telling people to grow a thicker skin and the like...
[20:19:07] <Ironholds> christel: but would you agree that if someone is a known harasser, being reactive would include "consistently kickbanning if and when they try to join again following their initial harassment"
[20:19:10] <Giratina> I really have no idea what's going on right now
[20:19:16] <Apheori> And what Ironholds said.
[20:19:17] <Fluffernutter> ow: but I'm asking again - what value is X providing to that channel, that you're keeping him there? Where does his right to lurk and pick his victims and, and the channel's right to not be misused begin? Why does X's right trump the channel's or Y's?
[20:19:26] <Ironholds> PeterSymonds, dungodung, so what are your solutions?
[20:19:35] <christel> Apheori: i didnt mention growing thicker skins, i was just saying that there was no way for the ops team to filter out such messages *before* they took place :)
[20:19:50] <AlexJFox> We are trying to fix issues with the fundamentals of IRC here. Not wiki-IRC. :/
[20:19:54] <Fluffernutter> urgh, typos. Ow: that should read "why does his right[blah blah] trump the channel's [blah blah"
[20:20:10] <Ironholds> christel: sure you can. We know their base IPs, we know the nick formats they use. obliterate them from the channel every time they reappear once they've been shown to be a problem.
[20:20:12] <purplepopple> These problems are on #wiki-irc .
[20:20:20] <dungodung> I think ow's suggestion seems alright: if it's one or two, tell to ignore. if it's more than that, then a ban is warranted
[20:20:24] <ow> Fluffernutter: The value that X is providing the channel is exactly neutral, imo. But we're not going to kickban people whose value is exactly neutral, else we'd have a no-idling policy.
[20:20:28] <christel> Ironholds: yes, i would also agree that depending on the contents/context it would also be appropriate to escalate the matter to freenode staff and/or relevant law authorities if appropriate
[20:20:39] <Apheori> christel: IRC doesn't filter anything out before it happens - folks can kick repeat offenders and anything as it comes up, but that's a common stated reason for not doing so.
[20:20:39] <Ironholds> christel: I didn't make that suggestion, but sure
[20:20:59] <Giratina> Apheori, it could, there's a channel mode on some ircd's
[20:21:03] <christel> Ironholds: yes, you might do *after* it has happened, you wont do *before* it happens (for the first place) :)
[20:21:03] <Ironholds> dungodung: and how does this solve for longer-term harassment and logging?
[20:21:10] <Fluffernutter> ow: Ah. See, I feel that someone who's harassing our users is providing *negative* value to the channel. Because harassment andtrolling are negative-value activities. Whereas you feel that harassment and trolling are...neutral-value activities?
[20:21:13] <Ironholds> christel: okay, but you agree it is acceptable post hoc?
[20:21:28] <Ironholds> because right now, the GCs and half the ops just turned around one day and said "yeah, we're letting these people back in the channel"
[20:21:39] <ow> Fluffernutter: No, I feel that the value they are providing to the channel can only be evaluated based on what they say in the channel.
[20:21:40] <dungodung> Ironholds: I've already said what I had for LTAs and NPL
[20:21:42] <Ironholds> no discussion with us mere mortals, nada. And, of course, they kept up their schtick.
[20:21:47] <Apheori> ow: How does someone driving people away, making them unconfortable, or even putting them in legally problematic situations equate to a 'neutral value'?
[20:21:50] <Ironholds> dungodung: was I in the channel at that point? :)
[20:21:57] <dungodung> Ironholds: not sure :P
[20:22:03] <christel> Ironholds: to ban them? i think it is entirely UNACCEPTABLE not to ban someone if they harass contributors in a way which makes them feel uncomfortable and affects the community in a negative manner
[20:22:08] <Ironholds> dungodung: then can you repeat?
[20:22:16] <Apheori> christel: <3
[20:22:21] -*- Fluffernutter stares, hugs christel wildly
[20:22:25] <Ironholds> christel: please tell me you're a GC or summat and I'm not agreeing with someone who is also here to torch the castle ;p
[20:22:29] <tommorris> wait, hold on, so is the argument currently that "X has been harassing Y but so long as they don't harass Y any more, there isn't any cost to them being around in the channel"? cos, if so, fuck that shit.
[20:22:33] <dungodung> abolish NPL, ban on-sight (LTAs or regulars, doesn't matter) if disruptive
[20:22:35] <dungodung> simple as that
[20:22:46] <christel> Ironholds: im not a gc, i'm just head of freenode, nil to do with wikipedia (bar as a user) :)
[20:22:57] -*- Ironholds bows, sacrifices a goat
[20:23:04] <Ironholds> HAIL THE 'NODE
[20:23:04] <ow> dungodung: YES PLEASE </caps>
[20:23:07] <Apheori> tommorris: Exactly! And even if they aren't acticely harassing them, just being there and talking to them can be enough at that point. >.<
[20:23:15] <Ironholds> ow, dungodung, so can we commit to that, please?
[20:23:16] <dungodung> (yeah, there are pros and cons to any solution, but I just made some judgement calls)
[20:23:33] <Ironholds> long-term abusers to be kickbanned if and when they show their head as the world's biggest game of wack-a-mole
[20:23:38] <tommorris> Yeah. If you've been harassed by someone, seeing them lurking there is likely to give you the fucking creeps.
[20:23:42] <Fluffernutter> Ironholds: there are some privacy concerns to be worked out before logging can happen (which is to say, work needs to be done, not that logging can't happen)
[20:23:49] <Ironholds> Fluffernutter: no, no
[20:23:55] <Ironholds> I meant as in "people who publicly log"
[20:24:00] <Ironholds> kickbans are excellent at disrupting their efforts
[20:24:09] <Fluffernutter> Ironholds: dungodung mean "we're going to allow public logging"
[20:24:09] <Apheori> It can be pretty bad when they've only harassed someone you care about...
[20:24:11] <Fluffernutter> *meant
[20:24:19] <shimgray> well, we're thinking about it
[20:24:23] <dungodung> Ironholds: that's my stance, but if it is decided otherwise, who am I to object (well...)
[20:24:24] <Ironholds> wait, what?
[20:24:28] -*- Ironholds headdesks
[20:24:31] <tommorris> and allowing someone who has harassed a good-faith user around is basically the ops saying "fuck it, we don't care about the pain they've inflicted"
[20:24:41] <Ironholds> pretty much
[20:24:47] <shimgray> Ironholds, we're going to have an RFC on public logging
[20:24:47] <Apheori> tommorris: I love you.
[20:24:52] <Ironholds> shimgray: okay.
[20:24:59] <Ironholds> the RfC, I'm fine with.
[20:25:12] <Ironholds> but. can we please commit to consistently kickbanning LTAs, please?
[20:25:18] <Ironholds> Right now? It's a simple yes/no.
[20:25:19] <tommorris> and, incidentally, that kind of bullshit attitude is why I don't hang out in #wikipedia-en anymore.
[20:25:21] <ow> No.
[20:25:23] -*- Fluffernutter will pretty much always value the right of good-faith users to not be harassed over the right of harassers to have a fifth chance, or to chat idly in channels they use for harassment
[20:25:29] <Apheori> Can we remove ow as an op?
[20:25:31] <shimgray> with the caveat that this is LTA for abusiveness, I'd be on it.
[20:25:32] <purplepopple> RfC on public logging should be opt-in by project.
[20:25:44] <Ironholds> shimgray: yeah, indeedy-doody
[20:25:46] <tommorris> 'cos, you know, OMG MY FREE SPEECH RIGHTS ARE BEING INFRINGED. GIVE ME MY 19TH CHANCE, I'LL BE GOOD THIS TIME
[20:25:51] <masti> purplepopple, right
[20:25:54] <shimgray> (I don't know what kind of other LTAs we have, but, you know)
[20:25:57] <Fluffernutter> purplepopple++. As some peoplenoted earlier, for all that we're talking "global" here we're really just talking about the -en channels
[20:26:07] <AlexJFox> I agree to permakickban on LTAs in principle
[20:26:15] <purplepopple> Fluffernutter: -en for Wikipedia.
[20:26:16] <AlexJFox> as long as there is some avenue of appeal for them
[20:26:19] <Jamesofur> meh, that's an abuse of the idea of what 'free speech rights' are, especially if they try to claim it's their constitutional right
[20:26:22] <AlexJFox> off-channel of course
[20:26:23] <Fluffernutter> yes, sorry, enwp
[20:26:33] <shimgray> purplepopple, I think what I'd suggest is that we pick one option and either opt in or out by channel. but hopefully not six different sets of logging rules
[20:26:46] <Ironholds> Jamesofur: americo-centric pigdog!
[20:26:58] <purplepopple> I've seen discussion of sourcing on #wikinews for OR where there have been questions about the identity of sources that are nominally confidential.
[20:27:38] <purplepopple> Given that Wikinews allows original reporting and has policies that allow non-disclosure of these idents for verification for reviews and admins, having customised logging policy for that project mor eimportant.
[20:27:40] <Apheori> Are the logs for the currently logged channels censored?
[20:27:44] <AlexJFox> Ok. Next topic maybe?
[20:27:57] <shimgray> please don't hold those discussions on an open channel, purplepopple, if they're meant to be confidential in any way
[20:27:59] <tommorris> purplepopple: I'd recommend not having those discussions in a public IRC channel. "no public logging" is just a bullshit myth we tell each other.
[20:28:04] <shimgray> logging or not, it's a bad idea
[20:28:08] <Ironholds> alright! Next topic is "I'm just going to stop using -en"
[20:28:22] <tommorris> Ironholds: join the club.
[20:28:25] <Ironholds> next-but-one topic, please?
[20:28:25] <Apheori> Indeed...
[20:28:35] <Ironholds> Apheori: we've got a nice private cabal channel you're welcome to join, if you want
[20:28:37] <Apheori> Is there a topic about how to remove ops?
[20:28:43] <purplepopple> tommorris: Except if you're a new writer... and you don't always have the backstory to know asking such questions opens up privacy issues and then some.
[20:29:01] <Apheori> Ironholds: Do tell. Does it have cabbage?
[20:29:06] <Ironholds> Apheori: it has cabbage
[20:29:18] <AlexJFox> Ironholds, I want in on the cabbage
[20:29:19] <Ironholds> also, what Apheori said. Are ops and GCs just, what, internally self-selecting?
[20:29:28] <AlexJFox> Yeah, that ^
[20:29:28] <ow> Mostly, yeah
[20:29:32] <Apheori> Cabbage is cool.
[20:29:40] <AlexJFox> Consensus on GCs is long overdue
[20:29:43] <Ironholds> I guess what I'm saying, more verbosely, is "if people are fundamentally refusing to actually do the job they signed up for how do I melt them into slag"
[20:29:44] <AlexJFox> Not that they do a bad job
[20:29:49] <ow> GCs decide who can be a superop who can be an op, basically.
[20:29:53] <Ironholds> ow; what's the mostly?
[20:30:00] <Barras> not really.
[20:30:01] <Ironholds> mostly implies there's an element that is not.
[20:30:11] <Ironholds> AlexJFox: good idea. Perhaps the RfC should be widened!
[20:30:14] <Ironholds> or a new one put into place.
[20:30:26] <AlexJFox> TOO. MANY. RFCS. /faint
[20:30:28] <Ironholds> Do we have self selection for ops/GCs or [something else] Y/N.
[20:30:29] <AlexJFox> But yes
[20:30:34] <dungodung> we don't really choose superops
[20:30:38] <Apheori> Basically, suppose I am entirely disatisfied with an op's performance and not only do I consider it incompetent, would consider it to be actively doing more harm than good - what can I do as a user?
[20:30:47] <Apheori> Anything?
[20:30:49] <PeterSymonds> We don't even choose channel contacts really.
[20:30:49] <AlexJFox> Ironholds, WP:Request_for_Groupcontactship ;)
[20:31:00] <shimgray> Apheori, it's a good question and I think there should be a channel
[20:31:10] <Ironholds> shimgray: :P
[20:31:10] <shimgray> er, by which I mean a mechanism
[20:31:12] <AlexJFox> I like Barras, he? has helped me out a couple of times
[20:31:14] <shimgray> not an IRC channel
[20:31:18] -*- AlexJFox votes Barras '12/
[20:31:19] <Ironholds> yes, that would be silly
[20:31:23] <AlexJFox> '12*
[20:31:25] <Apheori> Right.
[20:31:25] <Fluffernutter> there's not really a route for that right now,as far as I know
[20:31:26] <Ironholds> we'd have to have ops for that, too, and then it's fractal
[20:31:29] <Apheori> So there isn't one, eh?
[20:31:36] <Pine> I would think that allegations against ops should be taken to the -ops channel for peer review, just as appeals would be.
[20:31:38] <shimgray> well, let's say I don't know what it is :-)
[20:31:49] <ow> what Pine said
[20:31:56] <Barras> AlexJFox: I did? I helped too many people, I can't remember.
[20:32:06] <shimgray> if I was dissatisfied with an op, I'd go to whichever GC I felt best
[20:32:07] <dungodung> but we're being -en-centered again, aren't we?
[20:32:09] <Fluffernutter> Pine: -ops is often inhabited by the people we've kicked fromother channels
[20:32:11] <shimgray> (ie, the one I know)
[20:32:18] <Fluffernutter> so that's not always a welcoming atmosphere
[20:32:26] <Apheori> And what if the user doesn't feel comfortable talking in front of said op?
[20:32:26] <AlexJFox> You helped me with a cloak question, an unofficial wiki channel that we needed closing and you helped me (Via Riley) with the CVU channel
[20:32:29] <AlexJFox> So yes :)
[20:32:37] <Pine> Fluffernutter: it is also inhabited by lots of ops from other channels who could be asked to review.
[20:32:38] <ow> There's also -ops-internal
[20:32:42] <Apheori> And is there even any guarantee that anyone relevent will be there at the moment and listen?
[20:32:45] <shimgray> IRC itself is not a good solution for this, as the op will be present, and the person who may want to act may not be there
[20:32:47] <shimgray> bingo
[20:32:55] <shimgray> I would say, email a GC
[20:33:07] <shimgray> or two
[20:33:10] <Logan_> Or maybe the new mailing list for the ops?
[20:33:31] <Apheori> So where does one get their email addresses? Or just special:emailuser multiple times? Messier than a cc...
[20:33:33] <AlexJFox> hi Logan_
[20:33:38] <ow> Apheori: So you're saying that someone should be able to complain about an op without said op having a chance to actively defend themselves from false or illogical accusations? :s
[20:33:38] <Logan_> Hello.
[20:33:39] <Logan_> I'm here.
[20:33:54] <Giratina> yes hello
[20:33:58] <Logan_> Hi.
[20:34:09] <shimgray> ow, I think it's fair to allow a discreet channel to complain; I don't think any GC is silly enough to act based on a single complaint without looking into it
[20:34:14] <Apheori> ow: I should hope whoever is making the decisions would see to that.
[20:34:15] <Pine> dungodung: at some point I would like to learn more about how GCs, superops and ops are chosen. Maybe that could be documented somewhere.
[20:34:24] <AlexJFox> Pine, ditto
[20:34:30] <Apheori> That said op could defend themselves, I mean.
[20:34:31] <dungodung> there's not much to say
[20:34:37] <Apheori> Itself?
[20:34:43] -*- purplepopple didn't even realise she had op powers in #wikinews until some one else told her. ;)
[20:34:45] <Barras> My mail is pretty much known, however, to get all GCs you can mail firstname.lastname@example.org
[20:34:47] <dungodung> as for (super)ops, it depends on the channel
[20:34:55] <dungodung> GCs choose other GCs
[20:35:13] <Apheori> So that mailing list is the GCs?
[20:35:17] <dungodung> yeah, and I wanted to write that you can always do email@example.com, which goes only to GCs
[20:35:18] <PeterSymonds> Pine, superops are chosen by the channel contact; ops are chosen by the superops/channel contact.
[20:35:21] <Giratina> how about it to choose new gc's
[20:35:22] <AlexJFox> See, I use help a lot, but have no ability in there other than the generic /wikipedia/ flags
[20:35:23] <AlexJFox> voice.
[20:35:25] <Giratina> democratic vote
[20:35:26] <shimgray> Barras, shall we make a clear public note of that as a complaint mechanism on the wiki somewhere? (if it's not already there)
[20:35:28] <AlexJFox> Can't deal with any trolls
[20:35:32] <AlexJFox> or set any modes
[20:35:36] <shimgray> (if it is already there, this is a bit of an odd discussion to have)
[20:35:41] <AlexJFox> It does seem like an exclusive club
[20:35:52] <Apheori> Okay, so how are folks supposed to know about this GCs mailing list in the first place?
[20:36:00] <Logan_> I didn't know about it.
[20:36:03] <purplepopple> That is more channel culture then.
[20:36:06] <Apheori> Er, what shimgray said.
[20:36:20] <Pine> Apheori: it's a very new list.
[20:36:24] <AlexJFox> I didn't know it either, Logan_
[20:36:27] <Apheori> Pine: How new?
[20:36:27] <Barras> shimgray: We usually try to not involve too much into the daily channel work. We are the last instance, well some sort of last instance....
[20:36:30] <Pine> er, sorry, I was thinking you said ops list
[20:36:38] <Apheori> Oh.
[20:36:45] <dungodung> GC list exists from cca. 2009
[20:36:49] <Thehelpfulone> the irc-contacts list has been around for a while, but it's not been used in months
[20:36:56] <dungodung> and it's irc-contacts
[20:37:09] <dungodung> it includes some superops as well as GCs
[20:37:11] <Apheori> So complaints about an op go to the last instance?
[20:37:14] <dungodung> although it isn't used much
[20:37:21] <dungodung> the -owner address goes only to GCs
[20:37:37] <Apheori> Ah.
[20:37:43] <dungodung> complaints about an op should go to a superop or channel contact
[20:37:45] <Giratina> Who are the superops?
[20:37:46] <Barras> no, if you have a complainment about an op, you go to the superops/channel contacts first.
[20:37:47] <dungodung> (ideally)
[20:37:51] <Thehelpfulone> Giratina, which channel?
[20:38:05] <Thehelpfulone> you can type /cs access #channel list
[20:38:16] <Thehelpfulone> replacing #channel with the name of the channel, #wikipedia-en for example
[20:38:18] <dungodung> he knows that
[20:38:34] <Logan_> Hi Gfoley.
[20:38:41] <Logan_> Okay.
[20:38:44] <dungodung> :P
[20:38:46] <Barras> And for wikipedia, wikipedia-en, wikimedia, the channel contact is PeterSymonds, superops are Thehelpfulone, Fluffernutter and myself.
[20:38:52] <Apheori> Can the superops do anything?
[20:38:59] <dungodung> sure they can
[20:39:00] <Logan_> PeterSymonds is quite lazy.
[20:39:05] <Logan_> But they technically can do things.
[20:39:07] <Jamesofur> ^
[20:39:15] <PeterSymonds> Who what
[20:39:23] <ow> The superops can add/remove people from the op list
[20:39:29] <Giratina> Thehelpfulone, ty <3
[20:39:56] <PeterSymonds> It does depend on the channel. In the channels mentioned, superops can do pretty much everything.
[20:40:05] <PeterSymonds> But in some channels their technical power is more limited.
[20:40:21] <AlexJFox> Who created the superop templates?
[20:40:24] <AlexJFox> the GCs?
[20:40:30] <PeterSymonds> No, the channel contact.
[20:40:47] <AlexJFox> Needs to be more consistency
[20:40:49] <Apheori> So if I were to go to, say, Fluffernutter, about someone in -en, if she happened to agree, could she do something, or would she need to discuss it with Thehelpfulone et al, or something else?
[20:40:50] <Thehelpfulone> possibly with a bit of help from me depending on where we are looking
[20:40:51] <AlexJFox> and transparency
[20:40:58] <dungodung> again, GCs don't usually meddle into day-to-day dealings of a channel
[20:41:03] <PeterSymonds> IRC isn't built to run like that, AlexJFox.
[20:41:17] <AlexJFox> PeterSymonds, that's exactly why we have some of the issues we do
[20:41:37] <AlexJFox> I did say earlier that a lot of this is problems with the fundamentals of IRC itself, not wiki-IRC
[20:41:41] <PeterSymonds> Maybe so. But that isn't about to change.
[20:41:49] <AlexJFox> So I'm acutely aware that we aren't the only people having issues
[20:41:54] -*- Giratina is off for commute, leaving this VNC on.
[20:41:56] <Fluffernutter> Apheori: the sops tend to work mostly on consensus, so one single sop might not take action unless there's agreement.
[20:42:42] <dungodung> well, superops usually don't have to deal with emergencies
[20:42:50] <dungodung> so it's easier to build consensus about stuff
[20:42:53] <Fluffernutter> right
[20:42:55] <Apheori> So instead of contacting the GCs, you and Thehelpfulone would be the first line in en?
[20:43:14] <Apheori> Since apparently you're the only ones that are ever actually there.
[20:43:27] <Barras> I'm there 24/7 :o
[20:43:33] <dungodung> me too
[20:43:38] <dungodung> I just don't follow the discussions
[20:43:49] <Barras> ^
[20:43:51] <Apheori> Oh, so you are.
[20:43:57] <Barras> I act when pinged and needed.
[20:44:07] <dungodung> I get pinged there more than I would like :)
[20:44:14] <AlexJFox> We need a cluebot equivalent on IRC :)
[20:44:15] <dungodung> then again, that's for staking "dung"
[20:44:27] <Apheori> I only count four superops total, though...
[20:44:29] <Thehelpfulone> Apheori, for #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en or #wikimedia yes
[20:44:39] <-> Pine_ is now known as Pine
[20:44:44] <Pine> This seems like a good time to discuss our next topic, "The group contacts (GCs) involvement in channel day-to-day channel management". Can we discuss that directly?
[20:44:45] <Apheori> Aye, in this case I'm referring to en.
[20:44:58] <Jamesofur> dungodung: hmmmm good to know that you stalk that ;)
[20:45:22] <dungodung> Jamesofur: some people use that to refer to me xD
[20:45:34] <dungodung> Pine: yes. the long answer is no
[20:45:42] <Ironholds> alright, I'm out. GC slacktivism has made it so I'm out of -en until someone actually resolves this and stops sunning themselves on the veranda
[20:46:00] <AlexJFox> Ironholds, RfC's man
[20:46:17] <Pine> ok, next topic: "Communication - op mailing list"
[20:46:36] <dungodung> yes, we have a new ML for ops
[20:46:40] <Pine> I think we've done that already.
[20:46:43] <dungodung> it's been used
[20:46:47] <dungodung> nothing much to discuss there
[20:46:49] <AlexJFox> What is it again?
[20:46:53] <ow> There was a topic missed previously that I'd like to kinda go back to real quick
[20:46:53] <Pine> Moving on. Catalyzing.
[20:46:54] <Barras> most people know about it.
[20:47:07] <PeterSymonds> We also have a Google docs page on known trolls.
[20:47:20] <Pine> ow: yes?
[20:47:36] <Barras> We have?
[20:47:37] <ow> LiteralKa - he's not able to be here at the moment, unfortunately, although I'm certain he'd be okay with me advocating in his place. What's the status of him? Is he banned from all channels, except #-en? Or is he conclusively unbanned? Etc.
[20:47:44] <AlexJFox> PeterSymonds, where are all the links to this stuff? m:IRC?
[20:47:59] <Fluffernutter> er, he's here
[20:48:02] <PeterSymonds> I dunno how to link Google docs. I think you have to be added.
[20:48:08] <ow> He's "here" but not at his computer etc
[20:48:13] <AlexJFox> Ridiculous
[20:48:23] <Pine> I don't know enough about LiteralKa's case to comment. I think that was before my time.
[20:48:59] <Pine> The last I have heard is that he's not conclusively banned.
[20:49:13] <Fluffernutter> He's another of the users who #wikipedia-en chatters have expressed serious uncomfortableness with having around. My position is that he's a known harasser of our users, and allowing him in degrades the atmosphere of the channel by making others feel unsafe
[20:49:43] <Pine> Fluffernutter: so is this some sort of "community ban" type situation?
[20:50:00] <ow> Other than possibly an admin who was rather abusive to him, who has he been harassing in the past months?
[20:50:25] <dungodung> I don't think it's productive to discuss specific cases
[20:50:27] <Fluffernutter> Pine: well, he was community banned by the "no on willing to unban" definition until a month or so ago, when ow unbanned him unilaterally and then PeterSymonds belatedly agreed with it
[20:50:54] <Pine> We could discuss this on the ops mailing list.
[20:51:00] <ow> (and since then I think it fair to say he's shown very good behavior on IRC?)
[20:51:01] <PeterSymonds> I said I had no problem with it, if he had really reformed. That was my personal opinion only.
[20:51:04] <ow> and yeah, that was a mess
[20:51:06] <AlexJFox> Pine, again, where is that?
[20:51:14] <Fluffernutter> ow: here again we're running into the "hasn't done it in the past week, so he's ok!" vs "known to do it,hasn'tshown that he won't continue" disconnect
[20:51:20] <AlexJFox> Or is it a cabal type thing
[20:51:41] <purplepopple> Cabal on en-wp?
[20:52:02] <purplepopple> I don't see the same accusations of cabal as a project wide problem on other projects like Outreach.
[20:52:12] <ow> He's shown a desire to reform, helping people on -help (until he got unilaterally banned from there - he *wasn't* ban evading but nonetheless got banned)
[20:52:24] <ow> apologized for some of his actions, etc.
[20:52:24] <Logan_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B-G6MnKhyVVH6XUOv8hWJWK-lxWGr1y44E42hPKkZ-A/edit
[20:52:28] <ow> What more are you looking for?
[20:52:53] <Pine> I personally don't know the situation well enough to comment one way or another.
[20:52:56] <Frood_> Is it the meeting?
[20:53:10] <Frood_> s/it/this
[20:53:25] <Barras> I think the case of someone special can probably be easier discussed on the ML.
[20:53:26] <Fluffernutter> well, to begin with, the only person he's expressed these thoughts to is you, his friend. Beyond that, I'd look for a committment that he's no longer involved with a group that habitually outs users, and that he understands that his past actions harassing,outing, and abusing others were completely unacceptable
[20:53:28] <Pine> Frood_: this is the meeting with the WM IRC GCs.
[20:53:34] <Frood_> okay.
[20:53:37] <AlexJFox> Logan_ who's the 'owner' of that?
[20:53:44] <AlexJFox> I've had to request access ffs
[20:53:49] <Logan_> AlexJFox: Thehelpfulone.
[20:54:01] -*- Thehelpfulone checks
[20:54:02] <AlexJFox> Thehelpfulone, are we allowed access to the google doc?
[20:54:23] <Thehelpfulone> done
[20:54:28] <AlexJFox> Thank you
[20:55:15] -*- ow pokes Thehelpfulone, I've requested access too
[20:55:22] <ow> (William.Heimbigner@gmail.com)
[20:55:34] <Thehelpfulone> added
[20:55:38] <AlexJFox> How official is the list?
[20:55:47] <AlexJFox> Just a guideline?
[20:55:53] <AlexJFox> I see some names I recognise.
[20:56:03] <Pine> Fluffernutter, ow: I've heard almost nothing about LiteralKa except from the two of you. Barras and company, how are we supposed to resolve this kind of situation? We don't have an IRC Arbcom.
[20:56:43] <brianmc> I believe re-enactment of an episode of Fawlty Towers is in progress, no? And, that someone has suggested logging #wikinews. If so, just de-register the channel right now.
[20:56:45] <dungodung> we have a list
[20:56:49] <dungodung> mailing list
[20:56:51] <dungodung> let's just use that
[20:56:55] <Barras> ^
[20:57:01] <Pine> GCs list or Ops list?
[20:57:04] <Fluffernutter> dungodung: we tried that,but it was still the ow-and-Fluff show
[20:57:08] <AlexJFox> Where is the mailing list
[20:57:18] <AlexJFox> I've only asked 3 times :)
[20:57:19] <Frood_> What is this google doc we are all speaking of?
[20:57:20] <dungodung> Fluffernutter: shows people don't really care either way?
[20:57:33] <Fluffernutter> dungodung: so then who breaks the stalemate, is what Pine's asking
[20:57:33] <dungodung> AlexJFox: it's irc-ops
[20:57:34] <shimgray> brianmc, we have said there will be an RFC on how to handle public logging in future
[20:57:39] <Apheori> Can we lock Fluffernutter, Barras, and Thehelpfulone in a room? Is that a viable option?
[20:57:54] <Fluffernutter> deathmatch opping!
[20:58:03] <dungodung> Fluffernutter: status quo if no one breaks, that seems fine with me
[20:58:04] <brianmc> You missed an F out of that shimgray.
[20:58:05] <Thehelpfulone> well I'm going away for 2 weeks starting tomorrow evening so maybe after then? :P
[20:58:07] <purplepopple> RfC on meta with project wide opt-in
[20:58:08] <purplepopple> ?
[20:58:10] <Barras> Apheori: We all already share one room, Apheori ;-)
[20:58:11] -*- Fluffernutter is surprised that no one else remembers the GNAA trolling in 2011 though.
[20:58:21] <Apheori> But are you locked in there?
[20:58:31] <AlexJFox> dungodung, I don't use the mailing lists, that means nothing to me, could you point me in the right direction?
[20:58:32] <Fluffernutter> dungodung: well then, status quo that lasted for a year until a fewweeks ago? or status quo per one personmaking a change?
[20:58:34] <brianmc> I've _never_ been on any mailing lists for IRC, and wonder why people need back-channels for it.
[20:58:38] <Logan_> Frood_: It's a list of known trolls.
[20:58:40] <Apheori> GNAA trolling is ongoing, however.
[20:58:46] <dungodung> Fluffernutter: the latest, I guess
[20:58:46] <shimgray> (also, strongly suggested that a no-public-logging policy is not the best approach for ensuring privacy; consider a separate channel, as some other projects do)
[20:58:47] <Logan_> Frood_: It includes you, obviously.
[20:59:03] <dungodung> AlexJFox: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-ops
[20:59:04] <Thehelpfulone> brianmc, that's because any haven't existed until recently :)
[20:59:09] <Fluffernutter> dungodung: also, do we take into account the wishes of non-ops in stuff like this?
[20:59:17] <Frood_> Logan_: Might I have access granted to it?
[20:59:19] <brianmc> I'm not joining YAML
[20:59:21] <Frood_> Or is it limited to ops?
[20:59:26] <Logan_> Frood_: That is Thehelpfulone's decision.
[20:59:28] <dungodung> Fluffernutter: I suppose it makes sense to consider those arguments
[20:59:31] <Pine> dungodung: should we discuss this an uncertain case like LiteralKa's on the GC list or on the Ops list? I vote for the Ops list since more people may have access to information or want to say something.
[20:59:39] <Frood_> Thehelpfulone: Could I perhaps have access to the doc?
[20:59:48] <AlexJFox> thanks dungodung
[20:59:52] <Apheori> If only the ops are involved in decisions and the ops don't care, where does that leave the rest of us?
[20:59:57] <dungodung> Pine: ops, please
[21:00:06] <Pine> ok :) That works for me.
[21:00:12] <dungodung> ok, it's 9pm UTC
[21:00:15] <Pine> Apheori: we do care. :)
[21:00:16] <dungodung> I'm calling it a day
[21:00:22] <dungodung> we've spent two hours
[21:00:26] <dungodung> with not much conclusion
[21:00:30] <Giratina> I agree
[21:00:30] <purplepopple> 8:00am at UTC+11
[21:00:33] <brianmc> s/spent/wasted/
[21:00:35] <Apheori> Not about whatever Fluffernutter and ow have been discussing.
[21:00:42] <Frood_> hey, I /am/ an op in a wikimedia channel it seems.
[21:00:44] -*- Giratina is onboard a train.
[21:00:48] <dungodung> 11pm at my time, and I've had very little sleep in the past few days
[21:00:51] <dungodung> so, thanks for coming
[21:00:56] <Giratina> 17:00:57
[21:01:00] <Pine> OK, next meeting we can discuss Catalyzing and guidelines and everything else that we didn't get to.
[21:01:02] <dungodung> we'll try to organize more meetings like this
[21:01:09] <dungodung> hopefully more focussed
[21:01:13] <AlexJFox> Yes please
[21:01:21] <AlexJFox> Sooner rather than later
[21:01:28] <Pine> Yes, please not 2 years from now.
[21:01:34] <masti> Pine, +
[21:01:37] <dungodung> but then, I'd like to see less noise
[21:01:39] <brianmc> Could you try asking more ops before you render channels they're active in useless?
[21:01:45] <Giratina> Next week?
[21:02:28] <Spitfire> brianmc, are you always this confrontational?
[21:02:33] <Fluffernutter> we just had a two hour meeting, the outcome of which was "No one has any idea how to resolve any of the issues that have been disrupting the channels". Awesome.
[21:02:37] <brianmc> Yes. It saves time.
[21:02:38] <shimgray> brianmc, nothing is actually being done.
[21:02:39] <ow> ^
[21:02:49] <Pine> Fluffernutter: but this, to me, was useful information. :)
[21:02:52] <ow> Fluffernutter: ^5, second time we're in total agreement :s
[21:03:07] <shimgray> the only practical discussion reached is a) hold some rfcs b) that's it
[21:03:20] <Apheori> But perhaps progress has been made in establishing that there are issues. That some ops have seemed inclined to deny it entirely was frankly alarming.
[21:03:21] <shimgray> god knows how we manage an RFC, but that's stage two
[21:03:23] <dungodung> Fluffernutter: well, obviously, we're far from any kind of consensus, and we don't really have models at hand to deal with IRC issues
[21:03:29] <purplepopple> The issues seem largely en-wp main room centric.
[21:03:36] <Barras> Short question, is there anything very very very important you want to address to the GCs especially (since we are all here right now)? If not, I'd like to close the discussion for now.
[21:03:36] <Jamesofur> I think if we want to even come close to conclusions here we need to just keep going and focus on something rather then skipping from topic to topic
[21:03:41] <AlexJFox> Fluffernutter, baby steps.
[21:03:46] <dungodung> unless you want to go with "we'll do what GCs say" and I don't want that unless abs. necessary
[21:03:52] <brianmc> #wikinews is not #wikipedia, but the gist of what's been passed to me is that The One True Project is steamrollering everything.
[21:03:53] <purplepopple> RfC just seems problematic because of those non-en-wp projects and special needs.
[21:03:56] <Pine> Barras: can we have a follow up meeting in a month or two?
[21:03:59] <Fluffernutter> Jamesofur++
[21:04:02] <Pine> Not in 2 years?
[21:04:11] <purplepopple> And there are rooms like #wikipedia-en-roads
[21:04:26] <AlexJFox> How many GC's are allowed/Would the GC's be open to a term length is the only one I'd like answered
[21:04:46] <Fluffernutter> ow: clearly the apocalypse is upon us if we've agreed twice
[21:04:50] <Barras> Pine: Yeah, that should be possible, will just need to find a date/time where we (the GCs) are all around.
[21:04:52] <dungodung> 4
[21:04:54] <PeterSymonds> We can have a maximum of four I believe.
[21:04:57] <Pine> Barras: thank you :)
[21:05:19] <ow> :D
[21:05:24] <Pine> I think this was a useful, if not conclusive, discussion today.
[21:05:36] <Pine> We at least got to air some problems.
[21:05:37] <dungodung> I'm generally free at this hour, so I'm fine with having more meetings
[21:05:45] <ow> useful, yes, but definitely disappointingly non-conclusive
[21:06:01] <dungodung> but bear in mind that if we don't make this more useful, it's going to be pointless to spend time on such endeavors
[21:06:12] <shimgray> purplepopple, RFC is a way of structuring the discussion and gaining some more coherent opinions outside a twenty-minute IRC discussion. I'm not a GC, but I don't think they've any desire to impose things on channels where there isn't local support for it
[21:06:28] <masti> having more specific agenda with more details in it would help
[21:06:43] <Fluffernutter> or (though I would dislike it), moderation
[21:06:45] <Apheori> Keeping the riffraff out might help organisation.
[21:06:47] <purplepopple> That's kind of the fear when meta based discussion is there.
[21:06:48] <dungodung> well, having less items to go through certainly helps
[21:06:56] <brianmc> I think I need to review the private logs of a discussion which impacts multiple channels I have ops on, and which I was not made aware of until it was nearly finished.
[21:07:07] <Jamesofur> purplepopple: I know you're concerned with that and I understand it but I'm going to be honest when I say that bringing it up every couple minutes doesn't help much at all. I, and I think most people, would totally agree that 'what happens on en is not for everyone' but it is also important to think that at times we need to have some type of global consensus. I would say that meta is the place to do that but you seem to have decided that fo
[21:07:08] <Jamesofur> any channel you're an operator/user in that won't be workable either.
[21:07:34] <Jamesofur> brianmc: no actual decisions were made, I think it's good to review but there is no action that will be taken on any of your channels
[21:07:47] <purplepopple> Jamesofur: It gets brought up because the discussion keeps verring into en-wp centricness.
[21:07:55] <Fluffernutter> who's in charge ofposting the log of today,and where is it beingposted?
[21:08:05] <brianmc> Jamesofur, the biggest problem is that enWP thinks the world revolves around them. It doesn't.
[21:08:11] <matanya> Fluffernutter: on meta
[21:08:17] <masti> brianmc, +
[21:08:38] <purplepopple> My personal experience has basically been unless people are reminded that other things exist, then they start operating with that as the status quo as their thinking.
[21:08:45] <brianmc> Yup.
[21:08:47] <Pine> ow: let's discuss how to make these more useful and how to arrive at consensus, perhaps on the Ops mailing list and/or at our next meeting. I think we need a method for making decisions since we don't seem to have one. Then we can start taking cracks at individual problems.
[21:08:48] <Apheori> brianmc: Although putting it like that just fosters bitterness and makes thing even worse...
[21:08:52] <Barras> OK, just discussed it with my fellows: The next meeting may takes place on Monday, Nov 19, UTC evening.
[21:08:54] <Jamesofur> No, but #wikipedia-en certainly does. I'm not saying that you shouldn't stand up for your projects and your rights but it is NOT ok to say it every 2-3 minutes
[21:09:13] <Fluffernutter> brianmc: the biggest IRC-related issues currently are spawning off the enwp-related channels. So this whole conversation has sort of been monopolized by that. I *think* (hope?) you can safely assume that any decisions taken wrt #wikipedia-en aren'tgoingto be forced on #wikinews-en or whatever
[21:09:13] <Barras> It will be announced something like two weeks before or so.
[21:09:23] <Jamesofur> reminders are important, outright statements like "we will not listen to anything done on meta" are not
[21:09:23] <Pine> Thanks Barras
[21:09:38] <Jamesofur> specific issues that you have problems with are totally ok
[21:09:39] <brianmc> Jamesofur, you can do whatever the hell you like with wikipedia-related channels, but you have zero say over projects where you are not active.
[21:09:39] <shimgray> Fluffernutter, you and I will yell a lot if they are, deal? ;-)
[21:09:42] <purplepopple> If the discussion is only Wikipedia-En, that's fine and understandable, but sometimes policy decisions are made where it says everyone and really means en-wp.
[21:09:56] <Barras> Maybe a week earlier or later, or a day, or whatever, but it will be around this date.
[21:10:00] <Pine> ok
[21:10:04] <AlexJFox> a month!?
[21:10:06] <Fluffernutter> deal, shimgray. I haven't had a good yellfest in a while :)
[21:10:19] <purplepopple> I've seen this issue outside en-wp, where people thank the fact that as they aren't English speaking, none of that English policy applies to them.
[21:10:32] <shimgray> purplepopple, conversely, though, if we're discussing fundamental & structural IRC problems I don't think deliberately ignoring the existence of other channels helps, so we're sort of stuck there!
[21:10:34] <Pine> Barras: if the GCs did some background work on the decision-making process itself or the structure of the meeting, that might be helpful.
[21:10:40] *** Mode #wikimedia-irc +i by dungodung
[21:10:45] <Jamesofur> brianmc: I have very little say with any of them :) The irc channel contacts have crazy (if not ridiculous) amounts of leeway, I'm not horribly concerned about the GCs going around and crushing your right to run your channel
[21:10:49] <dungodung> please leave now
[21:10:53] *** Mode #wikimedia-irc +m by Barras
[21:10:56] <dungodung> we're done
[21:11:05] <Barras> To force people to leave. No one can talk now.
[21:11:13] <Barras> The meeting is done for today.
[21:11:17] <dungodung> and we don't like kicking unless necessary
[21:11:23] <dungodung> thanks, bye, see you soon