Talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/Archive 1

This archive covers all talk page discussion up to 4 March 2008, when the guidelines were adopted following a 7 day consultation and feedback.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rule 4

Seems awkward to disallow only "excessively" racist, etc. language. It should apply to all offensive language. In addition, limiting it only to race, women, and vulgarity is kinda silly. What about religious or nationalistic slurs? Seems the rule needs to be simplified and perhaps merged into Rule 1. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Three bullets

• The actual charter of the channel isn't described. Traditionally it was intended as a general place for admins to converse about a mostly unlimited range of topics. There's a general perception that it's nearly impossible to limit the scope of discussion on an IRC channel. Exhibit 1: the attempt to limit discussion on #wikipedia a while back.
• The admin channel typically has over 50 users. I see it as inaccurate to describe comments as "conspiring" when they are subject to review by 50 admins. More importantly, the purpose of the channel is, to some extent, to discuss things that occur on the wiki. This includes things that might require other people in the channel to block or revert; the admins most likely to be aware of such things are admins who have somehow become involved in the situation. The purpose of the channel is to encourage discussion rather than unilateral action, and anything that would be acceptable for discussion on ANI should also be acceptable for discussion on the IRC channel, with the usual caveat that actions on the wiki can't be justified as "per IRC".
• If there are complaints to channel operators, the goal should be dispute resolution. It's unreasonable to encourage people to simply lodge complaints without discussing them. In other words, the function of ops is to encourage users to resolve underlying disputes, not simply to serve as playground monitors.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Insinuating that 50 admins are active in-channel at all times is extreme. On average, I'd say there are probably 10-15 actively viewing or participating in the channel. John Reaves 22:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Chanops expectations - proposals

• To be neutral and fair and courteous in all actions on the channel
• To try and resolve problems by discussion rather than "instabans"
• To uphold good standards on the channel
• If there is a problem, to ensure all sides are fairly considered
• To be accountable for decisions made as a chanop

Here is a set of IRC chanop policies for a different channel I once set up:

Channel operator policies

1. Appointment - Users may request channel operator status from (whoever), which may be decided by private discussion or by soliciting wider opinions.
2. Removal - Removal is by resignation or by act of (whoever). A channel operator who resigns in good standing and non-controversial circumstances and remains in good standing, may ask for their access back at any time.
3. Fairness and neutrality - Channel operators are expected to treat IRC users fairly and neutrally in both speech and action. Channel operators may not use their operator status to advantage in a dispute. However if the operator is reasonable and the other party is behaving unreasonably, then their action will be examined by the subcommittee on request and allowed if obvious that any neutral operator might have done likewise.
4. High standard - Channel operators are expected to follow user and channel operator guidelines to a high standard, and act as a role model for (the community's) IRC users. They are also expected to act 'low profile' where possible, and in general consider themselves as any other user. Finally this also covers willingness to helpfully communicate and to discuss clearly any action or inaction on reasonable request.
5. Active - Many disputes are best watched for a while before intervening, or are best intervened in private. However channel operators are expected to be proactive when "on duty", and not allow situations to deteriorate once a problem or breach becomes evident, and act on borderline conduct when it (or its effect) 'crosses the line'.
6. Responsiveness - Channel operators should respond within reason to requests for help in an operator capacity. If away for an extended period, channel operators should set an 'away nick'.
7. Access rights - Channel operators may have varying access rights. These are determined and may be changed, by (whoever).
8. Sanctions - Channel operators may have their access (to operator tools, the channel, or both) removed or suspended for significant breach of guidelines.

I also did a similar set for users.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are/aren't willing to say it on the wiki

A common rule of thumb that has been put forth is "Don't say anything on IRC you wouldn't say on the wiki." I think this has a useful converse: a comment made on the IRC channel that would be acceptable on the wiki should be, in almost every case, appropriate if made on IRC. I'm not saying that the standards are or should be identical. I'm only saying that the standards of the wiki are high enough - if something would be acceptable on ANI or a user talk page, it should generally be considered acceptable on the IRC channel. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Soliciting blocks

I'm slightly concerned by the way in which these new policies appear to prevent anybody soliciting blocks within the channel. Users can report usernames and IP addresses at WP:AIV and an administrator will then decide if the user's contributions justify a block, users asking for a block within the channel should not treated any differently, and it should fall upon the blocking administrator to ensure that there is sufficent justification to block an editor. There should be, of course, advice which cautions all administrators in the channel to ensure that if they block per a request in the channel, it is both fair and justified, and that they would also block if an identical request was filed on-wiki or in any public channel on IRC. Nick (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The concern is people being blocked who are directly in dispute with the user in question. If there's a vandal on the rampage, by all means then admins can be asked to block, but we have transparent places on wiki to report someone you think is being disruptive. Basically we're trying to cut out the "per IRC" blocks. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Badlydrawnjeff already do that? John Reaves 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But it's still happening now, and we need to make it clear that it won't be tolerated. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is? – Steel 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If people are being blocked when they are in dispute with the user requesting a block, that's the fault of the blocking administrator, not just the person requesting the block. It's something we need to deal with, but it should not be a hard and fast rule, administrators were chosen for their judgment and even if they are in dispute with the user they want blocked, it doesn't mean that the user should not be blocked, but it should be at the discretion of the administrator considering the block. At the moment, it actually looks like we're actually trying to transfer the blame from the blocking administrator to the user requesting the block, which is wrong, we need to stop administrators from blocking people when they shouldn't, rather than stop people asking for blocks that might be wrong in some way. Nick (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But this is a closed channel we're talking about. We keep non admins here because they offer sound advice in discussions (apprently) but that doesn't mean they can use it as their way to see blocked who they are having a dispute with. It works the same way with protections and deletions. #wikipedia-en-admins is not a place for non admins to go admin shopping and getting someone to do their proxy blocks. It's also not a place where current admins can bipass the blocking/deletion/protection policies and get other admins to put them ahead (albeit through a block, deletion or protection). If there's disruption, then report it on-wiki where everyone is able to see and offer an opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear - people are going to talk to each other and get their friends to back them up if they're hell-bent on doing so. This is not a unique feature of #wikipedia-en-admins; anyone, admin or non-admin, with an email address or IM client can conspire with others to get their way on-wiki. It happens all the time. The point is that it's a thousand times better for these activies to happen in #wikipedia-en-admins with 50 admins present, where dissenting opinions may be aired and alternate advice given, than in #steel's-secret-club which is open only to me and my three buddies and suffers from groupthink. The main lesson from the 2006/7 IRC wikidrama was that trying to prevent low-level "abuses" from happening in #wikipedia-en-admins serves only to drive people elsewhere, either into other, private IRC channels or into, for example, sooper sekrit cyberstaking mailing lists. And we all know what happened there. – Steel 18:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) If someone bypasses the blocking, protection, or deletion policy in any egregious way, they will lose their admin rights. Arbcom is very capable of handling that. The era of the "per IRC" block is over, and has been for some time.

That doesn't mean that the mere discussion of blocks is inappropriate. It would be strange to say that various topics, like blocks and protection, should be reported on the wiki instead of the channel explicitly intended for discussing them. In the end, admins must justify their actions openly regardless of private discussions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. I see the drama is spreading to IRC. Great. Now, apparently I've got people talking about me in private (so I'm told) so I'd like to get this out in the open. As you know, a user (I'm sure most know who it was, but we'll call this person "User X") came on to IRC on Feb 12, and said to block User:Guywithdress. I don't remember User X's exact words, however I do recall they were kind of demanding. So, I looked into the situation. After realizing that User:Guywithdress made 11 reverts to the same page (see for yourself), I made an independant decision to block this user. He was warned to stop reverting, and did not stop. How is this a problem? We block to stop disruption. If User X placed a report at ANI or AIV, Guywithdress would continue disruption. Leaving a note on IRC was the quickest possible way to stop the user.

To reiterate, I did not block the user because somebody told me to do it. I blocked the user for his disruption and 3RR vio, which is obvious to anybody who looks, so why does it matter how I was informed of this? These so called "guidelines" probably won't solve anything, because if anybody else wants a "favor", they'll just ask via a PM, but the decision relies solely on the person fulfilling the request, should they chose to do so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This page and these guidelines were in no way started because of anyone incident or person. I did not even know of the incident you are talking about until I read your comment here. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 20:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? OK, well I apologize as thats not the impression I was receiving. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, he was a new user who was warned to stop vandalising by betacommand, yet his edits clearly were not vandalism. He didn't know what an FUR was - he didn't have a clue at all. Nobody warned him about 3RR - how was he supposed to know that we aren't supposed to revert three times? He certainly wasn't a mind reader. Betacommand came in and tried to get the guy blocked because he was in dispute with him - there were better ways to handle this. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Concern

Are we just creating WEA all over again? John Reaves 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is getting pretty instruction creepy... John Reaves 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not going over 1,700 bytes. It's too long at the moment. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well let's not make a condensed and bureaucratic WEA either. John Reaves 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Way too long - let's cut it back to how it was before - really simple. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Access levels

Current	Proposed	Name on IRC	User (if different)
20	5	Joolzer	Joolz
29	30	Mark_Ryan	Mark_Ryan
30	30	dannyisme	dannyisme
30	30	DavidGerard	David Gerard
30	30	Deskana	Deskana
30	30	FT2	FT2
30	30	kim_register	Kim Bruning
30	10	mindspillage	Kat Walsh/mindspillage
30	10	sannse	sannse
30	30	Snowspinner / Phil_Sandifer	Phil Sandifer
31	30	Bastique	Bastique/Cary Bass
31	10	Morven	Morven
31	30	poore5 / FloNight	FloNight
31	10	UninvitedCompany	UninvitedCompany
31	30	YellowMonkey / Blnguyen	Blnguyen
40	30	Dmcdevit	Dmcdevit
40	10	JimboWales / jwales	Jimbo Wales
40	30	Mackensen	Mackensen
48	10	Angela	Angela Beesley
48	10	FennecFoxen	Fennec
49	49	James_F	James F
49	49	seanw	seanw

Inactive ops have been changed to 5. Active 30+ who are now rarely in the channel have been moved to 10.

Feel free to modify. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

50 isn't technically possible and I'm not sure NYB would know what to do with anything above a 5 ;) John Reaves 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose strongly. Firstly, as John says, 50 isn't possible. Secondly, IRC is not Wikipedia. This is completely impractical. Why, may I ask are all the arbitrators level 49 (channel owner level)? They don't own the channel, and should not have such a massive COI with it. I propose we remove all people on that list who never even come on the channel: Joolzer, David Gerard, sannse, Morven and Angela. We then merge those left with level 29, 30 and 31 into one level, 30. These level 30 users are not added to unless there is sufficient need (all they can do in terms of regular chanop duties is appoint new ops, so hardly any are really needed). Sean and James should be 49, and the rest (most) of the ops should be 10. None of this adding everyone from arbcom to channel owner level. Completely absurd. Majorly (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated and simplified list. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe give Mackensen and maybe one other, level 31. It gives absolutely no extra privileges or rights, but allows them to create level 30 if needed. (James and Seans may be too busy for long periods, or not active enough to judge the need and person perhaps.) My $0.02 FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC) After discussion, agreed, 30's will change rarely, and probably never in any rush, so no need. James + sean will likely be enough, and if not we can handle it then. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Discuss here, not in edit summaries. Also, has anyone ask these users about their access? Do they want it? Do they even know they have it? John Reaves 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing in my summary. I was reverting some changes made "per discussion", but there's no discussion here, only on IRC. I'd like to put my points across before we agree to giving inactive people ops for no reason. Majorly (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, just don't edit war (especially over IRC pages). General consensus is that that's just dumb. John Reaves 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rules

I remember when people tried to create long rules that made little sense last year. Nobody liked them. What's changed? Mike H. Fierce! 11:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Personally, a simple message of "Play Nice" would do the trick, I think. Nick (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. This isn't an issue that "play nice" as a sole rule will work on. The channel has had fierce criticism and at times, in the past, rightly so. "Play nice" hasn't fully worked. That's not to say "go to expremes", but enough detail to cover the main bases will be needed, both to ensure clear guidance in the channel, and also equally for those not in it, to know what norms they can expect the closed channel's ops to be enforcing. Given the "IRC != Wiki" culture and background, it's not at all clear what "play nice" would mean in practice if that's all that was stated. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Transparency

If we turned private off (/cs set #wikipedia-en-admins private off), the access and level list would be available to everybody thus making it a more transparent place. John Reaves 17:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah good idea. Majorly (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)