Talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/Archive 2

Active discussions

Key points:

  • Channel access list was set to "non private" - anyone can see who has access via /msg chanserv access #wikipedia-en-admins list (warning - 500 lines long!)
  • Old levels 26 - 48 were actually identical in what they could do, so all such users have been moved to level 30 for "cleanness" and simplicity of understanding. The only two things that users with higher access levels cannot do in practice is: add or remove others at that level, and use the LEVEL command to set the level needed for various commands. The rationale is that really, neither of these things are ever likely to be needed doing in a rush anyway. James and his deputy Seanw can change these if needed.
  • One modification was made by James - Jimbo Wales was set to level 30, not 10 (effectively "no change").
  • The channel operates on a largely unspoken code of commonsense. The guidelines are not "rules"; rather they are roughly how the channel works and has been found to work well, and norms that are broadly in place by "peer pressure" on it. And guidelines on handling problems, so that those are handled fairly and not whimsically, on the very few cases needed. The guidelines were created and reviewed by many people in discussion.
  • Higher level access is involved only in a handful of areas - namely those which might be historically more open to risk of serious dispute/problems/abuse. These are users who help catch obvious areas with a higher risk and more need of review - long term bans, neutral choice of channel ops, attacks that nobody else is stopping, and the like. (Note: in recent months, the channel only rarely has such problems, but for those with long memories they were disturbingly endemic in the past, and are endemic on many irc channels elsewhere.) In general, it's likely that channel ops - including them - will consider these things, but it needs their OK to enact, as an abuse precaution. Historically this was delegated by James to users of his choosing, and in principle still is. Generally otherwise they have no special role. Moderately rare exceptions as of 2008:
  • A week long consultation took place, with full discussion up front, and a recap discussion at the end, involving 7 days of channel spam messages to make sure everyone was clued in and had a chance for feedback. Feedback was collated by an uninvolved admin (Daniel).
  • Two debates are probably "On hold" - the idea of channel "official logging" via james or Arbcom, in case of dispute, and the question of access to the channel is on ice too. Basically the aim is that the channel works, and until a problem arises no need to anticipate one.

FT2 (Talk | email) 17:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


(Moved from above):

  • One modification was made by James - Jimbo Wales was set to level 30, not 10 (effectively "no change").
  • Any reason for this? And what was the reason for the other changes that I proposed? keeping someone like Fennec an op is utterly pointless, because he's never even used the channel. What purpose does it serve? Majorly (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The former was a "James says", and as with adminship it seemed harmless on a basis of "unlikely to ever cause a problem", both of them. Fennec is still an ex-arb, still (apparently) trusted, still (I am told) on IRC or around elsewhere; in view of that seemed no harm in letting him stay as a 10 even though he's never in the channel. Again, very unlikely to abuse. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Please clarify on the subject of admittance concerning non-admins and ex admins. I'm probably just stupid, but I see no mention of them, or the recent huge discussion on the subject. 86.143.138.74 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, yes they are allowed if ops agree to it. Ex-admins in good standing are always allowed entry anyway. Majorly (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There was a lot of heated discussion in the background on this, sometimes acrimonious. If it had been on wiki, the answer would probably have been "no consensus, keep as is". Some felt strongly that as long as non-admins could visit a channel called "admins" there would be risk of upset and a clear line needed to be drawn. Others felt that there were valuable users who are trusted by time or in other ways and have historically been there without problems, added a lot of benefit, and users who are there and have never been a problem should be removed for conduct reasons if needed only. There hasn't been a huge problem in this area for a fair while, so ... see how it goes was the finally agreed view. Realistically, comparatively few non-admins have been invited.
(The other benefit of this was that it transpired this was also acting as a "blocker" for other things. It got decided to agreed everything else - which was quite a bit to achieve - and if ever needed then come back to the rest when some actual problem arose. If it comes up again it'd be fairly likely to be "a specific user and their conduct" rather than "non-admins in general". The access list has now also been made 100% public - see above - so anyone can see who has access and of what kind at any time, and check for themselves.)
And as Majorly says, ex-admins in good standing yes (caveat: unless for example, a user persistently or grossly breaches channel expectations, which may not affect them on-wiki but might lead to exclusion there.) FT2 (Talk | email) 23:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Caveat 2: This should not be claimed to be saying "all non-admins have always been perfect users" or anything. Nobody is - critics are not, users are not. It is saying that the overwhelming norm in recent months is that most of these users - and even for the few difficult ones, most of the time - have actually acted well within a good standard of conduct, and have done so consistently. If there are problems again in future it is now more likely they can be easier dealt with in a more useful manner. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Username/IRC nameEdit

This should be a table - and we should also include common alternate nicks like ceiling_cat. —Random832 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the current tables plus complete list could be replaced with a single table with access level as a column. —Random832 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it should. As I have said before, users with level 30 or above aren't "better" or "special", they are simply ops with the ability to make new ops. Majorly (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, the inactive/active sections should be merged into one. The current one is wrong anyway, there are many users down as inactive that aren't, and many that are down as active that aren't. Majorly (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging the inactive/active sections may be a good idea as I agree the distinction doesn't look right to me. But I think separating out those with higher access levels is correct - this list is likely to be used by people wishing to find out who is responsible for IRC conduct and to whom concerns should be addressed. Level 30 users are as I understand it to be the port of call for complaints about ops so it seems sensible for them to be clearly identified. In short, I think FT2's revert was right but I would support no longer distinguishing between inactive/active ops (or at least getting it right). WjBscribe 15:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As a side, the separation of active/inactive is more subjective (and basically for the same reason) - people need to know who the ops are that can be approached. (Eg, not much use dropping a note on Brad Patrick's talk page at this time.) We will surely over time have an increasing number of inactive channel ops; like inactive mediators, arbitrators and (some cases) wikiproject users, it's helpful to see who is active and who isn't. If the others become active we can always move them back as usual or they can do so. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted Majorly's last edit - I think the tables are clearer than the list. If duplications is a problem, I'd suggest not relisting the ops at the bottom... WjBscribe 16:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also the fact the lists are inaccurate about who is and who isn't active. I don't know who compiled them, but they are wrong. I know for a fact Mike_H is active, but is down as inactive. Either we have the tables on their own without the huge list of names, or we just have the list of names. Having both is a bit silly. Majorly (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Mike_H should be active and UninvitedCompany inactive surely? Anyone else wrong? WjBscribe 16:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a pointless duplicate, Majorly (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The table is sortable, so if anyone needs a list of all level 30s they can sort by access level, etc. —Random832 17:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

... and suffers from "tl;dr" if done that way :( This way's easier and much more usable. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Over the next week I'm going to compile an updated list of who is active (measured solely as presence in the channel, not on how much people talk) and who is not, and under what nicks (I have never seen Mike_H use the nick "TheCustomOfLife") —Random832 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of "active/inactive" is to identify which people are likely to be useful to contact if there's a (perceived) problem. So presence alone isn't the measure, it's "who's likely to be active, involved, currently clued in, and responsive". FT2 (Talk | email) 14:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It's still wrong in any case. Mike H is active according to your description above. And others aren't that you added to the list as active. Majorly (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Then that needs fixing. Go for it. The above just sums up the aim. (Note: Mike_H is pretty active on the channel most days, and has taken an active part in trying to calm disputes when they have arisen.) And agreed I've never seen him use that nick either. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

link brokenEdit

The link to the guidelines on stable.ts is broken. Have they moved somewhere else? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

CobiEdit

The channel users decided to allow User:Cobi to join the channel. The circumstances were a (fractionally premature) assumption about an RFA that was closing and which ultimately closed at around 73%. He had 129 supports and 48 opposes. The majority of opposes acknowedged good project contributions, but expressed concerns over lack of breadth of experience especially in mainspace, bot operation alone, and some weak answers. More mainspace editing and perhaps some 10 users opposing on that basis would have switched.

Per guidelines the admission of a non-admin was reviewed, and I've provisionally endorsed with the view that: "we actually have a norm now on non-RFA channel access. I'm content to endorse cobi's admission provisionally... to meet that norm. Reasons being, the main opposes at RFA were not about misconduct or lack of trustworthiness, but about breadth of experience and editing... which this channel may help him to overcome."

I have no idea if this will help or not, but the community has clearly shown a level of trust; but concerns about non-trust areas of weakness. A handful of votes and the users' assumptions of RFA would have been fulfilled. A lesson there somewhere, not to jump to conclusions. We can accomodate this once-off error, and it may help the user too, perhaps. We'll see. Hence "provisional". FT2 (Talk | email) 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I protest this in the strongest possible terms. You basically spell out my argument for me in the above, and saying "but we're going to provisionally ignore the consensus of the community because we disagree with it on matter os trust" (paraphrased) does nothing to help the recent reforms with the intent of this channel being closer to the community. Daniel (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
After discussion with Cobi, I've removed his access per his agreement. I would note that this should have been discussed before hand and I'm slightly disapointed that this notice even had to be posted in the first place. Now - all ops need to discuss this properly, not just on the agreement of a couple. It was clearly going to be controversial. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This morning there seemed a consensus. He was invited in by whoever, and yet after joining no uproar took place, he seemed accepted by those there. He was in the channel for some time. Hence I was content to endorse. If the same channel feels he should be removed, and he's agreeable, and that's the present choice, then I'm happy too. The role of checking is mostly, sanity checking for disasterous actions. Cobi prioisionally in or cobi not in, is unlikely to be a disaster in any practical sense. Hence endorse whatever a fair channel decision might be. If there are protests, chalk it up to chanop over-enthusiasm endorsed by silence, and later protested. Once the channel decides if it wants to live with it or revert it (as seems it has) then so be it. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
having spoken to daniel, to clarify one thing, it looks like Cobi was added in anticiaption of RFA success, rather than after RFA unsuccess, so to speak. Haven't checked 100% but just before the add people were discussing 73 or 74% and how his RFA was held open. So it looks like an assumption. Could be wrong. Thats my understanding. Worth saying in case there were concerns. "Lesson learned"... never add till RFA is closed. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

QueryEdit

I came to edit this, but I see it's been moved offwiki. Can we have an onwiki version so that people can add to it? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the concern is that re-creating a page on wiki would be considered inconsistent with the MfD on the prior page describing the #admins channel, which closed with a Delete result. I'm not convinced that would actually a problem but it may be the reason the page has been handled this way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This was created after that MfD, I believe, so that's probably not the reason. The thing is that by having an offwiki page of guidelines decided by a few regular users of the channel, we're back to square one in terms of community-channel relations. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the school of thought behind it was that the WP:WEA expressed concerns with the information page being on wiki - that's why it was moved off site. The guidlines were developed by the ops, and they considered more things than regular channel users did and the guidlines are a little "tougher" than some members of the channel wanted, but we put the community in our minds when deciding the guidlines and they clearly want some standards in the channel. If you've got suggestions, by all means make them here and we can move them across to the off wiki versions. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a misunderstanding, Slim. The page that's off-wiki is not a "wiki community" page. It's an agreement reached between channel users, on how the channel users feel the channel's internal affairs should operate. It has no force outside the channel itself, nor is it editable at will as a WP policy or guideline would be. It's therefore additional to, not a substitute for, any decisions by the on-wiki community, essentially because the on-wiki community's agreement isn't needed for channel users to decide between themselves "we want to restrict conduct on the channel this way in addition to any normal guidelines".
Thus for example, the channel's internal agreement that canvassing is inappropriate and details about it, and the details how that's expressed and any agreement on handling for IRC purposes if it comes up, are additional to (not replacements for) any wiki-community view on canvassing or off-wiki activities, or any wiki-based action. The channel's agreement is linked to from here as a courtesy so non-channel users can visibly see what expectations they may broadly have of the channel based on its own internal agreement. Suggestions (by any user, admin or not, in channel or not) may be made on this page; there isn't a formal system agreed for channel users to decide if they wish to adopt proposals into it, but one will probably evolve if needed. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Danny's accessEdit

Just to clarify what happened, since it's under discussion. A concern as to trustworthiness was raised by a user of the channel. Once something like that goes, it can tend to go all the way, sadly, so the channel ops took it seriously and it got discussed. As agreed should be the case, nobody acted on it without discussion, or unilaterally; rather it was discussed at length if there was a real concern or not, who also asked two arbcom members (FloNight and I) to sit in on it as a safety net. It doesn't often happen that private matters are discussed by the channel, but sometimes if a wiki user is stressed or having a bad time, or there is discussion of possible disruption, it helps for other admins to quietly know so they can bear it in mind and handle it sensitively, for example, or be supportive. For those sorts of things, a degree of trust counts, and some take trust very seriously. So it can happen.

Flo and I had almost completely opposite assessments when we commented on the views stated (it happens), but we both then agreed the users involved were legitimately concerned, they had formed a consensus that wasn't unreasonable, and agreed it should go to james for a further review with a suggestion to take their concerns seriously, to enact if he agreed, as channel manager. Thus the initial concern was reviewed in effect two or three times dhow it might be counted. James decided and did so the next morning, which was followed by controversy. Some felt danny should have been talked to, whilst others felt the difficulty with trust they felt would have rendered this pointless. After most of the dispute temporarily died down, and argument gave way to discussion, the following seem to me (subjectively) to be some of the issues:

  • Those who raised the concerns need to say more. Others can't speak for them. They're not round at the moment. Hopefully they will speak when they are.
  • Channel ops did not act on a whim individually, or even together, but asked others to sit in and discuss. In fact this was part of the channel agreement, that decisions such this as would have review, and also need James or Sean's involvement on top.
  • There's a lesson to learn about "how to better handle difficult channel questions". Channel ops are given this role, subject to review, and ironically, handled it responsibly and consulted here. It was a good faith attempt but could have been done a whole lot better as far as much of the channel is concerned. There was no rush, and even those supporting feel they were not explained or discussed with fully. This is a channel of equals, and that wasn't how users the next day felt it had been this time. Lesson for future.
  • It was the right decision according to one set of people, with strong concerns by another set. Following the removal, it seemed to get much more controversy. Hopefully we can share information and viewpoints over the next few days, to better decide what people overall feel.

FT2 (Talk | email) 16:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Danny Wool has been leaking privileged information to the press. Therefore all access to privileged information should be terminated, as a minimal precaution.
#wikipedia-en-admins is a channel that discusses privileged information at times. Therefore, it was decided that he can no longer access that channel. Please check to ensure that Danny Wool has no further access to any other privileged sources of information. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Your poor judgment in this drama shocks me, Kim. Why do you even have access to the channel, let alone ops in it? You don't appear to have been an English Wikipedia administrator since 2005. Your own presence on the channel is more questionable than Danny's. - Mark 00:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Erm? There's not much of a drama. I have access to the channel for multiple reasons, not least because I like to keep an eye on the channel for reasons of transparency, but also simply because the guidelines say I have access, thank you. (if there are channel issues, or you suspect there might be, you can always contact me). I'm not sure why you are questioning my judgment, can you provide details on what I may have misjudged, and how you would have acted differently, please? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


As a largely uninvolved observer during the discussion, I'd just like to say that in my view, everything was above board and in order. The channel operators present at the time were asked and they had a sensible discussion on the issue. The channel in which this discussion took place and anybody was free to join in. Ultimately, there's no hard and fast rules on who's permitted to enter the channel, but I can confirm there was no plotting or backstabbing going on with this decision. A concern was relayed to the channel manager and a decision made based on the concern. Danny having access is open to a degree of discussion and he can easily have his access restored if such a decision is made by whoever needs to make such a decision, so there's no need for anybody to get angry and what not. I'd also like to note that when discussions such as these take place, quite often people aren't about or it takes place at some unholy hour, but that's something that happens to all of us, we've all missed discussions that others have participated in, gotten a little angry before releasing it happened at 4am my time - there's not really an easy way to deal with situations like that, unfortunately. Nick (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As another observer, my view was that the biggest issue here was miscommunication, not the actual decision taken. The fact that nobody knew what decision had been taken or why 15½ hours after the decision had been taken and 2½ hours after it had been enacted despite considerable and animated discussion speaks volumes. My observation is that there may be a disconnect between the way the ops see their role, and the way the channel sees itself - the ops saw it merely as a necessary task to make a decision, and did so. They may well have made a good decision - from the information available to admins we are honestly yet to know on what basis the decision took place. However by leaving the admins in the channel completely out of the loop they invited genuine anger from a wide range of participants who felt they were not consulted or trusted or that the ops were behaving in a high-handed and unaccountable manner. I mean we're talking about whether or not a user is trustworthy but the way it comes across is that the ops regard none of us as trustworthy and seemingly feel obliged to conduct their business in secret away from scrutiny or question.
FT2's summary is fair to all sides and I largely agree with it. A note as corollary - checks by several people who had been present throughout demonstrated that no discussion had taken place, beyond a single cryptic line by one person, and an instruction by someone else to take it to a different channel. 13 hours later, the decision was enacted to the surprise of all present, and considerable discussion erupted. The three individuals in the room left to carry the flak for this were not the decision-makers who needed to be justifying the decision. The lack of information provided to admins was quite astonishing given we were talking about a very long-term user with a long history of good contributions, even considering recent controversies which have erupted.
Channel ops might be minded in future to the fact that their actions, just as anyone else's, are under scrutiny and if they are not seen to act in an accountable manner, they may still have the power to do the job and can still carry out their tasks, but they lose the support and respect of those they are meant to be serving, even if their decisions ultimately prove to be correct and well-founded. Unlike ArbCom, channel ops are not appointed by the community and so cannot speak for it - however a sensibly justified decision put to a discussion, even if it isn't totally agreed with by people present, avoids drama and reinforces the notion that the community is being best served by the actions being taken. If we see more episodes in the future where the community becomes unsatisfied to the point of open revolt with no outlet like we saw today, the position of the present ops, no matter their good intentions, will become untenable. Today should serve as a warning.
I believe what I've written here reflects the views expressed by a reasonable percentage of the people present, and specifically reflects on views raised by 11 separate users. Orderinchaos 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That's too bad really. Could you tell me which 11 people those were? They can also contact me in private, if they like. You are correct that chanops are not appointed by the en.wikipedia.org community nor are they answerable to them. Even so, chanops should be polite, right? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I've had irc open for two and a half hours today, expecting to get jumped, but no-one showed up. Possibly it's a time-zone thing? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The two who ended up taking most of the flak managed to appease most people. I commend their personal fortitude and people management skills in handling the situation. A large part of that was an indication from them, reflecting the channel view that the ops will proceed differently in future, and that while the decision in their view was defensible, the process had gone badly wrong. I certainly hope that is to be the case - as the saying goes if we do not learn the lessons of history we are doomed to repeat them. Orderinchaos 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
"A large part of that was an indication from them, reflecting the channel view that the ops will proceed differently in future." I notice that's very delicately phrased. The "channel view" is, apparently according to channel owner James, utterly irrelevant. The people offering this "indication" don't seem to be in any strong position to see it through. A wonderfully non-binding word, "indication." Mere "hope" for change in the future isn't going to accomplish anything. The fact remains that we have a channel supposedly composed of trusted users, and yet those users were not and still are not trusted with any discussion of group membership decisions, seeing as those decisions are apparently being made in secret, in another channel, by people who are not being identified and in a conversation which need not be made available even to channel members. Are these decisions subject to review by anyone? Are the people making those decisions accountable to anyone? It's all well and good to be optimistic, but I'm still seeing serious problems here. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) It all gets rather complicated rather quickly. Basically: the general rules regarding the channel are outlined in the guidelines, and they do not equal the procedures found on-wiki. Wikipedia users are generally used to a lot of openness regarding everything. IRC is an entirely different medium. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

From what James said, channel ops make the decision for the channel, and everyone else is irrelevant. The will of the channel seems to be generated by half a dozen ops; something which I find deeply disturbing. Now look at the subject of the matter. The removal of Danny's access was due to the incident with Jimbo Wales. Would his access be removed if it was another less-politically stressed incident? Probably not. Noone contacted him about the decision beforehand, how does anyone expect a decision to be fair if Danny cannot state his view? —Dark (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


My problems with thisEdit

I have several problems with this, let me articulate.

  1. I was not part of any discussion and when I asked about it was told it was "the will of the channel". It was not. There was no channel discussion about it, apparently some users expressed concerns, and the ops acceded to those concerns. Will the ops now accede to those of us who have the opposite concerns?
  2. No attempt was made to discuss "concerns" with Danny. Trial and sentence were "in absentia".
  3. What were the concern? Danny has never leaked from this channel, nor abused his wikistatus. So why was a remedy was needed for some totally hypothetical problem?
  4. What was the trigger? Danny hasn't been IN THE CHANNEL for weeks. So what triggered the concern? Why did people "feel uncomfortable" about an absent admin? Looks more like a case of looking at an access list and saying "ooh we don't like him"!
  5. In the absence of relevant channel abuse, the case was taken on people's judgement as to Danny's character based on non-related roles (as an ex-employee). Now, if I find out that some other admin has been indiscreet about their employer, will they be removed also?
  6. Danny as an ex-employee may be leaking historic information. He may or may not be justified in doing so. However, current WMF board members and staff are currently and anonymously leaking communications to Danny. As a precaution, will the ops consider revoking the access of all WMF board members, since among them some cannot be trusted either?
  7. I have always defended this channel in the community against charges of it being a clique of devotees led by groupthink. I have always said that it was open to all admins who didn't abuse it - and was not subject to arbitrary cabal control. Whilst I (almost) still don't believe it is, this petty move most certainly adds to that unhelpful and damaging impression in the community. In short, it will do far more damage to trust in the channel than leaving danny's name on the access list. Have you any idea what this looks like?

Frankly, this looks to me like payback, and I thought we didn't do punitive on wikipedia.

--Docg 00:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given Danny his access back and arranged a channel meeting for 21:00 UTC later today (saturday). Hopefully we can have a discussion and address all these issues at that point. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That was not really exceptionally wise. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That was stupid Ryan. You know it would have made a lot more sense to have the meeting first. John Reaves 06:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DocG:

  1. Willing to listen, certainly. I don't think there's such a thing as the "will of the channel", though. Who told you that?
    (That was james' term; see my description above) FT2 (Talk | email) 06:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, then I understand the context. --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. His actions in the press were most clear and speak for themselves.
  3. In any normal organization, his access to all information (privileged or no) would have been terminated immediately when he left, to prevent possible future abuse. In wikimedia, he went back to volunteer status. Even so, he has now proved to be untrustworthy, so all remaining privileged access should be removed. It's fairly straightforward security reasoning.
  4. More like... "d'oh, why is that guy still on the access list, isn't he passing on privileged information?"
  5. If they've been quite that indiscreet about the foundation information they had access to, absolutely!
  6. We are currently trying to find out who might have done so. When we find them, we will certainly remove their access. (also hopefully force them to resign). Whether Danny is justified in leaking information is immaterial, his actions are certainly damaging the organization, and any further such actions must be prevented. This seems obvious to me.
  7. This is a very simple, straightforward and obvious security precaution. We should probably also remove Danny Wools access elsewhere, insofar as possible.

So all this is is basic security common sense. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Kim's access to -admins: I am under the impression that if an admin requests removal of their rights while not "under a cloud", they're free to request that they be reinstated at any time and are generally considered an admin for reasons of decision-making. As, from what I understand, Kim simply took a break from adminship and hasn't come back yet, he should be reinstatable at will. Is this incorrect? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Roughly. I typically managed to do things without using the bit, so I handed it in. I'm still quite capable of doing all my normal wikipedia tasks. <grin> It took something like 6 months before anyone noticed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding concerns of 'payback', I cannot say what was in different people's minds, but I can say the only concern raised by anyone, was the single issue of trustworthiness. Danny's trustworthiness, it was felt by some, was unreliable, and that made a concern for the channel. That's a proper and fair channel op issue to consider. It's what their role is on an IRC channel. As it happens, since we now have extra rules, they got followed. They asked for neutral views to sit in. When FloNight and I sat in on it, the two of us had almost diametrically opposing initial views, which again doesn't much speak to "WMF conspiracy concerns". Given that users discussed only trust and discretion, the channel ops discussed only trust concerns, and the two of us who were there were pretty clearly not doing politics of any kind but just considering the views given, and (I think those present will agree) fairly listening... and then having decided they should be heard we then passed it to James (channel manager) for a decision, which is appropriate... its really hard to see anything beyond neutral statements from all involved of their (relevant to trust) views and concerns, which is exactly what should be going on. It was good faith honest decisions, as I described above. That's why everyone's trying to learn better from it, not just dictate about it. I've touched on some of that above. It is a rare situation though. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryan called a meeting for 21:00 UTC today, but was not present, (he chose to attend a birthday party instead). As he was not present, whatever he intended for the meeting was not attained.

James Forrester (channel owner) was also not present, else we could have improvised a different kind of meeting.

People were present in the side channel, but as neither of the above were present, I immediately left again, as no useful or fair discussion could be held.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, the purpose of the meeting was to decide whether or not Danny should have access. Ryan and James are just two people, surely there were enough people around to have a discussion and reach some agreement on this matter? I don't see why Ryan should have felt compelled to attend the meeting, he merely set it up as a venue for the matter to be addressed. WjBscribe 22:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That would not be entirely accurate. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the meeting gave us a clear indication of the #w-e-a admin community's feelings. Martinp23 15:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I left the discussion early, because I believed it might not be a fair meeting. It might be possible that a clear outcome had been found, but it seems like that would have been a fairly difficult,as 3 of 3 key people involved weren't present. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"3 of 3 key people" Really? Just to check, but do you think the consensus of the users of the channel is in any way significant in making these sorts of decisions? If so, what role should it play? WjBscribe 04:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Consider the use of the right tool for the right job.
Democracy works well for nations; hierarchy works well in armies; consensus works very well on wikis.
A nation run by consensus would fail to act on time (at least, before the information age); an army run by democratic vote in the field would be defeated; a wiki run by a strict hierarchy would not be a wiki at all.
Why, then, do you assume that an irc channel must be run like a wiki? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Are the ops in any special position that other users of the channel are not? Pretty much everyone in the channel is an admin appointed due to community confidence in their judgment. What purpose does limiting the involvement of the channel's population serve. Frankly, I would rather ops in the channel showed a little humility and deference to the opinions of other channel users. There seems to be a move bring IRC more into lines with Wikipedia norms, you seem to be opposing such progress here... WjBscribe 21:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Almost everyone on the channel is a wikipedia admin, appointed by the wikipedia community who are confident in their ability to handle issues on wikipedia. The chanops are irc chanops appointed by an irc channel owner who is confident in their ability to handle issues on irc.
I do not see what progress you are indicating. I think irc and wikipedia are different systems. That this particular channel happens to discuss wikipedia topics, does not mean that we should forgo the use of competent irc channel operators, or the use of normal irc procedures. That would be silly. It would be just as silly as simply appointing IRC channel operators as admins on wikipedia.
But aren't we drifting a tad off-topic?
And... let's even assume that you could run irc like wikipedia... the meeting was still patently unfair. There was a time-zone bias, a culture bias (due to people from several timezones being arbitrarily excluded), and there was even a bias introduced by the phase of the moon (easter holidays for many, so many more people were not present). On wikipedia, people can comment on a topic over several days. On IRC, this is simply not possible. Isn't the fact that at least 3 people who had previously been involved with the decision were not present... isn't that at least a clue to you that perhaps you might not have had a representative consensus?
Note that I put my money where my mouth was. I walked out of the meeting. Therefore I don't have a full log. I don't have a clear view of what the outcome was. But I can imagine it can't have been fair on Danny or on James or on Ryan or on anyone else (although it might have all of the appearance, if you weren't aware how many people were missing.) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to view walking out of the meeting as somehow noble. It seems rather childish to me - you were one of the most vocal advocates of Danny's access being removed and yet chose not to argue your point when you suspected the discussion might not go your way. Now you're seeking for the discussion to be declared "void" to ensure your preferred outcome results. WjBscribe 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, for the record: I did not leave the meeting at some mid-point as you seem to suggest. I arrived at the very start of the meeting and saw that it had been very badly organized. I left immediately, and did not attend the meeting at all (for all practical purposes).
Do you seriously think I was trying to be noble? How flattering. :-)
Please note that because I did not hear all of the arguments for and against, even I can't know for certain what I would have thought by the end of the meeting. I would be quite interested to learn how you could form my opinion for me. O:-)
Despite my misgivings, nevertheless I hope you had a pleasant discussion.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

YellowMonkey active?Edit

I have not been on IRC since January but am listed as active. Has someone hacked my account? YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but the active / non-active charts were made a long time ago and haven't been updated in a while. I'll move you now... --MZMcBride (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. NickServ agrees that you were last seen "Jan 15 10:01:50 2008 (41 weeks, 5 days, 16:25:56 ago)"

ArbCom contact / liaison / whateverEdit

This text was added to the User list page and is apparently pretty controversial for a number of reasons. BRD and all that. We've hit the D.

Updated as of January 1 2009

The channel has undergone a large number of changes in 2008, to improve transparency. This has included agreement on a formal code of conduct, clarity of handling of complaints, transparency of channel decision making, and resolution of a number of historic points of confusion and inconsistency. A much clearer channel management structure is also in place, in common with many other IRC channels, comprising a range of checks and balances:

  • Users - As of 2008-2009, the channel is managed by the Wikipedia admins who are its users. A high standard of self-regulation is expected, with a low level of lapse expected, and admins are each responsible for maintaining good conduct and standards in the channel. There are some 50 admins in the channel at any given time, themselves communally appointed, so at any time a very wide range of views will be present.
  • Channel operators (IRC users who also help manage a channel) - have little special to do except to actively watch and nudge the user or channel if there is an unaddressed lapse in standards (or take action for more serious exceptions). A few higher level operators can create or remove ops, and can watch independently the quality of the channel ops' own work as a check and balance. This helps ensure that in any issue where an irc complaint is raised, the concerns are addressed fairly, and they also may handle irc related complaints or conduct concerns against channel ops.
  • Disputes and problems - If a breach of the channel code arises, channel users themselves calm the debate and remind the admin/s to do better; the aim being a high standard of self-regulation. If a bigger problem arises it is discussed by the channel operators. Any admin in the channel who wishes to be present (including all parties) are notified so they may attend if they wish. Higher level ops may participate (usually in a more consultative/chair role), but they mainly monitor it for fairness, and for quality of debate and solution. Clear means of independent appeal and complaint exist, both within the channel, to its operators, and outside it.

In addition each year, one or two users are liaisons/overseeing the channel management. To date these have all been arbitrators but this is unlikely to remain so. Their duties are roughly, improving and reinforcing of standards and ethos, ensuring the ops and higher level ops are themselves managing the channel in line with high standards and the best interests of the project, and spotting and resolving conduct issues and other issues not yet addressed. This role was undertaken by FT2 in 2008, and is currently in handover to Wizardman as the volunteer for 2009. Small print: 1) It is a convenience and benefit at this stage rather than a necessity to have an IRC-using arbitrator volunteering for the year. However this is by no means an "arbcom role", the user is not representing Arbcom, it does not usually involve liaison with Arbcom, nor is it essential that it is carried out by an arbitrator long term. 2) No formal standard yet exists for the channel to choose its operators at this time; this will be addressed Q1 2009.

The particular sticking point seems to be ArbCom's involvement with the operation of the channel. --MZMcBride 21:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User listEdit

I have updated / am in the process of updating the userlist. I've added the inactive option to the template to cover administrators who got desysopped for inactivity and hence can ask for the bit back at any time. I'm also following up on the renames (the list hasn't been organically updated in ages). I have not updated nicks and the like yet, not sure if I should. I have noted below all weird instances or instances where there might be doubts:

Snowolf How can I help? 08:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually Rschen was listed as en:User:Rchen7544 or something, and I didn't fix it correctly the first time around. Done so now. Snowolf How can I help? 08:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Admin en:User:Fran Rogers was listed under inexistend irc nick FranRogers rather than the correct "franny"
  • Admins en:User:Fluffernutter and en:User:Flyguy649 had their cloaks inverted
  • Admin en:User:Larry V (irc nick larryv) had access to the channel but wasn't listed
  • Admin en:User:NJA has access twice under two different irc accounts, not linked: "NJA" and "Nja247" (the user was formerly known as Nja247 on-wiki before a rename to NJA).

Snowolf How can I help? 17:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Former admin en:User:Fae is now removed as his resignation is considered under a cloud and he is now banned from enwiki.
  • Former steward en:User:Erwin was never an enwiki admin and as such should have lost access upon resignation as a steward, this has been now rectified.

Snowolf How can I help? 22:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fishbowl proposalEdit

In the name of transparency, I propose that the channel be -i, +m, and +v the current acess list. This allows admins to tali without static while still allowing oversight of decisions. As this is an IRC channel, only presiding ops of the channel may close this debate. Comments below.--Ipatrol 03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Return to "IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/Archive 2" page.