Wikipedia talk:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wording

Under "purpose", David Gerard prefers the wording, "You might be wrong!" Two other editors prefer, "You might be wrong about whether or not you really have a consensus, and you will be held responsible for anything you do, regardless of the IRC discussion that preceded it." Anyone else have an opinion? --Elonka 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Under "purpose", one of the channel wizards worded it a given way, and zero channel wizards disputed this - David Gerard 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, please reread m:Instruction creep. If they don't understand already, they're not clueful enough to be admins. - David Gerard 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's way too harsh. Sorry for being asslike there. What I mean is, this is a description of what the channel is for, and that includes assuming good judgement already exists. If we have to detail good judgement, the reader shouldn't be on the channel. If we have to detail the penalties for cluelessness, the reader shouldn't be on the channel. If someone proves to be clueless on the channel, I kick them off - David Gerard 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I should of course note that this has yet to happen. Though could the log leaker please cool it? Thanks - David Gerard 15:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

I consider myself reasonably computer literate, but the instructions at Sean Whitton's toolserver start off by asking "Register your nickname on freenode using the information here. You must register and link an alternate nickname and set an e-mail address.". The associated link to http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#nicksetup advises that to register one needs to "/msg nickserv register <your-password>". I'm being dense here, but the page has no entry box to enter this into, nor gives any clue as to some other program to use... David Ruben ^Talk 03:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What program do you use? There should be an input box at the bottom under the channel window (i.e. where you type to talk). John Reaves (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Computers are stupid, annoying and don't work. IRC is no exception. There's a reason IM gained popularity the way IRC never did - David Gerard 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people make a lot of money from computers being stupid. :) (points at self and David too). Well anyway, I use ChatZilla as an IRC client, it works well with Firefox... there are lots of others, you can get some idea if you read the main IRC article. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Cloaks

Hopefully someone can clear this up for me - why are cloaks being required for access? /cs access #wikipedia-en-admins add user 5 should work just as well whether cloaked or not. Would it not make sense just to require users to be identified? Martinp23 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cloaks are not required (unless they are for new users). I don't have one. Chick Bowen 02:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that they aren't required for physical access /cs invite #wikipedia-en-admins, but am wondering why they are being required on this page for no seemingly good reason... Martinp23 06:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For my convenience mostly ;-) They're not mandatory, but they're still a good idea - David Gerard 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to have a cloak to get an invite exemption (so you don't have to self invite every time) is how it was explained to me way back when. I don't think we give invite exemptions any more, or at least I heard a rumor to that effect, something about too many being a drag on servers, or hard to administer, or something, I forget. Second, I at least intend not to give channel access unless you either have a cloak, or are online at the time I grant it and can satisfy me of your bonafides. (I use the "mail you a silly but unique phrase via your onwiki email and make you parrot it back to me" test, and I get to your onwiki email by going to your successful RfA)... I do think they're a good idea in and of themselves too. Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 11:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not set an invite exception on the nick itself? +I Random832!*@* would work, and it wouldn't let people join by taking my nick without permission (if that's what you're worried about) since the channel has +e which only allows identified users anyway. —Random832 19:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Lizards, monkeys and picture

<catmacro license=gfdl>I APPROVE OF THIS EDIT</catmacro> - David Gerard 04:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not private

Users on this channel should be aware that unencrypted text sent over a web of servers via an insecure server/client structure is not private. Beyond this, they should have no expectation of privacy if they do wrong things, like, say, going on an insane blocking spree. I have removed the expectation of privacy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Erm, I humbly object. There's an established tradition of communicating logs to the arbitration committee when necessary, but we simply cannot have a policy here that contradicts freenode policy. You should revert yourself. Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. We can certainly have a policy here that contradicts freenode policy. Freenode policy is binding only on signatories to that policy. "The Wikimedia Foundation," has not bound themselves to any such policy. Beyond that, as a Section 230 service provider, we are neither the publisher nor speaker of material on the site. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The foundation doesn't have to. The foundation has nothing to do with this. When I use freenode's services I consent to their terms of service, just as I do with Wikipedia. If I violate those terms of services I can expect to be banned from either site. Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, users who repost logs on wikipedia may face sanction at freenode, though I do not see a freenode policy prohibiting this. Users who repost logs on wikipedia might be banned from the channel because the channel has no relation to wikipedia at all and may have policies that are at odds with a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. They will not, however, face sanction at wikipedia, because wikipedia does not prohibit reposting IRC logs. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Let me see if I understand you. You are encouraging the creation of a policy whose intent is to undermine the policies of an unrelated site so that events which have no relation to Wikipedia may be published on Wikipedia–none of which has anything to do with the encyclopedia itself? Is this correct? Mackensen (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
          • If this has nothing to do with the encyclopedia, why do we have this page? Why was there a prior statement informing editors that some irc channel totally unrelated to wikipedia was "private?" Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
          • The existance of this page sure makes it seem like this chat room does have something to do with Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Then by all means let's delete everything that has nothing to do with the encyclopedia? Be serious. I said that logs from an IRC channel have nothing to do with the encyclopedia. This is factual. They're not about to be added to the article space, are they? The encyclopedia != the project. They are separate concepts and should be treated as such. These and other pages describes to editors how to gain access to various IRC channels where Wikipedians congregate. This is a useful function. It is also not official in any way. I do not see a contradiction here. You'll have to tell me what 'official' would be; I haven't gotten an answer to that. I also haven't gotten an answer to my last question to Hipocrite, and your last statement seems to me to be a complete non sequitor. Mackensen (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: The policy against posting logs is not a freenode policy and never has been. (I know this is an old thread - just posting this clarification for anyone who comes through) —Random832 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Does this page need to be on Wikipedia?

I realize there's no making the channel go away, but why have a page referring to it? It has no official connection to Wikipedia, right? Why should this be mentioned on a project page any more than any other chat room should be mentioned? If it's unofficial, let's have it be unofficial. Friday (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Depends what one means by official. I know some WikiProjects have their own IRC channels and mention them on the project pages--are these official? Mackensen (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is: I was about to reach for the MFD button, and I thought it would be polite to raise the question here first. Make this a "Wikiproject:James's chat room buddies" or something, then. Make it clear that it's just another chatroom, out of the millions. People thinking this room has anything at all to do with Wikipedia causes us problems, with no offsetting advantage. If I want to promote my personal chatroom, Wikipedia is not the place for it. Friday (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Call it what you like. No one regards the channel as official, and if the administrator whose actions caused this had actually read this page he'd have known better. I'd rather have a page making it clear what the situation is–we didn't use to have one, and people were unclear where they stood. We all know how effective that was. Mackensen (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, we have a difference of opinion. Now at MFD for wider input. Friday (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo

It was alleged that the privacy of this travesty was done by fiat of Jimbo. Is this accurate or not? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of Jimbo ordering up any travesty by fiat. Please don't beg the question. Mackensen (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Idiocy

The above discussions and the MfD are simply idiocy. First, here is Freenode's policy on logs [1],

If you're considering publishing channel logs, think it through. The freenode network is an interactive environment. Even on public channels, most users don't weigh their comments with the idea that they'll be enshrined in perpetuity. For that reason, few participants publish logs.

If you're publishing logs on an ongoing basis, your channel topic should reflect that fact. Be sure to provide a way for users to make comments without logging, and get permission from the channel owners before you start. If you're thinking of "anonymizing" your logs (removing information that identifies the specific users), be aware that it's difficult to do it well—replies and general context often provide identifying information which is hard to filter.

If you just want to publish a single conversation, be careful to get permission from each participant. Provide as much context as you can. Avoid the temptation to publish or distribute logs without permission in order to portray someone in a bad light. The reputation you save will most likely be your own.

Second James Forrester is the former Freenode group contact and the highest ranking chanop, and he has endorsed the "no publication of logs".

Third, UninvitedCompany offered specific advice on how the "community" could take over ownership of the #wikipedia freenode channels. In general (I can't find the exact statement but similar views are here and here), if the community adopted a policy and a process for selecting an official group contact, that would probably be recognized by Freenode. This would enable the community to set or change whatever policies it wanted to—anything from making them official wikipedia communications with the logs publicly archived to closing the channels entirely.

So if you want to change the world, or at least the IRC admins channel, then do it. Whinging about it or trying to delete its description page to make a point is a waste of everyone's time. Thatcher131 18:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not pointmaking- I actually do believe the page should go away. I have no interest in fixing irc. Remove mention of this from Wikipedia, and I no longer care about it. Yes, I expected the chatters would show up and say "Keep, I like it", but maybe we'll get input from others too. Friday (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, you did not care about IRC before this page came into existence? What about Wikipedia:IRC channels? Those aren't 'official' either. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This one is apparently invite only, owned by a single person, so I see it as a worse problem. Gotta start somewhere. Friday (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, sorry to butt in, but, I "own" the whole lot of them.

James F. (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, here I was afraid you actually had a policy objection. We don't delete things out of personal pique. If the official/unofficial distinction is a problem then not starting with Wikipedia:IRC channels is disingenous. Mackensen (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith? Now that's just silly. Friday (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IRC channels is very clear that it's totally and completly unofficial. It also doesn't use Wikipedia as a verification service for someones private IRC channel. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone were using a Wikipedia page to actively solicit an audience for some other chat room or website, I would want that deleted as well. Friday (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Chutzpah

Is there some way we could work this crucial word into the page? Either that or its close Australian relative Larrikin. This isn't an endorsement of either article, by the way. Both are in bad need of cleanup. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What a hoot this page is

I'm very surprised and amused to by chance stumble upon the discussions here. I think IRC is such a fascinating subject, although I never did understand why the permanently appealing Wikipedia foundation donated to IRC funds - but who knows the machinations of IRC and the admins who lurk there? - well quite a few actually. IRC logs are fun things to anonymously receive and they say much about the decisions which appear on wikipedia often as a "fait accompli". For an editor to have a stash of logs in his cupboard is money in his wiki-bank.

Regarding all this silly talk of secrecy and privacy if people make statements in public forums they should not be surprised when those forums become even more public, I for one would have no hesitation publishing IRC logs again on wikipedia if it suited my cause and I believed it to be for the greater good of wikipedia. That may be sooner rather than later too when I read some of the things posted here. - James you are being a trifle naive when you say "Ahem, sorry to butt in, but, I "own" the whole lot of them." (James F. (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)) let me promise you the first chance or chink in the armour they see they will boot you out regardless of your supposed ownership. . And as for David's "If someone proves to be clueless on the channel, I kick them off"(David Gerard 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC))- well that is certainly true, disagree with David there and you are out. What an amazing club IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins admins is. I often wonder why we have an Arbcom, and why they allow the machinations to take place on IRC-admins that they do - I expect there is a perfectly good reason - prhaps they are just poweless to stop it or perhaps they simply don't want to. Giano 22:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it is a wiki, unlike IRC itself. The mystery of "why should Wikipedia have a page as a guide to a non-Wikipedia resource" was answered with "Because we want it," so I suppose that means that it's a wiki page, and there is no right version. Geogre 13:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would actually have to agree -- I'm not sure if anything is gained by having a distinct subpage. Apparently DavidGerard started the page in May, I guess you'd have to ask him why. As long as we are here, it seems best if we confine the opinion-warring to a particular section or sections -- perhaps a "pros and cons" analysis is in order? – Luna Santin (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Referring to your edit on the main article page: if this is a Wikipedia page, it should arguably obey the rules there. User:Friday had serious objections to the way this thing was written and the way its editors were behaving, and that resulted in what seems like a murder of crows mobbing him. Myself, I agree with him: I can't imagine our having a "How to behave at SomethingAwful" page that was edited solely by participants there, maintained by them, defended from all processes by them, and then have them say that the matter is settled. See, on Wikipedia, there are differences of opinion. One alternative would be "cite" tags over each statement.
• Yes, a page written by detractors would be possible, but that would just be a fork. Forks or edit battles seem to be the preference by the authors of this initial page. The whole thing is sad, so there ought to be some fun, rueful or not, in the process. Geogre 14:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's one problem, though. The only people who seem to care about the page at all, at least at this point in time, are (a) people in the channel, and (b) detractors. I haven't yet been aware of the page for 24 hours, you'll have to forgive me if I'm not up to speed on its history. Also, if you're quite done joking about centaurs and tainted semen, I would actually like an apology from you on that count. – Luna Santin (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• I am quite sure you misunderstood the reference, then. The reference was to the false mentor. One of my complaints about the channel is that new administrators are led (whether urged or simply misunderstanding) to perform extremely controversial blocks. They then get their heads handed to them on AN/I and AN. They can even end up in arbitration, and all because they had "unanimous consent on IRC." To me, that is like Nessus. In one version of the myth (not on our page), Nessus is Hercules's old mentor. He is therefore the classic "false mentor." I regard that as a perfectly apt and perfectly non-personal observation of the function of the channel. New admins who go there are going to get some horrible advice and, even if they don't, incredibly misleading sense of validation for actions that are beyond the pale. In other words, it's just about the last place that a new admin should go, unless they want Nessus instead of Mentor. Geogre 15:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I notice a distinct lack of anything even resembling an apology in there. I do think you have a point, but I'd rather you make it openly and directly, instead of using vague metaphors which you can then condescendingly explain to those who "didn't get it." – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reformulated some bits of the page, provided a list of the current channel operators (anyone with level 10 or above can change the access list, to add or remove users) and emphasised some of the stuff expected of users (read: what not to do). I also removed the stuff about Kelly Martin and David Gerard, because that is not really relevant to a general channel information page. I suggest if you do want to make such statements, you use your own user space for it.

Oh, and the images. Bishonen, adding an image of an ape to that section about the "Channel lizards" is quite offensive and I consider it to be a personal attack on me. Please show more respect for others in future.

I also removed the flying lizard stuff too because that was just crap (not that that was added recently or anything - I've hated it for a long time). - Mark 15:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing both the image of the kindly helper monkeys (lizards? Qué?) and the bouncer gorilla image that I added is fine by me, as what I wanted was balance. Neither of the images told the whole truth. A personal attack on you? If you think the gorilla represented you, or all the ops in en-admins, or most of the ops in en-admins, let me assure you it didn't. I would have thought that went without saying, and surely my image caption didn't imply any generalization, either. The gentle helper monkeys in the other image don't represent all the ops, either! But for somebody such as myself, with personal experience of being kickbanned from the channel without reason, as well as generally disinvited by rudeness and attacks from a certain highly active minority of ops, the gorilla image is quite richly apt and evocative, though. (And the ArbCom, as channelled by Fred Bauder on WP:AN, agreed with my description here.) Well aware of how unwelcome I am, I never go to the channel now. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

Indeed, how a picture of "the self-named flying helper monkeys" can become "you (sing.)" is through your own desires alone. The reference seems to have been to The Wizard of Oz (movie) and the flying monkeys of the Wicked Witch of the West. Either it was melodramatic satire on those who find them rude, ignorant, self-absorbed, and childish, or it was a flippant joke at the expense of those they interacted with, or it was simply self-absorbed, childish, and self-parody. In either case, jumping back now is like saying, "It's ok when I call him a n*gger, but don't you dare!" Such special pleading isn't very persuasive. Geogre 18:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a list of admins?

Can we find out whos in and who's out of this little club. Lists of members and a list of banned admins would tell us a lot about the nature of discussion on this IRC. Hypnosadist 14:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst on IRC, type /msg chanserv access #wikipedia-en-admins list for a list of users who have access. I don't know about banned users. Majorly (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't work as you need to have access to see the access list. GDonato (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, just realised that... Majorly (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see the utility of a list of admins who have access to IRC—one could read it to see if those who claim adminship on IRC really are, or to see if an admin one needs to contact can be reached on Freenode. I can also see the utility of a list of admins who have been thrown out of the IRC channel—it will be interesting to see how the Evil Secret IRC Admin Kabal treat those who disagree with them. I don't, however, see the need for a list of all admins who have joined or have the capacity to join #wikipedia-en-admins, beyond creating a hit list—"When we talk about the evil Kabal, this is who we mean. Let's get them, lads!" We can do without it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Any wikipedia editor who uses IRC can get a wikipedia IRC cloak to verify their onwiki identity when they are in IRC, if they so desire. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Do be careful what you say here, I have jut veen blocked for making a truthful edit on the page - these are dangerous times again! Giano 14:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning but i knew what i was getting myself into, thanks for caring though. Hypnosadist 15:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No probs, I'm a very caring sort of person. Giano 15:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Giano, you are a fantastic writer. I believe your contributions — and here I am not using "contributions" as a synonym for "edits" — have been a boon to the encyclopaedia. Your activities outside main space, however, could not be called a source of pride to a reasonable person. Your edits to this page, for example, are not intended to be helpful to readers who come here looking for information on the admin channel. They are, instead, an attempt to retaliate against the IRCers whom you believe have wronged you—I don't intend to delve into the question of whether or not they did—at some point in the past. You are not being helpful, you are being vengeful. This is not appropriate behaviour for a Wikipedia editor. There are plenty of people on Wikipedia who generate more heat than light, and I ask you not to act like one of them. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, not at all, I am attempting for this page to actually reflect the RCAadmins channel exactly as it is, what you want is a lovely whiter than white picture for "readers who come here looking for information on the admin channel". What they fine here at the moment is nothing short of propaganda written by the same channel. No other wikipedia page has a "free pass" of COI. I am very proud of most of mu edits I think the squabbling and content by IRCadmins on this page is a disgrace. That I have ben banned for providing a fuller picture says far more than I can on the subject. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Giano 15:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Giano, editing this holy page is like fighting a tsunami. You can't do it alone, can you? As long as mainspace editors don't have a place to hang around all day long the way non-mainspace-editors do, you will always be reverted. Even if they did have such a place for instant messaging, they would not be mainspace editors any more. Better leave it at their mercy, I think. Last year I made it clear on my user page that IRC is poison. It's the best I can do to express my opinion on the issue... as long as its discussion on the arbitrators' mailing list is bombed by the former arbitrators, that is. Read my comment on ALoan's talk page, too. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been explained to me in the past that you enjoy using offensive rhetoric to no good purpose but to spice up discussions. Well, fair enough; we all need to practise our writing. I've been accused of the same on the mailing list. Crucially, however, that was not on-wiki. Please refrain from it here. The next wonderful Featured Article will not appear while you're playing the child in project space. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Was it the person who nominated you for adminship who "explained to you" Giano's ways? Too bad that he did not explain to you that threats are not welcome here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The person who explained Giano's ways was, in fact, Bishonen (talk · contribs), who was hoping to explain to me why I should not allow myself to be bothered by Giano's frequently offensive rantings. Hence, if I read something by Giano that is clearly inappropriate, I should not say, "That's just inappropriate"; instead, I should say, "That's just Giano." Now it's your turn to answer questions, Ghirla: where have I made threats, precisely? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"currently the page represents only one side in the dispute"

Someone wrote the above in an edit summary on this page. Is there actually a dispute here? If you feel that in the past, behaviour in this IRC channel has been wrong (which you might be quite right about) or that it currently is, then reformulate the page to state what is expected of the users of the channel, and what it can be used for. - Mark 15:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That would require constructive intent. It's far, far easier to simply throw around innuendo and accusations, tar every IRC-using administrator as Evil Incarnate, and edit war in an attempt to keep the results of your petulant tantrum publicly visible in project space. Admittedly, it takes two to edit war ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe we should remove from our admin space all links to non-Wikipedia channels, and I have argued about it at length. As clear from the above exchange between Giano and Mark, the content of this page (and the need for it) is disputed. It is currently written by folks from IRC and reflects their POV. Every dissenting voice is suppressed. It's just like reserving for Armenians the privilege of writing our article about Armenian Genocide, barring all Arab editors from the page Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or asking the neocons to write about the Iraq War. The result is rather predictable. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to look at the purpose of this page. Ghirlandajo seems to want it to be an encyclopaedia article about the channel. Giano wants it to be a List Of Reasons Giano Doesn't Like Wikipedia Administrators Because He Blames Us All For Carnildo And Other Fuck-Ups. It strikes me, however, that the page ought to be: This Is What The Channel Is For, This Is Why It Exists, And Here's How To Get To It. Why This Is DavidGerard's (Or Anyone Else's) Personal Fiefdom is not only incredibly silly, but also well beyond the ambit of the page. Removing a paragraph by Giano describing his hatred for those of us who use IRC instead of email or IM to conduct off-wiki discussion is not censorship or suppression of dissent; it's just keeping the page on-topic. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• What i want is a truthful honest and complete page. Now you can write it, or I will but one way of another it will be written. That I promise you Giano 17:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What you want has nothing to do with the truth: it simply is the opportunity to say what you like about Wikipedians, on Wikipedia, with impunity. You are abusing a page that exists (appropriately or not; see Friday and Yours Truly below) for the information of those looking to join #wikipedia-en-admins in order to publicise your own dispute inappropriately. This is not an encyclopeadia article, it is a project-space information page; and "Why Giano Hates DavidGerard" is no more appropriate here than anywhere else in project space. Create a page in your own userspace if you must (be careful to avoid insults or personal attacks), or your own website, but don't think you can misuse a page like this while beaming beatifically and espousing no motive less pure than the God's Honest Truth. You are a pane of glass. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 18:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear - you do seem rather cross, perhaps you are over fuddled. I hate no-one so please stop these rather hysterical attacks on me and concentrate on the matter in hand. That page is going to be re-written whether you on IRC like it or not. Giano 19:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Before we go there, someone has to explain away the very obvious conflict of interest. I don't want any description of this room in the page, because it's inappropriate. Would we allow someone to use Wikipedia to drive traffic to their own personal website? Why should it be any different if it's someone's own personal chat room? Chat rooms are the armpit of the internet- Wikipedia is supposed to be better than that. You want chat rooms, AOL is over there. Friday (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And here's a characteristic result of someone's dropping a link to a Wikipedia page on IRC: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Voting is useless in such circumstances. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

MfD is not a vote. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 18:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your characterisation of the channel (or of IRC channels in general) is a fair one. That aside, I agree that the channel should more accountable to the Wikimedia Foundation and to the Wikipedia community in general. If -en-admins is not for Wikipedia, then it should be. And if the channel exists for the aggrandisement of one man, then it shouldn't. The channel serves a useful purpose as a place for Wikipedia administrators and other such unsavoury personages to discuss things that should be private in private. There are good reasons that it exists, and it has the endorsement of Jimbo and Office. If you think the channel should be more accountable, well, good, I agree. If you think this page shouldn't exist until it does, I don't intend to argue with you about that; what I will say is that it certainly shouldn't be a vehicle for Giano to spew hatred about us because someone from IRC may or may not have mistreated him once, in the past. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 18:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fuddlemark, I've never had a problem with you, but everything you say in justification of the channel is pretty easily debunked. There is a very old dispute over the existence of that sub-channel. I, for example, opposed its very creation, and quite a few other administrators did as well. I warned at the time that it was no more than a clubhouse for the He-Man Woman Hater's Club and would be nothing more than self-validation. Since its creation, it was generally ignorable, but then, suddenly, actions began to take place as a result of it. Conversations were shown to me, at least, that consisted of nothing but four or five people plotting how they were going to "kill" users they didn't like. Then there were (generally the same) users telling admins in good standing that they were not welcome, if they were going to defend anyone whom they had marked as an enemy. It was time, then, for me to actually offer a real critique, point by point, of why these things were inevitable conclusions and not occasional aberrations.

You can see User:Geogre/IRC considered for my critique. Note when it was done, the discussion on the talk page, and all the rest. Simply put, "chat" forums chat. None of the supposed needs of that particular channel are best served by it or legitimate needs. IRC is not only not the best solution, it is pretty much guaranteed to be a very, very bad solution to any given Wikipedia problem.

If people go there to chat merrily, I have no problem -- although I don't know why they need an "invitation only" channel for it. Anything more, and it needs to be on-Wiki, not off. Is there some problem with the BLP pages that can be addressed by a transient, untraceable, unaccountable, opaque process? Geogre 18:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Why can I still not get on the channel?

I am on the list, but still can't get in. Are the bouncers unable to recognise me? Sam Blacketer 15:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What's your nick? Majorly (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

SamBlacketer. Sam Blacketer 16:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you invited yourself? /msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins? Majorly (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There's too many males in the en-admins room. We're only accepting women for the rest of the night. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"There are" too many. There are too many users of the channel altogether, male, female, and intersexed. Geogre 18:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Way to harsh my mellow, dude. You'd make a good bouncer. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 18:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I bounce pretty well. As they say, "Geogres Wobble, but they Don't Fall Down. Geogre 18:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Note to newbies

Note that these people, by their own admission, are beating a dead horse. Their points have been heard and dealt with, to the extent that they will ever be dealt with. Further argument on the subject is pointless. --Ideogram 19:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right but I always question the utility of adding to the discussion just to say "stop the discussion!" Also your heading here could be taken as a bit insulting- it's possible it will only fan the flames. Friday (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been on USENET long enough to have heard all the supposedly clever responses to someone stating that a discussion is pointless. I don't post because I believe I will stop the discussion; I am merely explaining to possible newbies that it is in fact pointless. And perhaps you should ask yourself what the utility of your "adding to the discussion" is, if you truly do not want to "fan the flames". --Ideogram 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So your trying to stop discusion by saying discusion will have no effect interesting. Hypnosadist 20:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps you should read what I wrote again. --Ideogram 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"I am merely explaining to possible newbies that it is in fact pointless" Ok then to what does "it" refer to in the preceeding sentance. Hypnosadist 20:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say I am trying to stop discussion? --Ideogram 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

By saying discusion is pointless you are trying to stop discusion on the subject.Hypnosadist 20:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I can't see any utility to Ideogram's statement. Linguistically, it boils down to "these people are pointless" and "pay them no mind." Both are insults. The first is a value judgment from someone whose judgment is not unimpeachable in general. The second is an insult to the reader (they can make up their own minds), an attempt at patronizing, and, of course, a second value judgment about anyone speaking. Now, about those "personal attack" blocks? Geogre 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should certainly try letting people make up their own minds once in a while. Such as the correct interpretation of my statement and whether it is an insult or not. BTW, may I ask what you are trying to accomplish with this post of yours? --Ideogram 21:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Don't try to tell me what I'm trying to do. --Ideogram 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Then what are you trying to do when you tell newbies talking on this subject is pointless? Hypnosadist 20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care to discuss that at this moment. --Ideogram 20:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me when you do care to answer it, i look forward to it. Hypnosadist 20:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You sound to me like you're being accusatory, but I'm not at all sure why. I mainly thought "note to newbies" was a bad thing to say here, hence my comment. There's unfortunate amount of digging in of the heels (on both sides, mind you) here, and things that can be seen as insulting probably won't help. Friday (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend "newbies" to be insulting in any way, merely as a descriptive term for any readers that might not have encountered this very old dispute in one of its many forms before. --Ideogram 20:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected due to edit war

I have archived this since it doesn't seem to be useful discussion about page protection. Anyone can of course revert but I hope people are willing to take a bit of a break- further discussion along these lines may only fan the flames. Friday (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually applaud your decision. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The heat over protection, and the protection itself, argue for an RFC on the channel and whether or not Wikipedia should have a how-to guide on a non-Wikimedia Foundation site. Yes, I know how I feel about it, and I'm sure everyone else does, too, but perhaps new voices and new ideas can emerge. If people like my user:Geogre/IRC considered, we can use that as a starting point. If they don't, then I welcome anyone else who is willing to perform a bottom-up analysis. Geogre 21:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think an RFC is an excellent idea. Perhaps Giano or yourself could file it? Of course I will be unable to comment on it, since you have responded to my first and my every attempt to communicate with you with hostility. --Ideogram 21:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Ideogram it would be very unfair to respond to you. So I'm not going to. Giano 21:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Paradox! --Ideogram 21:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with this being included?

"If someone proves to be clueless on the channel, I kick them off"(David Gerard 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC). This is an important part of the IRC admin channels history, why cannot it be included? I truly don't understand why. Giano 21:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you word it in a more neutral way than you did earlier? Would "User:David Gerard is the owner of the channel, and retains the right to remove access from anyone he considers incapable of using it correctly" be acceptable? (is he the owner? or do they call them operators?) Neil ╦ 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No because he is not the owner of the channel is he? That is James. Giano 21:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

He gave me a large chunk of the job, though it's more distributed now - David Gerard 00:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a load of nonsense

Though I do like the way the rest of us are reduced to mere "rank-and-file" editors. Yes, our opinions do not matter, we all know that! But your attempts to spell it out come across as mere gloating – Gurch 21:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a lie, Gurch. That's what's important to remember. This "we are in charge" is a story people tell themselves, but there is absolutely no truth in it. The fact that they tell their "Sonny Jim" fictions to the rest of the project, and that some people fall for it, is what I find worthy of opposition. What do I care if people want to delude themselves with self-importance? It's different when they start demanding tribute, or when they try to extend their delusions to Wikipedia pages as opposed to their private worlds. Geogre 12:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, you've lost me there... – Gurch 16:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Like the characters in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, some participants of Wikipedia need to fabricate social illusions. These are harmless. Who cares if I say that I'm the grand Poobah of Project Prophets? If there are three or four people who say that they are the King, Queen, and Jester of Project Prophets, and we all swap compliments, it's no big deal. Let us live our fantasy lives. It's when we tell other people that we're the royal court and we demand that they obey us that we're into an area where it matters. To be specific, James and David and others talk about being in charge of the en.admins.irc. Ok. Well, they're in charge if there is something to be in charge of -- if all participants honor that power with their attendance and obeisance. It only works if Wikipedia links to their channel, and if Wikipedia encourages its administrators to participate. There is no actual importance, no actual power, no actual status involved. I don't care if they wish to be king of the hill, but I don't want to have bystanders hit with flung rocks or be told to pay a toll for walking by. In other words, I'd ignore any statements saying that the rest of us are mere ants suffered to crawl beneath their mighty notice as comic or worthy of compassion (I would say "pathetic" and mean it literally, but someone would think I was being insulting). Geogre 16:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think you're possibly reading a little too much into "in charge", there. Freenode requires that there are group contacts for our channels, and it's a simple mathematical fact that in any given channel, however you give out the access levels one or more users is going to have the highest access level. Those users are obviously going to deal with obvious disruption, just as stewards deal with administrators who delete the Main Page – Gurch 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You're coming into the conversation late, I'm afraid. These statements emerged when last admins.irc was in the news, when it was being used to organize paramilitary actions. Mackensen took point on trying to get reform going. I doubted his methods or chances, but I'm a skeptic. The point is that when ArbCom was considering how to stop the place being a snakepit, David Gerrard told us all that it was up to him who was in or out, that he and James Forrester would decide if "former admins who are trusted users" and "administrators on other Wiki projects, but not en." would be in the channel, and indeed ops. This was so that they would never, ever tell Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, or GMaxwell that they were not allowed in. I know that a lot of people who use en.admins.irc (I wonder why it's "admins" if you don't have to be an admin, and why it's "en.admins" if you don't have to be an en.admin) didn't agree, just as a lot of the people who use it would never do what those users had done, but David has maintained this line, to the best of my knowledge, and never wavered. James Forrester doesn't even deign to address the concerns on wiki at all.

That's as may be, but that just makes it 4Chan or SomethingAwful or any other random IRC network that is unrelated to Wikipedia, and we've got no business hawking business for it on Wikipedia, much less having this page trying to cover everything in smiles and getting locked down when criticisms get edited in.

I hope that Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, GMaxwell, David Gerrard, and James Forrester have deeply, sincerely satisfying play lives on the computer. I hope they can have full happiness and the reflected glory of a swamp full of admiring voices. I wouldn't begrudge them their play. It's just not Wikipedia, and Wikipedia should not be used to advertise it and supply them with victims. Geogre 02:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, I wrote my response below before reading this. You are so predictable. Giano attacked Mackensen. Do you think Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, GMaxwell, David Gerard, and James Forrester have any desire to talk to you after your snide remarks above? --Ideogram 06:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I hope not. Perhaps, though, they could speak to Wikipedia on Wikipedia -- that means all the users -- and without any commands and arrogance. I own nothing and claim to own nothing. I'm not important and do not claim to be important. I'm not in charge and do not claim to be in charge. This makes me very, very, very different from the users I mentioned above. I'm sure they have no reason to care what my opinion is, even though they have already been making snide remarks about me on IRC (always where there is no trace, always where there is no accountability...pretty clear indication that they don't want to be on Wikipedia, to me, and a pretty clear indication that they shouldn't give a fig if they have status on Wikipedia), but it's the general user who has power, the general user whose confidence is important, and the general user who is far above every one of them on Wikipedia. Statements of ownership, control, and importance insult the project. It insults you, too, but you're paying selective attention. That's fine. You're allowed to carry a grudge. Your behavior with it is getting near the line, though. Geogre 11:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Your behavior with it is getting near the line, though." You have no right to say that to me. You claim to have no status and to be against arrogance, but your actions speak differently.

The logs of those users trying to talk to you are still on Wikipedia. I was there. If you don't want to talk to them, this issue will never be resolved. At this point only I am willing to talk to you, and you apparently don't want to talk to me either. Geogre, if I could convince you of one thing, it would be this: Your methods are not effective. --Ideogram 11:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, yes, I do have the responsibility to warn you when your behavior is justifying a block. You have vowed to walk away, below, and that might be best for you. Obviously, I wouldn't do the block, as I'm the one you have convinced yourself is the heart of darkness, but there are plenty of folks with a much lower tolerance. It's just advice, but I advise you to voice the grudge a bit less. Geogre 18:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is going on here

I've just reverted to a hopefully saner version. I have no objection to this page staying locked against querulous idiocy - David Gerard 00:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• This edit to a protected page [3] just about sums up the IRCadmins channel and the way Wikipedia is run completely. What a dump. I bet David Gerard has no objection to it staying locked. Why not just write the whole bloody encyclopedia on IRC, it can be truly how he wants it then Giano 08:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nice of you to have no objections to your version being locked David. I think that's covered under WP:OWN. Since you deny neither the words Giano attributed to you nor the sentiments behind them, it's just your preference that they not be included. Since "your" version struck other editors as being actually funny in its separation from the truth -- so funny that they assumed this must be one of those joke pages -- I'm quite sure that it's not "saner." It might be "preferrable" to you, but your judgment here is really not best. Being one of the proprietors of this non-Wikipedia, non-WikiMedia Foundation website, you don't get to say how it looks, and any edits by you are a violation of WP:COI. In fact, writing the article was a violation of WP:VANITY. You cannot have your cake ("we don't have to listen to ArbCom, ever!") and eat it, too ("I get to write a page explaining King Log's rules of order for the swamp, and put it on Wikipedia"). Geogre 12:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your approach will not change anything. Perhaps you could file an RFC? If you disapprove so much of the way Wikipedia is run, and you can't find an effective way to change it, perhaps you should leave. Many people have taken that route, as you well know. --Ideogram 08:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"If you disapprove so much of the way Wikipedia is run, and you can't find an effective way to change it, perhaps you should leave" Now you are using your pointlessness argument to try and force wikipedia editors off wiki, please stop with this disruptive editing! Hypnosadist 08:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also the complete disrespect for wikipedia shown by David Gerard and Sean W et al just shows how dangerous the clic mentality is to the future of wikipedia. Hypnosadist 08:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm glad you enjoy this unproductive approach. --Ideogram 09:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No i don't enjoy your unproductive approach please stop. Hypnosadist 09:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of amusing that you want to "save" Wikipedia. So far as I can tell, it doesn't need saving. --Ideogram 09:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No its not amusing, this thread alone has NPA violations (querulous idiocy) by members of the IRClic also the misuse of admin powers in a content dispute. Dispite what you think, you don't have the right to do what you want, when you want. Hypnosadist 09:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain to me what you are trying to accomplish with your contributions to this thread? Do you think they will produce a useful result? --Ideogram 09:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No only my gang on my super secret IRC group can know that! As for "produce a useful result" not in the short term, this IRClic is just too dug in at the moment. Its just a case of recording the abuses of power until the appropriate opportunity arises, so remember i'll be watching (PS anyone got some logs?). Hypnosadist 09:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I am unclear on how your posts will produce a useful result in the long term. As for recording abuses of power, surely a local file on your computer will make searching much easier? --Ideogram 09:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"surely a local file on your computer will make searching much easier?" Done! Hypnosadist 09:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for sharing your progress with us. --Ideogram 09:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The latest venom from the IRCadmin channel

Just in case anyone is wondering what the latest venom being cooked up on IRC is - here it is [4] straight from the lips of Ms Martin herself. As always completely groundless lies and proving as ever I am completely correct in my suspicion of what goes on there. Poor old Jayjg looks like the reptile pit is about to turn on him next. No doubt even as I post this "He who must be obeyed" is sounding the trumpet calling the drones away from their chatter to comment and pronounce further rubbish against me. When are people going to see what is going on there and do something about it? Giano 12:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Giano, there is only one thing that can be done: unlink all references to the channel from all Wikipedia pages. If it's not Wikipedia, doesn't follow Wikipedia's rules, can't be exposed to Wikipedia's conflict resolution, doesn't even have to be consistent in its own supposed rules, then Wikipedia shouldn't be encouraging it by advertising it. Wikipedia does not allow advertising, and it is not a web guide. Unlink all references to this snake pit, is what I say. Geogre 12:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No she was mouthing the half brained theory on IRC last night, to anyone who wanted to listen - and quite a few did! All very sad, I wonder what she is doing on an encyclopedia in the first place - does she write? or just expand her daft theories in effort to cause trouble and call attention to herself? Giano 12:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I actually don't know what she does. I've asked a few times, and I've heard that it's awfully, awfully important and supremely well known. It's so well known that it can't even be specified, I guess. I know that it involves being very important and very well trusted and loved and important. Anyway, "half-brained" is not a good characterization, and I urge you not to be so insulting. It's not necessary. She could always ask people why they're making edits to a page. That would mean going to Wikipedia, instead of that Freenode IRC channel, and actually asking an honest question. I don't know how you would answer, but I thought the "natural" state of this page was funny, that it was self-parody or performance art. Your edits were satire. The point is that a lot of actions were taking place with invisible rationales, and the fights over the edits to this page even show the problems in question. Still no discussion on Wikipedia's admin pages, but loads of discussion. That raises it to the level of paying attention for me, anyway. When I see a massively inflated MfD vote, and no discussion on Wikipedia, I figure that some non-Wikipedia rationalizing was going on, and that's wrong. Geogre 13:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can only assume as nothing is ever done to curb her that she speaks for Jimbo himself. Giano 13:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see no reason of any kind to assume that. Newyorkbrad 13:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you Brad - don't you really? Giano 14:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I don't, not at all. Newyorkbrad 14:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Brad. I'm sure you know that some people like to provoke and to tease. But one will be provoked only as long as he is susceptible to provocations. I ask myself why one should want to read Kelly Martin's blog. Is it really so interesting? Don't we have something more urgent to discuss in Wikipedia than the blogs of former sysops? --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So long as it's not more "evidence" submitted by Cyde, it's merely evidence of how all of this and everyone here is being 'spun' on that IRC channel. That has an effect, but not much of one, I hope. (I remain, by the way, vehement that I would never, in my life, ever think it appropriate to "blog" about Wikipedia. That's just unhealthy, IMO. This is an encyclopedia we're editing, not a part of anyone's actual life. Letting it get to that level just seems freaky to me.) Geogre 17:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just make the IRC channel moderated

Why does the IRC channel have to be completely closed? You could easily leave it open, but moderated, so that only admins can talk. Closing it only invites suspicion. MGlosenger 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My guess is, that would just turn the arguments about who gets access into arguments about who gets to speak – Gurch 23:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia admins were chosen through some defined process. At any rate no non-admins could argue about it on IRC.. MGlosenger 00:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, I don't know if the idea would fly, but it's an interesting thought, one worth considering, I think. #wikimedia-tech tends to work in a similar fashion, when the site goes down -- they'll let anybody in, and usually anybody can talk, but at crunch time, only the developers can talk, I believe. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you MGlosenger for addressing this issue, well you would have the who watches the Watchmen problems but its better than it is now. Hypnosadist 07:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What y'all are talking about is closer and closer and closer to a mailing list, and there is one already. That's one of my gripes: we don't need admins.irc. It might be well used from time to time -- who knows? -- but the arguments for needing it are all answered better by other things, and all the ways to safeguard behavior on it seem to abolish it. Still, any improvement would be welcome. The regular channel is neither here nor there, but "admins and people we personally trust, and we get to trust them because we own it" is without any justification. Geogre 02:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC

An RFC was suggested as a productive way to channel this dispute. Apparently some prefer to make a big noise on this page and edit war. You would think that a rational person would choose a method more likely to accomplish their goal, but some people would just rather vent and make hateful comments rather than accomplish anything. --Ideogram 22:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My admittedly limited experience with RfCs suggests one would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot in this situation – Gurch 22:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, RFC's have problems. But I really don't think the current approach is useful. --Ideogram 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Friends and enemies

Giano, now you are edit-warring with Ghirlandajo, one of your unquestioned friends on this project. I don't expect you to listen to me, but when your friends counsel you to back off, you really should listen. --Ideogram 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Talking to hear themselves

As is typical for this crowd, they spend a lot of time agreeing with each other and not much time honestly communicating with anyone else. As a result most of their opponents have given up on trying to talk to them long ago. --Ideogram 22:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Which crowd are you referring to? It's hard to tell :) – Gurch 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. However, most of the volume seems to be coming from Giano and Geogre. I myself once tried to ask Geogre some questions to understand his point of view, but he was unable to AGF and I was labeled a troll and had my comments reverted. If Geogre were to ask me for comments on an RFC I would be willing to try again, but I'm not going to just agree with him without asking some tough questions. --Ideogram 22:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the G-men. (That doesn't include me, BTW) – Gurch 23:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand it must be frustrating if "they" have stopped rising to your trolling, Ideogram, but that isn't actually the same as "not communicating with anyone else." You're committing hasty generalization there. Anyway, I don't think you have to worry about Geogre pestering you for comments on an RFC. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

You are clearly unable to have a constructive conversation with me. So you call me a troll. What are you trying to achieve by calling me a troll? Venting your anger, perhaps? You love to criticize other people for speaking their minds, and yet when it comes to you and your friends, no one is allowed to criticize you, no matter how unproductive your comments are. Care to defend Gangsta again? --Ideogram 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hint: if you want honest communication, don't attack people who disagree with you. --Ideogram 01:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What cracks me up is that we have Giano and myself answering and engaging in conversation with people, up above, and Ideogram comes and writes three headers all by himself, in response to no one, talking with no one, to complain that "we" don't talk to anyone. In contrast to him, of course. It was really, really funny. I'm actually sad to see people reply to this attack, because it was so beautiful in its pristine absurdity. As for the people Ideogram assumes to be on his side, if they're not cringing at his endorsement, they're talking on IRC. They don't like to use Wikipedia talk pages. Too much examination. Geogre 02:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, David Gerard, and Fred Bauder all tried to talk to you. All were viciously attacked to the point where they no longer wish to talk to you. Kylu apologized to Bishonen, and wrote her own essay in response to yours, and she is no longer here primarily because Giano was unable to forgive her. And here I am, practically begging you to engage in honest conversation, but you treat me only with scorn. --Ideogram 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Show everyone where these people tried to speak with me about this page. Otherwise, if you're actually talking about something in the distant past where you got your feelings hurt, drop it. Geogre 18:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

If you think I'm bluffing about the honest conversation, call my bluff. --Ideogram 06:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK Ideogram then what do you claim is the need for an unmoderated secret area on wikipedia for only a select group of people (more select than just admins) to discuss other users? Hypnosadist 07:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I am undecided on the issue. I don't think Geogre realizes this. I do know that the people I mentioned above have claimed that it is useful, but since they aren't here, I won't try to restate their arguments. Again, they are not "on my side". It does seem to me however, that it is not in fact more select that just admins; it has been stated that all Wikipedia admins are allowed. It has also been stated many times that the channel is usually devoted to mundane things and idle chatter, not the hotbed of scheming that has been implied.

The last time this came up Mackensen created a new channel, #wikipedia-en-functionaries, which any Wikipedia user is welcome to join, to address the secrecy complaint. This channel was mostly ignored, most notably by Geogre and Giano, without any real explanation of why it was uncceptable.

Let me ask you (and Geogre, if he chooses to answer), why you feel #wikipedia-en-admins is such a threat. You do realize that there are many forms of private communication such as email, conference calls, and face-to-face meetings which you cannot control that would continue to enable all forms of conspiracy?

As a practical matter, Geogre and the rest of you do not have the power to decide these things. Jimbo has that power, and he has devolved some of that power to the ArbCom. Logs of unacceptable behavior were in fact presented to the ArbCom the last time this came up, and the ArbCom took steps to address those issues. It is not clear to me what new information requires addressing at this time, or what new action is required. --Ideogram 10:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

How nice of Geogre to attack me in a forum where I cannot reply. Note also how he conveniently ignores the issue of whether it is uncivil to make snide comments about my mental disability. Really, I should hit the roof over that, but I'm just tired of it. --Ideogram 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"How nice of Geogre to attack me in a forum where I cannot reply" Well thats my first objection to this IRC channel, glad you now understand that point. Hypnosadist 13:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How nice of you to demonstrate your hypocrisy. --Ideogram 13:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA Hypnosadist 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, if I follow your reasoning, the only solution here is to delete Bish's talk page. --Ideogram 13:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me make this absolutely clear. I made every effort to engage Geogre in honest conversation. I pointed out that he will not get what he claims to want by attacking people. His response was to attack me. This has happened many times before. My conclusion is that he has no interest in honest conversation and his goals are not what he claims. His tools are fear, uncertainty, and doubt. He appeals to hatred and paranoia. I have been observing Geogre for a long time, and he has never changed. --Ideogram 12:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? A user talk page is a forbidden medium now? Oh, well. I'll repeat it here. I'll repeat it anywhere. Ideogram is a user with a history of showing up wherever I am involved in a conflict, asking for everything to be repeated, introducing section after section of attack on me, and then complaining that no one is talking to him. Well, no one has any obligation to talk to him. No one has to talk to anyone. If I were fixing to block him for trolling, I would need to warn him, and I would need to read his explanation. Since I'm not, I don't. As for his mental state, it's considerably less than irrelevant. The behavior is damning enough without it. If he wishes to desert this controversy, where he had no opinion except that I'm bad, then I don't think the tenor of the conversation will suffer substantially. If he doesn't, he could actually try to talk about the subject, and then he might find that people (not me, I admit) wish to talk to him about his views. These views should not include him, as a subject, or me, as a subject. If he can avoid those two, he might have conversations. If he can't, he's just a guy with a grudge, carrying it like a millstone, with him from place to place. Geogre 18:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's it

Well, since Geogre, Giano, and Bishonen are only interested in attacking me, I will leave this forum to them. I have said what I needed to. --Ideogram 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Which was what? As soon as I caught a glance of your 'I'll be the first to ignore this dispute', I sensed you would do just the opposite. El_C 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

About "commentary"

I don't see why commentary should automatically not belong here. This is a project space page intended to tell people about this channel. As there are way more ways to use the channel for harm than for good, caution is certainly warranted. I'd still prefer nobody use IRC at all (it's inferior to the wiki for most purposes) but if we must advertise these chat rooms here, people should absolutely understand why such things are controversial. A few words of caution can't do any harm in any way I can see. Friday (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Dragonfly attempted to take the substance of Giano II's comments and critiques and preserve them in a less incendiary manner. That was then protected. Majorly came to revert them weeks late. When I saw that, I figured that I would try with an even less heated sentence. Majorly reverted that, claiming that protection somehow made a page uneditable. Duk has now removed the protection.

No one owns a Wikipedia page, and least of all the subjects of the page. If a page exists about how to behave on a non-Wikipedia web forum, the participants in the forum don't get to lock the page to their preferred content. "Commentary" is generally POV, but analysis and reportage of critiques can be done in an NPOV manner. I see no need to prevent the Something Awful page from having criticisms, nor this one. If these channels are non-Wiki Media Foundation, then they're just another outside pastime. Geogre 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

One reason to have some thoughtful commentary is that there are many young admins who deserve a cautionary heads-up. They may not understand what type of admin-irc behavior is wrong, and they may be oblivious to the perils of socially fueled group-think that goes on there. I think some critical commentary could help these people. Links to fairly objective things like this are a good start. --Duk 18:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Or (ahem) this, perhaps? Geogre 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, wonderful essay. --Duk 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Former admins

How on earth is this not true? It's one of the things that raises eyebrows about the channel. Friday (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, the only former admins who have operator rights in the channel are ones who left uncontroversially. They are still generally trusted by the community. Was there particular admin(s) you were thinking of? Majorly (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I remember Kelly Martin causing a bit of eyebrow raising, specifically. (I believe until recently she was mentioned in the list of channel ops or whatever they are, was she not?) There may have been others. If someone is gone from the project, I don't see how they could be trusted by the project. They would just be neutral- neither trusted nor distrusted. Friday (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When I say "left" I mean left being an admin. Not left the project. FYI Kelly Martin no longer goes on the channel. Generally, if admins are removed, or resign controversially, they are removed from the channel access list. Others, such as Kim Bruning, are no longer admins, but I would say still have the community's trust. Majorly (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have some evidence for your statement? The one case I know about is Kelly Martin, who did resign controversially, and who was not removed from the channel access list- in fact, I believe she retained some form of higher-than-regular-user level of access. So, I have no reason to believe your statement. Friday (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the folks who run the channel could borrow access levels from the project if they wanted to. They specifically do not want to- they very explicitly want channel access to be a matter of personal discretion. So, again, no reason at all to believe your statement. If that's what they wanted, that's what they would be doing, and we know that's not what they do. Friday (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I can prove anything to you... not that I should have to, since you are simply assuming. I'm in the channel right now and she is not there... there's not much else I can say, and no real way I can prove it to you. I just looked at the access list as well. She is not even able to join the channel let alone operate it. Majorly (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I believe you about that. I just have no reason to assume I know what's general practice for channel access - we have it straight from the horse's mouth that it's entirely personal discretion. And, we do know that in the past, this personal discretion has included at least one disgraced former admin who lost the respect of the community. Friday (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Friday, that would be Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway, and we also have GMaxwell, who is a Commons admin and not an en.Wikipedia admin, as "ops" on the en.admins.irc channel. That would make three people who are not en.admins who not only are there, but have op status. Furthermore, the "owner" recently tried for re-election, and, pretty much because of the channel, did not achieve the expected approval. Given all the division, abuse, and personal losses people are getting because of their desires to be "in charge," you'd figure that they'd relent. They won't. IRC means more than Wikipedia to too many of them. Geogre 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, actually, no. As above, Kelly does not even have access to the channel, so is certainly not an op. Tony has regular access like most people who use the channel (5), and Gmaxwell has 5 as well. He's a commons admin and also a developer (AFAIK). That is considered to be a trusted user. No one you mentioned above has any kind of authority whatsoever there. Majorly (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're saying it's been removed by now, right? Fair enough, I have no reason to disbelieve it. The point is, after losing their access on Wikipedia, they kept it in the chat room for some period of time. So it sounds like it's accurate to say that people who have resigned under controversial circumstances have kept their privileged access to the chat room. If that access was later removed for some other reason, that doesn't change anything. The cautionary tale is this: disgraced former admins who lost the support of the community have stuck around in the chat room, spewing their venom that wouldn't be acceptable on the wiki. So I think there's good reason to view this personal fiefdom with a skeptical eye when it comes to access. Friday (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The original complaint was that former admins had authority on the channel. That just simply is not true. There was one admin, Kelly Martin who did, she is now removed. Tony and Greg never had authority as non admin. Yes, they have access, but not authority, which is what the orginal complaint was about. Majorly (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Never, really? Then I would be interested to know how it came about that Greg kickbanned me in January 2007. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

Please read carefully: Greg never had authority as a non admin. He may have done as an admin. The complaint here is former admins with authority. Greg is not a former admin, and I don't believe he has authority anymore either. Majorly (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't split hairs. Greg never was an admin on English wikipedia, as you know. On Commons, yes. That might be a good reason for him to be welcomed into the channel, but what sort of reason was it for him to have authority there (which he incidentally abused)? Isn't this #wikipedia-EN-admins we're talking about? Bishonen | talk 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

I don't know why he was ever given any authority. Fact is, maybe him being an admin on commons and a dev were a part in this. Majorly (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the intro accurate?

I see nothing in the link to support the assertion that "As with all IRC channels with the word Wikipedia in the title, it is officially sanctioned and owned by the Wikimedia Foundation." This seems impossible- anyone with a client can create a channel with whatever name they specify, right? Friday (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding (per my draft this morning) is that there is a completely unofficial connection only. Input on this, preferably with a reference, would be great. Newyorkbrad 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked James f. if this comment was correct:

...as per Freenode policy, any channel with the word Wikipedia in it is an official, sanctioned to, and belonging to the Foundation channel. It doesn't matter who wants to put what there, if its not offical, it can't go there... [5]

And he replied that it was correct, ish. --Duk 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's nuts. I can't believe that James Forrester would be very careful with his words, but it looks like he is. "sanctioned to, and belonging to the Foundation channel" is not Wikimedia Foundation ownership or operation. First, we know that the owner is Freenode. Second, we know that the people who "run" the channel are not board members nor using it for Foundation business. Either he's very incorrect or confused or being highly semantic. Or the channel has changed so radically in the last few weeks as to be unrecognizable, and almost empty. Geogre 19:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a gander at [6] if you will, good sir, particularly the section entitled Channel Ownership. If the channel was originally registered ostensibly under Foundation business, then yes, the Foundation does own it. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the controversy as I see it:

If the channel is not an official part of wikipedia then the people who run it are accountable to no one - they have their own little kingdom with enormous power and influence over the community, drawn from all the admins who go there. We saw some of this attitude during the earlier Rfarbs, where people victimized by the channel had trouble getting redress.

It's obvious to me that the channel is very much a part of wikipedia and should therefore be accountable to the community in some way, even if the mechanism for that accountability hasn't arrived yet. It is part of Wikipedia, not only through the Foundation's group contacts and the fact that channels with 'Wikipedia' in the title belong to the Foundation (this is recognized by both freenode and the Foundation, I believe), but through the official standing and mandates that were assigned to wikipedia-en-admins via discussions on the the mailing list. Additionally, the unique makeup of this channel means that is has a large amount of power and influence over the community. For these reasons wikipedia-en-admins, more than any other channel, has a special place in wikipedia. Aside from all that, it passes the duck test. You have to go down a tortured path of technicalities and policy wonkery to say that this channel - created by wikipedians, for wikipedians, to address wikipedia business - isn't part of wikipedia.

So, from my point of view, saying that the channel isn't an official part of Wikipedia is a step towards no oversight or accountability for those who run the channel. You can see some of the sparring over this point that went on at a Rfarb, later renamed and moved to Wikipedia_talk:IRC_channels/Personal_views_regarding_IRC#Statement_by_Duk--Duk 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, here's someone having a fit at the possibility of wikipedia-en-admins being held accountable to the community (via the arbcom). --Duk 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Ms Martin's quote "....some anonymous coward (my guess is Giano, but it could just as easily been any of the other members of the witchhunt coalition) has declared that Steve Dunlop..." I am never anonymous and I have never heard of Steve Dunlop. Sadly, this is just the sort of lying garbage that Ms Martin and her friends spread about on the channel - encouraging the newly promoted little admins to act upon. Pathetic really isn't it? Giano 22:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One more point: According to Jimbo, the wikipedia mailing lists are the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. And indeed, this is where wikipedia-en-admins was proposed, discussed and given specific mandates. The talks didn't go on very long before the channel was created over some concerns about its openness, begging the question: was proposing the channel on the mailing list just a ruse to give it some credibility? was it preordained and always indented to be one little group's kingdom, drawing upon all the admins for power and influence, with no oversight or accountability? There is a fundamental disconnect between the way this channel was proposed on the mailing list and the story that David Gerard now puts forward. Was the wikipedia community being played when this channel was proposed? --Duk 23:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fascinatingly, guess who runs the mailing list? David Gerrard. Guess how long it can take for one of his posts to go through, and how long it can take for dissent to go through. Never mind that, though: the damned thing "was proposed" (passive voice constructions are so much fun) on Wikipedia and widely opposed. The people active at it were in favor. No consensus, nothing close to consensus, was emerging, and then it was there. Danny said that he simply created it. James Forrester has said that he just created it. Now, of course, it was a democratic process, because now people are aware. I keep coming back to one central, agonizing point: if it's "no big deal" to be there, if "people will just do other things," if "it is never a clique," then why are people fighting blindly, irrationally, and stupidly that it must never be accountable? Why would Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway give up admin status without complaint but then fight like a wounded squid when it came to giving up access to that IRC? For that matter, is there any overview of IRC channel creation, any rationalization, any listing of the splits being made now to be the "other things?" Geogre 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

then why are people fighting blindly, irrationally, and stupidly that it must never be accountable? The answer to that is as obvious as it is dangerous to say. There is a relevent quote I've been trying to track down that goes something like ... separating a man from his delusions is more dangerous than separating a tiger from her cub. --Duk 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In Tristram Shandy, there is a chapter on hobby horses. The chief danger of the hobby horse is not that it is ridden, but that it becomes a point of pride, and then that one runs over others while mounted on it. The hobby horse is far, far too benign, though, for an obsession with "chat" that quickly (not slowly) takes up all the time that would have otherwise been spent doing things, either things in the world or things on Wikipedia. I used to frustrate people who insisted on their importance (and that "thousands look(ed) to (them) every day for opinions" by asking what they had actually done at Wikipedia. I've still never gotten an answer to that. Majorly, above, talks about the trusted status of some people I do not trust at all, and this comes from titles, not, apparently, actions. Geogre 01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility on en-admins: please don't be so mealy-mouthed

Under the heading "Controversy", Brad has written "However, several arbitrators, in their individual capacities, expressed the view that the standard of civility on the channel had sometimes fallen below an appropriate level." This seems quite euphemistic, considering what these individual arbitrators actually said at the time in question. The ones I spoke with personally (quite a few) all expressed variations on the sentiment "I couldn't believe it!" (This after they had read some logs I had sent to the ArbCom mailing list.) More officially, in January 2007 Fred Bauder opened a thread on WP:AN he called "IRC admin channel" and wrote: "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable."[7] Note that Fred, at least, doesn't seem to think he's speaking in his individual capacity only, but is apparently channelling "the Committee" and "we". I'm rewriting the nicey-nicey sentence about appropriate levels, with quotes from Fred and an inline cite. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

I have to admit that I had forgotten about Fred's statement. Bishonen is right to add it. Newyorkbrad 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen is always right and so am I Giano 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom's assessment was pretty damning. That's partly why I've been looking for some large advantage to IRC to offset the obvious disadvantages. I've been looking for probably a year or two and haven't seen it yet. Friday (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Officially confused

"The Wikipedia channels on freenode are an unofficial place for Wikipedians to chat using IRC." – Wikipedia:IRC channels

Curious, one reads on to find...

"#wikipedia-en-admins is a private channel used mainly by admins and some other users. Despite the name, the channel is - like every other IRC channel - completely unofficial. See /wikipedia-en-admins for detailed info." – Wikipedia:IRC channels

So one clicks the link and...

"As with all freenode IRC channels with the word Wikipedia in the title, it is officially sanctioned and owned by the Wikimedia Foundation." – Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

Nicely done. Perhaps it should be explained that while the channels may be "official" the discussions in them are not. heqs ·:. 07:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That is primarily about the name of the channel. Freenode has decided that, to prevent confusion, not just anyone can start a channel with "wikipedia" or "wikimedia" in the name. --bainer (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Request access below

Below is a relative term, no? I don't see a request section. Perhaps it is just me...it usually is! the_undertow ^talk 08:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't find it either. I'd like to request access to the channel, but this page doesn't seem to provide for such requests.--cj | talk 12:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a subheading. Martinp23 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

About my revert

It's probable that this page could be distilled, but I have reverted the wholesale removal of many sections of the page today for two reasons. First, removing information about controversies is unlikely to make other editors feel more confident that everything happening in the channel is on the up-and-up. Many of the concerns related to the channel have been openly discussed on-wiki, so it makes sense to explain them here. Second, it seems like useful/informative portions describing the purpose and history of the channel were removed. I believe there's a middle ground here; the current page does seem a bit too antagonistic towards the channel, which should be fine if used according to its stated purpose. Dekimasuよ! 03:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That is, please don't take my revert to be a wholehearted endorsement of the current page. Dekimasuよ! 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• The page should be deleted, actually. It was a panegyric to himself by a particular user. The concerns you mention are hardly even sketched out. Since the channel itself has been running less noxiously lately, few people are going to be too outraged, but it is vital that these cautions remain. No, it isn't the same for all channels, and "thebainer's" edit is plainly wrong. Admins has a much darker past than the general channels, and it has a smaller population. Additionally, because it cannot be ported over to Wikipedia, it is much more susceptible to future abuse. It was created to be a "special place," and so it remains one with special caveats. Geogre (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the above by Geogre. Giano (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Freezing up

I've had me nick processed and all that, so I type /msg... et al into Colloquy, hit enter, and when a window asking if I want to join appears, I click it... and then the application freezes on me. Any idea what's wrong? David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you register your nick, if not just type /chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins when you join. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 03:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cloak instructions

"How to obtain access" says that User:Sean Whitton handles cloak requests. However he has apparently stopped doing so, and doesn't even answer question on his talk page. Could someone more familiar with the process update this section? In the meantime I'm just going to strike-through the exsisting, incorrect instructions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've pinged him on IRC and reported this discussion. However, as of 2 Dec, he still was [8]. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a small amount of delay associated with most human-bound processes during any holiday, and especially the Winter one. It's hardly that Sean has "stopped". I'll revert this, hoping you don't find it too rude so to do. :-)

James F. (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the request in late October, as I recall. How much longer do you think it will take? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I first made the request a couple of times in 2005, although not of Sean but of a predecessor; again in 2006, and that time responding to an offer from James himself to set one up for me; and I finally got it in 2007. You're trying to run before you can crawl, Will. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is actually my second request. I also tried to get one a year ago, but I never got a response that time either. Of course we're all volunteers, so I understand that things can fall through cracks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sean has had fairly intense study pressures. I haven't even been on irc for a while, but will see what I can get happening - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another contact/administrative person should be added. Both Seth and James are described as very busy. Busy is good, but a less busy person may be able to help more. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that this needs to happen. I'm active on IRC and while they do a fine job, they don't appear to have the time needed to effectively fulfill the role. John Reaves 11:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It honestly baffles me why two of the least active IRC users were chosen for this role. Sean is busy with studies... why on earth was he picked to do this? Really, someone who's actually around should be chosen, and replaced ineffective people. 82.31.6.229 (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, there are plenty of "IRC users" that are far less active. Secondly, I'm sure they weren't this inactive when they were chosen (which seems to have been a few years ago). --John Reaves 18:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Wikipedia hostname cloaks are no longer available due to the lack of an official group contact. You may however request a generic cloak from Freenode without any sponsorship or assistance from a chanop. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I was totally unaware of this, are you sure? The statement by Jdforrester about seems to suggest that nothing has changed. Can you link to an announcement on the subject? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You've always been able to get a generic cloak from any freenode staff member, but if you would like a Wikimedia-related one, you have to go through seanw. Cbrown1023 talk 16:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I was replying (sorry that I wasn't clear) to the statement that "that Wikipedia hostname cloaks are no longer available due to the lack of an official group contact". Of course you have always been able to register unaffiliated cloaks ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well that part is actually incorrect. You are most certainly still able to get Wikipedia hostname cloaks. Cbrown1023 talk 21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This link here. And you can get wikipedia/wikimedia hostnames still. Majorly (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Editorialisation removed

This is intended to be an authoritative information page. Editorialisation is inappropriate and unwanted. It's not a playground for Wikinomic either - editing here in an attempt to change the fabric of space and time is unlikely to be effective. Blatant trolling (e.g. Giano's contributions) and edit-warring to keep it in landed him deserved blocks. I've cut the stupidest bits and de-crufted it somewhat - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to remove the claim that the channel is "semi-public". The channel is officially, and always has been, private. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. Thanks to Wknight94 for re-adding the Jimbo bits I slashed and burned - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact, this is David Gerard's page. Everyone else is here at his suffrance. Let's all remember that this is David's page. He made it. His friends edit it. It belongs to him and should reflect his opinions, for, lo, they are not editorials, but rather, yeah, they are verily the truth unto the last generation. Woe unto those unbelievers who shall be deemed wicked in his sight, for they shall know the block, and it shall be "deserved." I'm reminded of the fact that David believes in blocking, but his opponents do not, for substantive disagreement, and thus he can point with self-satisfaction to block logs to prove the virtue of his position and show, instead, the irrationality and bullying of his friends. Geogre (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that editorialisation and wikinomic are probably best left here on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way to avoid this conflict is to remove this page from Wikipedia. Let individually owned clubs and services be advertised on individually owned websites. We expect nothing less in other cases; why is this special? Friday (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If this page is removed the complaints will just go elsewhere (like ANI), they won't go away. --Duk 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There's less grounds for complaints of off-wiki bad behavior, when we don't advertise that particular off-wiki venue here. The internet is full of people who enjoy flaming- we don't generally need to care about that here. Friday (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saddened to see Geogre edit warring on this. The attacks are unworthy of a Wikipedian. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree wholeheartedly with Friday. Although I argued for it's inclusion six months ago, it's been nothing but an annoying tarbaby ever since. Sean William @ 17:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

reply to Friday: The best way to avoid repeating mistakes is to learn from them, that's part of what this page does - the criticism section, for example. --Duk 17:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it appears that section had been deleted. --Duk 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The page was created as useful documentation, from those who have actual authority over the channel. If you don't want useful documentation of the channel around, I'm sure that will serve to warp the fabric of space and time as desired, and distort reality with effectiveness to make Steve Jobs proud. Or perhaps it won't - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, your version of this page was a warm and fuzzy exercise in spin - the least example of which being the phrase "channel wizards". You used that phrase instead of "channel ops" because "channel ops" would beg the question of who they were, and then all hell would break loose, which it eventually did anyway. When I changed it to "channel lizards" you were happy because it was far easier to swallow than dealing with the truth. But that's just one example.

Now you've removed useful information on how to avoid repeating mistakes of the past and labelled it as "Editorialisation", simply because you didn't like the criticism. You did this while the page was protected in a dispute, then you upped the protection to indefinite. Then you threatened to move the page to meta where you could more effectively censor it. Please, David, take a step back and look at yourself.--Duk 16:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

The best protection is logic. The second best is discussion. Insulting dissenters does not protect, and issuing page protections in contravention of the protection policy (no request, done to prevent dissent rather than vandalism, done by the page author instead of an uninvolved administrator) is no way to achieve harmony. In fact, it is itself disruptive editing and misuse of tools. If anyone gets a wild hair and really wants this page protected, he should list the request and allow someone who didn't write the self-laudatory paean in the first place to take care of it. Until then, I have unprotected. Geogre (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just writing up a rfar, but I'll hold off and see how this holds. Thank you Geogre. --Duk 16:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't let yourself be held back.

BTW, I've asked the arbitrators (the ones that use IRC) to please hang out on the channel and deal with untoward conduct with cluebats of loving kindness as is required - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is silly

This is ridiculous. Some of our best administrators and article-writers are degenerating into simple point-of-view pushing, complete with the truth!!! and revert-warring. David Gerard is even throwing the "troll" buzzword around. All of you, knock it off, and go edit somewhere else. Or, even better, delete this stupid page and be done with it. Sean William @ 17:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the best, and possible only way to solve this dispute is to address the complaints that come here. We need a working and public mechanism to deal with mis-behaviour at the admin-IRC channel. David's censorship and foul language is not a valid alternative. --Duk 17:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, words like "censorship" are some of the most heavily abused in the POV-pusher's arsenal. I'm very bothered that respected members of our community are degenerating into what we are meant to combat. Sean William @ 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

But this is one of the few pure examples of raw censorship I've seen at wikipedia. An involved party uses admin powers to remove valid criticism, then ups the page protection to indefinite to silence further criticism. --Duk 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was an obviously bad move, and it's been undone. Let's move on. Using words like that pushes the debate back into emotional territory. If there's a solution to be found, it'll be found by putting reason ahead of emotions. Friday (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but let me just add that it's very serious stuff when a community is faced with going down that path. --Duk 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be under the delusion that policy on the channel is determined by the text on this page. That, I think, is the fundamental disconnect here: it isn't. - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you are saying that the channel is unrelated to Wikipedia and is merely a personal property of Forrester and yourself. I am fine with that as long as the page makes it clear. --Irpen 20:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not even mine, actually. I believe the page said just that in its first version, quite accurately - David Gerard (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)\

Are you talking to me David? You appear to be under the delusion that policy on the channel is determined by the text on this page. Please note that Jimbo has opened that door a crack. You really should keep abreast of these things. --Duk 17:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Very silly

Would it make sense to find out who actually runs the Wikimedia IRC channels? The Foundation has reportedly said it wants nothing to do with them (this, according to a page written by the ArbCom during one of the previous cases). Freenode has apparently said there is no formal group contact for Wikipedia, and they have a mechanism for choosing one that involves holding an election. I suggest that someone find out what the actual position is.

I've asked both James and Sean about this, but no clear answers have been forthcoming, for reasons that were as unclear as the replies. I'm currently writing an article about the jurisdictional chaos in 13th-19th century England regarding its prisons and courts, and who was responsible for which type of offender. I'm somewhat reminded of that when it comes to the IRC-Wikimedia relationship. I think we need to drag it into the clear light of the 21st century. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This page [9] says that James Forrester is the IRC Group Contact for the Wikimedia Foundation, and in that WMF-sanctioned role he is the person authorized to deal with Freenode on behalf of the Foundation.

But this page, [10] which was written by some ArbCom members, says that Freenode does not recognize a group contact for Wikipedia, and that the Foundation "does not wish to be the sponsoring organization for such a relationship." It says:

All Wikipedia-related IRC channels are served by freenode.org, a shared server operated by the Peer-Directed Projects Center, a nonprofit corporation unrelated to the Wikimedia Foundation. There have been Wikipedia-related IRC channels present at Freenode since 2002, prior to the formation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Freenode previously recognized Jdforrester as a group contact and gave him elevated chanop status for all #wikipedia-related channels. Jdforrester remains the highest-level chanop for #wikipedia-en-admins (and many other #wikipedia and WMF-related channels) by default even though he is no longer a group contact.

Freenode at present does not recognize a group contact for Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation has taken the position that it is not responsible for Wikipedia (the community) and hence does not wish to be the sponsoring organization for such a relationship. While there is the possibility that Wikipedia (the community) could forge such a relationship itself, no steps toward this have been taken ("If it's run by a larger core group or by voting across the project, the voting group should make a collective decision to register and should appoint one of their number as approving contact." Freenode page)."

Can James or Sean please say which page is correct? Is James the group contact, or is he not? If he isn't, should we hold an election to choose one? That might solve many of the IRC problems with one stroke. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently, Sean and James are recognized as the the group contacts for the Wikimedia-related projects. Cbrown1023 talk 16:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Even more

I can't fathom why this page would be deleted whilist so many tempers are flaring. While the idea of a Christmas gift is nice, reality doesn't stop for holidays. And people are still edit-warring. Sean William @ 18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea: clear the page of everything except the requests for access section and and put all of the other information off-wiki somewhere. John Reaves 18:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to put a version on meta as documentation and get it protected there against en: edit-warriors, knowing they won't be able to help themselves - David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You're part of the problem, David, being part of the "en: edit-warrior" crowd at the moment. Sean William @ 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that definitely negates what I just said - David Gerard (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You are calling names, using protection against edits (not vandalism), and now even trying to make fun of the person trying to make peace? Yes, David, we all won't be able to help ourselves, indeed. Impulse control is certainly our biggest problem. Why, just look at how many times you've been called a troll, an edit warrior, and been told that you can't help yourself just today on this page!

You know, self-awareness isn't everyone's cup of tea, I realize, but you ought to be taking a cue from other people, at least. Back off from the WP:OWN violation, or we can try to protect this at .en in the form you like least. Geogre (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreofit

Actually, I've been in favor of deletion of this page ever since I became aware of it. I see IRC channels as off-Wikipedia. I'd like to see no Wikipedia page link to any medium that is the "ownership" of a single person. I'd also like to see no page endorsing a "private" medium. I've never been to en.admins, and I won't go, because it should not have been created. I was loud enough about that at the time, and it got created without consensus, has operated contrary to Wikipedia, and now has a page written by David Gerard in praise of it. Well, deletion of the page would be a victory for me, certainly, but the Christmas truce has to be the idea of the warring parties. If Doc had deleted and not promised to restore it, I might consider it a Christmas present. In the event, though, I can't rule out the idea that some people might want to spend their holidays this way. Geogre (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, actually the way to deal with this is to join the channel. If everyone who objects to the atmosphere takes part in it, it will change; otherwise it won't. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My objection is not that nasty talk goes on there. The same people have nasty thoughts whether there or not. My objection is simply to the thing itself. A place for administrators to chat, where they can exclude the general users, is wrong. If it then is, in fact, not for administrators but for administrators and people JamesF and David Gerard like, that only makes it worse. Both of these things create an echo chamber, and they also create an atmosphere of unaccountability. I should not join it, because it should not exist. If (in passive voice, no less) we are told of how the channel is found useful to some arbs (but not most, of course) and that the rules of Wikipedia do not apply there, then all it is is SomethingAwful for James and David to play in. Even without looking at David's behavior one section up, that's enough to endorse my notion of having no links to this atrocity anywhere on Wikipedia. Geogre (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Deduction from first principles certainly beats actual facts or experience - David Gerard (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I can tell that you intend an insult, and I can see that you think it's a good one, but.... I'm sorry, David, but it just doesn't work. Oh, well. When you are prepared to use active voice and speak of the arbitrators who are on-call at en, and when you are ready to say that it is limited to the same policies as Wikipedia, then we have something to talk about. Your speculation about what I may or may not know, the level of my experience with your hobby chamber, is really something best kept private. Or, to put it in language you will endorse, "it has been found that many arbitrators, both active and former, have deprecated the use of en.admins and have expressed doubts about its usefulness, and esteemed arbitrators have been documented as having said that former administrators and administrators not from en.wikipedia should not be permitted to subscribe to the irc channel, while many other established and respected administrators have found that the channel is off topic and unuseful, while several "esteemed" former administrators who have been found to have left under a cloud have been logged calling active administrators 'arsehole' and other abusive terms, with no direct intervention having taken place from the channel's most rabid supporter." Better? That's "direct experience" for you, and I dare you to challenge it (after you've produced your own, of course). Geogre (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Need for clarity

David, in the interests of clarity, could we avoid the passive voice, and please say who has asked arbitrators to intervene? [11]

Sean or James, could one of you please come here and explain exactly what you see the Wikimedia-IRC relationship as i.e. how you came to be involved as group contacts, staffers, whatever? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked them, but it should be in the passive voice on the page - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Passive voice is cowardice. Cowards love it, and honest men and women avoid it. No guideline or policy can be formulated with passive voice. Geogre (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Hemingway would have had no truck with instruction creep and wikinomic in general. The arbs get reminded periodically by more than me that a really good way to deal with complaints about those evil bastards on -en-admins is to be visible on the beat, in the nick list. (What usually ends up from such, by the way is that while the tone of the channel doesn't change, the complaints are usually revealed as querulous. No doubt this is due to corruption, coke and hookers rather than the complaints being querulous.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... "get reminded," "are revealed".... You just love pretending that things "are found" and not that they are your opinions, it seems. Your inability to fathom the wickedness of passive voice constructions and misguided appeal to Hemingway, of all people, is entertaining, but it's not purposeful. Any time you are prepared to actually speak actively, with evidence, and any time you are prepared to edit cooperatively and not assert ownership of this page, do be sure to drop a note at my talk page. Until then, "nyah nyah" reverts are disruptive behavior and high handedness is counterproductive. Geogre (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This vendetta has to end

Geogre, Giano, et al., your vendetta with this IRC channel has to end. All it does is bring ill will when you continually fill this page with editorials based on your personal (or friends') less-than-happy experiences with the channel. Both Giano and Geogre have removed content added specifically by Jimbo to try and alleviate the tensions, but its constant removal is extremely inappropriate. I don't care what the hell started this sudden surge of yellow journalism concerning this channel, but the dispute needs to end. I know that one party is going to say that the channel should be disbanded, and the other party is going to want to keep the channel as it has use, but there needs to be a middle ground and it is not going to evolve from edit warring on this project page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a narrow comment: something is not automatically right only because it is added by Jimbo. Jimbo may be wrong too. --Irpen 20:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that he's right or wrong; he added content that said to report unbecoming conduct to ArbCom or himself. How would that content be wrong?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because it does not work. Abusive conduct was reported to Jimbo and nothing happened. So, this text in the article recommends the abused users a route that is not working. --Irpen 20:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If he only mentioned this method of discourse the other day, how is it possible that he does not plan on treating this as the method of solving future disputes?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is Arbcom supposed to do? They are not activist, they have already excluded themselves from taking action based on behaviour in IRC, and they already limit the number of "cases" they accept. Are they supposed to start some kind of proceeding for every complaint that someone was incivil in IRC? Do they not already have more than enough to do? Risker (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has no control over this channel at all, yet the channel is used to make decisions concerning wikipedia - this is not a vendetta it is an attempt to make this page an accurate report, nothing more and nothing less. Giano (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, so I see; this is confirmed by arbitrators and others during an arbitration case[12]. Risker (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when do project pages like this require an "accurate report"? This isn't an article. It's barely an essay. By all means, your edits to this page have been done to stir up drama or act in retaliation to what had happened to one of your close contacts on Wikipedia. It is most certainly a vendetta, as whenever you seem to edit outside of the article space, it relates to your disapproval of the IRC channels.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Both close friends and me have hatred and blocks whipped up against them on this channel. It needs proper policing and its members made to behave. It also needs to be purely for Admins, if it must exist at all - which I doubt! Giano (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've already managed to get one non-administrator out of the channel, but I seriously doubt that by making this page an editorial based on your personal distaste towards the channel is going to solve any problem. Why don't you contact the arbitration committee and see what they say about the other non-administrators who take up residence in the channel. You obviously have logs that show you who is there and who is and who is not an administrator.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Really and not before time, but I'm sure he will be back shortly so you won't be deprived of his comapny for too long, fear not! Care to explain why he was removed from this whiter than white channel? Giano (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually talking about someone else, someone before this recent pockmark.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Truly? who was that? I'm winning this battle to clean up Wikipedia more than I thought who was that? Giano (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I had thought you were behind her leaving a while back. Someone gloated about it towards me.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

well just goes to show you can't beleive all they tell you in that channel either, doesn't it? Giano (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the gloating was done on-site.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That "her", Rulong, was ejected only last summer many months after the Arbcom, amny months too late and many slurs too many before and after that in her personal blog. --Irpen 21:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh Kelly! That the "mystery woman". I had no idea she had been expelled - are you sure doesn't she call herself "Not-a-cow" or something there. Oh the shame for her, poor Dear. How will she survive? No that was nothing to do with me, I don't think so anyway, knowing Kelly I would think it was because she was good and ready to go. Really Ryulong you and your fellow #admins must get more into the habbit of checking facts first. Page writing is good training for this. Giano (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I write pages when the need arises in my favorite subject areas. In fact, I tend to get chastized when I block users who don't write pages, unless you count their bright pink user page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it never occur to you to wonder why this page only ever reads to #admins' satisfaction when it is protected so only they may edit it? Sad, very sad. Giano (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Could that be because you continuously add your own grievances despite their removal, leading to the protection in the first place?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Only because you think the Arbcom has some control over #admins, and there are dozens who hate the distortions of the truth on this page and edit it Giano (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate the distortion of the truth, that's why I reverted. _→AzaToth 23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• So I see [13] but actually you would be better advised following this edit [14]. Giano (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's mostly a result of a technically that deadminned people have still access to the channel, and as because of that it would be questionable to selectivly remove non-admins, if not all of them where removed. But it's generally agreed that only admins and above should be there _→AzaToth 00:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm frankly quite dismayed at the way this page has been revert warred over of late. I think that has to stop. That's different than saying that all is right with the channel, or that the page ought to be revised to be clearer on some points. This is not the place to decide about who has channel eligibility but I'm ready to support no non en:wp admins having access, even if that means we lose some good counsel, because it just does seem like a good idea to me that things change that way. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems kind of silly that non-admins are in the admins channel, making things unpleasant so that admins don't want to take part in it, or can't take part in it because they can't get access. Either open it up entirely (i.e. abolish it), or allow it to be a channel for all and only en:wp admins. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

When have there been admins denied access? --John Reaves 02:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Admins not liked by Kelly Martin have been kicked from the channel. This has happened to FloNight and to me. I even had my access removed, apparently, and Sean won't tell me who did it (I only found out about it because Kelly Martin boasted about it on IRC). Other admins have difficulty getting cloaks, waiting several months and sometimes giving up. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're aware that you have your access back and that Kelly no longer has access? I can't really say anything as far as the cloaks go. --John Reaves 02:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, but only because I made enquiries. Otherwise, I'd have carried on assuming there was something wrong with my IRC client or computer, and would have continued to spend hours trying to fix it. That's how poisonous this situation is. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree non enwp admins should not have access UNLESS of course they resigned uncontroversially (yes, that includes me). I too have had problems with a certain non admin who has access there, but since he shares his cloak name with a former arbitrator he retains access to the channel with high level access, and often makes use of it inappropriately. In general, there is no reason why non admins (i.e. those who have never been an admin on enwp) should have/need access. Having been a participant in the channel myself for nearly a year, maybe 90% of the conversation was off topic chatter, with maybe 1% being really contentious stuff. If any non admin really wanted access, they should run for adminship. Majorly (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

For clarity and fairness it may be best to be pretty bright lined about it. My proposal: If you're not currently an en-wp admin, you're not allowed access. Period. Regardless of why that is (never stood, temporarily turned off, voluntarily turned off, involuntarily turned off, etc...) Taking such an approach avoids any arguments about whether one resigned under a cloud or not, whether one's latest RfA almost succeeded, was deferred while succeeding, was deferred while in the process of failing, or failed outright, what various 'crats said about whether you were or weren't eligible to get your bit turned on again, etc... Avoid all that, it's way simpler. It's very regrettable that excludes you, Majorly, as I do think you have good counsel to offer, but as I said, "no non en:wp admins having access, even if that means we lose some good counsel"... ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A group of admins can get together and start a chatroom at any number of places. This place already has a large audience, and is monitored by a number of arbitrators. It would seem that the way to deal with incivility in the channel is by social pressure, and if that fails, to boot the offending party. If people don't like the channel, they can vote with their feet (or fingers), and set up a competing forum. From my perspective, IRC is a convenient way to hunt down certain users when I want to ask them a question. It's faster and easier than email, but logically equivalent. Jehochman ^Talk 04:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. I am not in the camp that says that all off-wiki communication is prima facie bad. Merely in the camp that says that it should not be a substitute for on-wiki consensus except in certain very very prescribed circumstances. (Matters directly involving the Foundation being one exception... criminal investigations being another but the list is very short...) ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How easy would it be for someone who has never used IRC (me, say) to go to freenode and ask to set up a channel called #wikipedia-administrators and effectively try to set up a serious (non-chatter) channel that really would be just for admins? Could someone else more au fait with IRC do this? Is it possible to get #admins renamed to avoid the misleading impression the name gives? If it really is 99% chatter, then there should be a channel that is 100% serious. Still have the chatter channel for IRC regulars, but keep a clear and open channel where people are expected to be serious. Is that too much to ask? Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As a first step, you could login to the existing channel and see what it is. The technical challenge of creating a new channel is trivial. The social challenge of getting people to use it will be a much more significant hurdle. Without the chatter, the channel might be awfully quiet and probably nobody would bother to login. Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(I think it was) Mackenson tried just this, last year. A new channel was set up, with the guideline that it was for serious business only, that civility norms would be enforced, and a number of other good things called for here. It was invite only, but was not restricted to admins... Unfortunately it did not reach critical mass while competing alongside the old one and I believe the experiment was discontinued. I think it was called #wikipedia-en-functionaries ... someone that remembers better than I is welcome to correct me. I personally don't think that inane chatter is necessarily bad either. What is bad is collusion to subvert consensus. It's insular and we have enough of that on wiki. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

is it not possible to be logged into more than one channel simultaneously? I have used similar set-ups in other areas, and that is possible there. You would have a "chatter" area to draw people in and create critical mass, while the low-level traffic from the other channel would (for those who had access) pop up in a different colour. Those admins who like using IRC could chatter to their heart's content with admins and non-admins, and then deal with serious stuff in the other channel as and when it happened. I suppose the problem there would be that people would disappear off to "consult with trusted friends in the other channel", and then return with a groupthink solution. But it would succeed to a certain extent in keeping the chatter and the serious stuff separated. Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I was one of the few people ever to use that other channel. It had few members and hardly any discussion was ever held there when I was present, while at the same time the admins channel was very busy.

You can easily use several channels at once on IRC, but there is still competition in the sense that the channel with the larger number of members tends to have a better atmosphere and there are more eyes around to see and discuss matters whereas the same opening comments made on a relatively empty channel seem to go into dead air (which is not conducive to conversational gambits). It is the case that most serious admin-related discussion on the channel is indistinguishable from "chatter" and is conducted by the same people who a minute ago might have been chatting about the weather in Portugal. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The COI vendetta must end

The edits of Jimbo are no more sacred than those by an IP, especially if, as the page says, IRC is not controlled by WikiMedia. To say so is, yet nauseatingly again, to try to have it both ways -- to say that this property of JamesF and David Gerard's is special and sacred and Important, and yet to say that it separate and under separate control and not answerable to anyone but them. Say one or say the other. Make it Wikipedia, and be ruled by ArbCom's findings, institute dispute resolution, or do not, but do not ask Wikipedia to advertise your playground.

It brings bad blood and a rotten image to all of you who editorialize by making a page that sings your own praises, and when you revert, over and over again, without once (not once) discussing the issues with the people editing the page. I have scarcely ever seen a group behaving as stupidly as those reverting changes to David Gerard's RIGHTVERSION in all my time on Wikipedia. If any of you were experienced with Wikipedia, you would know that a situation like this demands dialogue, not clinging desperately to the self-congratulations of David Gerard's passive voice infested prose.

I have always thought the only solution was deletion of this page. Look above and see David Gerard talking of deleting it and putting a protected version at Meta so that he can have his way. Look at his use of protection to have his way. Look at the frivolous and vexatious RfAR brought today. Look at the shocking lack of discussion and the staggering proliferation of threats, and then please, please, please tell me who has a "vendetta." Geogre (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, this does not look like a change to "verb mood". Everyone is acting really inappropriately with this page. Users of the channel are not the only ones editorializing. The individuals who oppose the channel are adding their own yellow journalistic touches to slights that had happened to them or their close contacts through the channel. It's obvious that there are a handful of people who have vocally opposed the channel's existance. You, Giano, Irpen, MrWhich, just to name a few that have shown up in the threads concerning this whole dispute. Edits that add unnecessary drama are the reason that a case has been brought up to ArbCom to examine user conduct, instead of the channel as before.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it, and yet, amazingly, it is a change in verb mood. Look up at "This is silly," above, where David Gerard speaks in, of, and for the passive voice. See there my denunciation of the passive voice. See the passive voiced admission that it is bad form. See in history my edit and then its replacement without discussion in the midst of replacing other changes. My conclusion has to be that whoever removed it did not remove it for cause, but rather as part of an edit war. Therefore, I returned to eliminate the passive voice passage that replaced my edit. That's it. Geogre (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is nuts. Removed editorializing. This is an article in the Wikipedia namespace, not a personal essay. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, Jossi: it is a personal essay, written by David Gerard, protected by David Gerard, and reverted multiple times by David Gerard. Furthermore, calling my edit "editorializing" without calling the original "editorializing" is what's nuts. Saying that "Foundation" does not "wish" to regulate the behavior on en.admins is 1) a lie, 2) an editorial opinion. It is stated in the passive and impersonal to trick readers, and that's what makes it most obviously and clearly inappropriate. Any proof that "Foundation" "wants?" I thought the Foundation was an organization. Any evidence for my position? You betcha. Furthermore, I state mine quite specifically. Do we want to cite prior efforts to regulate the misbehavior and private ownership of en.admins? It's been done (and reverted, in favor of "this is not happening, and it has never happened, because en.admins is wonderful"). No, Jossi, what you are "removing" is not editorializing. What you were restoring is. Geogre (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why User:Geogre/IRC considered exists for you to work on, Geogre.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a COI-riven vanity page that David Gerard hasn't the grace to keep in his user space. However, you are correct in pointing out that I should never have been so moderate, considerate, and modest in keeping my essay in user space. I should have put it in namespace and then protected it. It seems to be all the rage. Give me a single reason why this article should exist in namespace. Geogre (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. We have User:Geogre/IRC considered and User:Kylu/IRC (possibly others as well). With the best will in the world, I would humbly suggest that IRC chanops and channel owners should write their own essays, and that the non-involved arbitration committee members be the ones to write (initial drafts at least, for) Wikipedia:IRC channels and Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins and other subpages. Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC will be known to many here, and could be a starting point. Oh joy. The incoming Arbs will have a chance to add their say. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC is misnamed... (unless there has been a change I'm not aware of) see Wikipedia_talk:IRC_channels/Personal_views_regarding_IRC#Movement_of_page. Only arbitrators can post their views there, and oddly, attempts to make that clear, or to change it, got reverted. For those that wish to see mine, refer to User:Lar/IRC. I'd love to see a consolidated page that lists everyone's essays. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a category of user essays and a link at the bottom of this page to the category (rather than any particular essay)? Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and set this up. I'll discuss in a new section. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection has been requested

You know what - it is really pitiful to see admins and editors who all should know better edit warring on this page. There's already an RFAR. People have already been blocked. I don't care which side of the fence anyone is sitting right now - all of you cut it out. I have asked for page protection, and have pointed out the recent history. Nobody who is involved in the case to this point should be involved in the protection - and I certainly hope no administrators choose to edit the page even so much as to fix a comma when it is protected. Risker (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - okay, folks. I'm a regular WP:RPP patroller, as many of you will know. I've not, to my knowledge, ever edited the article before. I've no interest in who-did-what-to-which-revision but I know an out of control article when I see one. This needs to stop. To that end, I've fully protected the article against editing for a period of a week. This is no more nor no less than I would do with any other article and, as with anything other dispute, please, please work towards consensus on the talk page here. All of you should know this stuff already. If there are any changes to be made in the interim, please use the {{editprotected}} template here so everyone can see it and judge accordingly and, hopefully, a neutral admin can hop in an do what's needed. If anyone does otherwise, I'll be less than impressed - you all know the rules - Alison ^❤ 09:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

I've set up a category for user essays, including the arbitrators' essay page. Please see Category:User essays on IRC and add any more user essays you are aware of. I've also taken the liberty of adding the category and the subpages of the main page as new section at Wikipedia:IRC channels. Conveniently, this isn't protected. Please, please, please don't spread the edit war over there. Those editing here might want to consider whether to add a link to various user essays or not. Carcharoth (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. Thanks for adding mine. I suggest making the last link have some explanatory text that those are the views of ArbCom members, and not that of others. ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it might be better to work out a way of integrating Jimbo's policy statement below into the main page and this subpage. Any ideas for wording to discuss before the protection expires? Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see it is already there. What was this edit war about, again? <confused> Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement of policy in an attempt to end this edit warring

Notice particularly for: Giano II, Geogre, Irpen, Jouster.

You may consider this a statement of policy. I consider it well within the overall remit of the Arbitration Committee and my own traditional role in the English Wikipedia community to have authority over IRC as necessary. If this is a policy change (I do not think so) then it is a policy change. In any event, this page should reflect the fact that from this day forward, concerns about standards of civility in IRC should be taken up with the channel operators, the Arbitration Committee, and me, in that order. Additionally, as David Gerard has said, I am encouraging individual Arbs to frequent the channel and to assist other users with gentle (or not, as necessary) reminders that it is to be a civil working channel and that individual conflicts should be taken elsewhere and that behavior in the channel should be at all times undertaken in a spirit of collegial kindness and collaboration.

A small "constitutional" note is perhaps worthy here. Whether "the Foundation" chooses to take an interest in IRC or not has little import here. My authority and the authority of the ArbCom does not derive from the Foundation directly but from the longstanding historical traditions of our community.

There is a perceived problem with IRC. My view is that the problem is mostly "perceived" only. Are there individual instances of bad behavior in IRC? Of course. There are individual instances of bad behavior on the wiki, too. (For example, this absurd edit war, including reverting my own statement of policy and calling it "lies"!) Do we always ban people from the wiki for a transgression? No, and indeed we often tolerate egregious misbehavior from some very brittle people due to our deep respect for their encyclopedic contributions. Do we always ban people from IRC for a transgression? No, often times an apology is considered sufficient. The full context must be taken into account in all cases.

In any event, rest assured: IRC is not a rogue channel. It is a fundamental part of the way we conduct our work, and I fully support it as an incredibly valuable tool. I encourage those who are concerned about what goes on in IRC to simply join it, make some friends, and participate in a spirit of loving harmony. I think you will see that the fears you have, based on having seen some isolated logs of unfortunate arguments that went out of control, are mostly unfounded but that yes, sometimes bad things happen in IRC. Sometimes bad things happen on the wiki. Sometimes bad things happen in life. This is the human condition.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So your statement on solving the problems with the private, rogue IRC channel is to encourage people to join it? The channel is private - those who are most concerned with IRC conduct are not allowed access to the channel. You miss the point - sometimes bad things happen in life, and they can be dealt with by law or other forms of punishment. Sometimes bad things happen on the Wiki, but the Wiki has ways of dealing with those problems. The IRC channel has been shown to not have any ramifications outside of losing access to the channel - something that has also been shown to not occur, given who still has access. --Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff, you are simply wrong about the facts. The IRC channel is not rogue at all. It is a good channel that some people have been saying bad things about. And there is a functioning system for dealing with problems that works pretty well. Could it be improved? Of course. But this panic about IRC is entirely unjustified.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, Jimbo, I'm not "simply wrong" about the facts, far from it. That the channel acts as a rogue influence on the project is not really a question. As for "a functioning system for dealing with problems," that's not true at all - the system does not work as it has been attempted again and again with zero results - legitimate admin channel logs have been forwarded to you and arbcom on numerous occasions with no reprisals or action. Exactly how many back-channel, off-wiki, secret/private situations need to occur before the leadership here stops saying that we were never at war with Eurasia? --Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(off-topic) Jeff, good to see you again. Any chance of your doing a little article work while you're back? :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

None. --Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Shame. Some of us miss you. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I am having some difficulty with your idea here; I don't want to say it is a bad idea, because it has some good features, but there are some pretty big holes here. First off, you talk about encouraging arbitrators to be more present in the channel. Well, several of them are already chanops, which implies those individuals have accepted at least a degree of responsibility for keeping an eye on the channel from time to time - except that one of those arbitrators has just written on my talk page that he rarely goes into the channel at all, and thus has so little contact with it that he should not be expected to recuse. In fairness to the individual arbitrators and to the Arbcom as a whole, I am not sure that patrolling IRC channels is what they signed up to do, or that the members of our highest level of dispute resolution should be expected to babysit a chatroom. No doubt 99.95% of the disputes that arise there are far below the level that would normally be brought to Arbcom's attention; even the behaviour on which this current dispute is centred would be unlikely to be considered serious enough for the committee to investigate. Unless Arbcom was to be restructured and expanded, there really aren't enough members to do everything that seems to be heading in their direction. Risker (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think constant patrolling by arbcom is desirable or necessary. The channel is just fine. There is a huge amount of brouhaha, but keep in mind: the brouhaha that caused this current disruption is a short argument that happened in the channel more than a year ago. The people who are claiming that the channel is a den of iniquity are just mistaken about that. It's a good channel, and it serves a good purpose, and I fully support it. People who have not been able to behave themselves repeatedly have been kicked from the channel permanently. Did it take too long in some cases? Sure. It often takes too long on the wiki, too, we all know that. Indeed, as we have seen in this particular edit war, editors who contribute a lot of good encyclopedic content can sometimes get away with quite a bit of drama on-wiki, and we all understand that, *sigh*, it is part of the process and hard to deal with effectively.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It didn't happen a year ago, it happened less than a week ago. Tony does admittedly go on and on, IMO quite inappropriately, about a piece of ancient history from a year ago, which makes the whole thing seem "old": but what you call the the brouhaha happened on December 22, 2007. I know you have better things to do at Christmas, as do we all, but please take another look at the logs I sent you, and the link I supplied, Jimbo. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

There is a way to deal with it effectively, Jimbo. The problem is the constant defense of the indefensible we're seeing time and time again here. --Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Making friends in some chat room can't help the wiki in any way I can see. We've seen some instances of how it hurts the Wiki. Because of its non-public nature and the greater tolerance for bad behavior in there, the chat rooms appear to help divide editors up into little high-school-type cliques moreso than the wiki does. The wiki works much better when we don't try to make friends (or enemies). Not having friends or enemies helps us deal with disputes rationally- we consider the merits of individual situations, rather than simply looking at which side our perceived friends or enemies are on. Can someone explain why we'd want to encourage cliquishness? I thought pretty much everyone agreed that it's harmful. So before we go spreading ourselves thinner and doing extra work to police this other venue, should we not ask ourselves why? What value does it bring that we cannot better achieve on the wiki? We already spend considerable time dealing with bad behavior on-wiki- why would we borrow trouble by also trying to police some chat room? I personally have no time for it, as nobody has ever been able to explain to me how some chat room helps build an encyclopedia. I remember hearing the "just get more people in there and it'll be better" idea a couple years ago. Apparently it hasn't worked yet.. what makes us believe it'll magically work better now? Friday (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the channel works just fine, and it is absolutely not true that there is "greater tolerance for bad behavior" in there than on-wiki. Giano II removed a statement by *me* from this page with the comment that it is a "pack of lies"... and until he broke 3RR by making 6 reverts in a day, nothing happened to him, and even then it was only a slap on the wrist. He'd have been quite properly kicked from the admins channel on IRC for that, long before. If there is anywhere that we tolerate far too much bad behavior, it is here on the wiki.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree - bad behaviour gets roundly stomped on or censured in en-admins from my observation. Re cliquishness, there's new people getting signed in every week and they mostly stick around. I don't think of people as my friends simply because I talk to them on a chat channel instead of an email or a discussion page - is one friends with everyone one works with in a workplace? Orderinchaos 23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy, your permanent effort to promote wikilove is legendary (I am not a least bit sarcastic here) but sometimes it gets out of step. I am particularly talking about instances when you try to answer genuine concerns about truly grievous matters with the wikilove talk. We all love you too, Jimmy. You are a great guy and all but don't pretend you are so out of the loop because it undermines your message greatly.

The channel does not "work just fine" even though there is nothing wrong with most of what goes on there. It is the remainder from this most is what's horrific and needs to be put an end to. Could be that you are indeed so busy with doing all these great things you do that you truly can't know? Anyway, in information space the perception is the reality. The channel as it exists now is the single worst detriment of this project, your lovely invention. I am not sure how you can help because the channel owners, Forrester and Gerard, not you or ArbCom, control the buttons, but if you want to try, please leave this state of denial and get real. TIA, --Irpen 00:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bit confused as I believe User:Mark and User:Dmcdevit run the channel and have done for most of this year. In reality the general way things work is that people who already know each other well enough to, for example, plan an attack would have each other's emails, MSN or other messenger details etc or even just start their own private channel away from prying eyes on IRC and would be able to coordinate without any scrutiny at all. (I still don't believe, as a regular of the channel, that this happens anywhere near as much as some claim, but I am putting the point to make the case.) Isn't it better to have it where some of our best users can call them out as acting inappropriately and perhaps even act on it? Also, I think attempts to cabal in an open space often backfire anyway - there's that many opinions represented in there that you're as likely to corral the opposition as the supporters if you were to try. Orderinchaos 10:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Jimbo, trying to rule and label your statements fiat contradicts everything you have previously said. Secondly, you have previously been in favor of consensus before any thing gets called "Wikipedia," and yet here you are saying that this channel, with its narrow ownership (not regulation) is ok, because you say so, and that is a 180 degree turn from your previous practice, but it is, more importantly, a 180 degree turn from Wikipedia practice.
• However, I ask you or anyone to point to any place where "dispute resolution for IRC" is documented and how Wikipedia would have any ability to set such a thing up. David Gerard has said that IRC has no need to listen to ArbCom, that it isn't ruled by Wikipedia's policies, and that this particular channel is answerable only to JamesF and him.
• I ask you to look back at the findings of the RfAr frequently called "the Giano affair." In the response to that, two things happened: I wrote an essay examining the inherent advantages and limitations of IRC, and David Gerard wrote this page directly as if it were policy. It has never gotten an approval process. It never got working out on talk pages. It never got announced at Village Pump. Mine was designed to get consensus before moving to namespace. This was just David's conflict of interest/vanity page, but it got "Wikipedia" in front of it for no reason but his own desire.
• Please confirm that you are now saying that policy pages do not need consensus, do not need approval, do not need to be worked out, do not need input from dissenters, and I will walk away from this project for good. Tell us that we're all working for a boss, or a set of bosses, and I won't be the only one.
• Until this page has an approval process, every editor has an equal right to an edit with its author. Once it does go through the approval process, then it will be a policy page. Right now, it's just David Gerard's opinion of himself and his hobby. Geogre (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How to obtain access

I see that the section currently says "...administrators are technically entitled to entry to the channel, though in practice some are made unwelcome". Is this true? Doesn't sound to friendly :) Can't we all get along per Jimbo's advice above :) Cheers, --Tom 19:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a wide variety of people join, and have not heard of anyone being excluded. I find that IRC is a good way to privately contact somebody with whom I've had an argument and try to smooth things over. Jehochman ^Talk 22:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's true. I wrote that bit. I have formal access to the channel, but have in fact been made unwelcome, by some ops as well as some habitual chatters on the channel, and have now foresworn it. Compare this recent request for arbitration, where I think you will also find some examples of admins who have (for obscure reasons or none) not been admitted at all. The article is supposed to be descriptive, not "friendly". And Jehochman, I believe you're talking about wikipedia "IRC" in general, not the en-admins channel specifically. Users don't have to be admins in order to try to "smooth things over", do they? Bishonen | talk 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

I guess I should have said "Is that sourceable?" since Wikipedia is not about the "truth", but about reliably sourced material. Anyways, thanks --Tom 14:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so. I am sorry you feel unwelcome, and hope that ArbCom will take steps to ensure that you have access free of further harassment. Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole point was that ArbCom couldn't do that. But maybe they can now, given Jimbo's statement above. It seems though that such policing for harassment on IRC will require 24h logging and submitting of said logs to ArbCom as private evidence. That may have a chilling effect on the frankness of discussion in the channels, but if it makes people watch what they say, then this may be what it takes. One problem might be a lot more people pressing to have IRC-logged conversations admitted as evidence in ArbCom cases. Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

One potential problem - what is to stop people reverting to private message, MSN or whatever to conduct the same ends, assuming that is their purpose? Then it's completely beyond scrutiny and all the worse for Wikipedia. I'd rather have it the way it is, with what we could call the Jimbo clause. Orderinchaos 00:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a distraction. Frequently, people say, "Well, people can always use chat." Yes, people can. No, it won't be called "Wikipedia," and it won't have anything like the numbers. It's true that a small group can coordinate, of course, but that's no reason to allow something with our name on it that has no regulation, no ability to achieve dispute resolution on Wikipedia, and has a page encouraging new and inexperienced admins to come learn from the pro's how to behave badly. Geogre (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I use the channel and have found it a friendly and welcoming place. I've also told new admins of my acquaintance they should sign up, and they've tended to find the same and stick around. There's a lot of banter in there but not a lot of cabal action, contrary to some of the rather interesting stuff I've seen said on ArbCom cases by aggrieved users and the like. If someone was to try and start that sort of stuff up, there are enough people on there of sufficient stature and respect in the Wiki community that ArbCom would find out pretty quickly without even having to ask. Also, just because someone is in the admins channel doesn't mean they agree with everything that goes on or everything other participants do - if someone does something monumentally stupid or even just highly contentious, other en-admins users, either on IRC or on wiki, will call them out on it. It's an inevitable product of the growth of the encyclopaedia that what used to be able to be discussed on, say, AN/I would be absolutely impossible today due to the signal-to-noise ratio and that's the reason why other semi- or pseudo-official forums have sprung up. Orderinchaos 23:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As another perspective - I tried to get involved with the channel a few times after the major blowups about nastiness and alleged mis-use. There were occasional incivil comments, but even then I'd have called it a little better than Wikipedia in general... and it improved as people made concerted efforts to counter some of the things which had gone on before. I followed it for a couple of weeks on two or three different occasions, but never stuck around and haven't been there in months... for whatever reason it just doesn't appeal to me. Frankly, I found it painfully dull. The regular participants seem to love it though, so more power to them.

Of course, any sleight 'behind closed doors' is going to generate conflict orders of magnitude greater than exactly the same thing in a public forum. There is inevitably a perception of people 'conspiring behind your back' when you find out that you have been criticized where you cannot challenge the claims. I've always thought publicly available logs, like Carcharoth describes above, would go a LONG way to alleviate such concerns AND prevent people from being nasty on the channel. The standard complaint is 'confidential information', but I've been on the channel... that came up RARELY, was even then usually handled in private chat between a handful of people OFF the channel, and could easily be redacted from the public logs if needed. So long as what goes on in the channel is 'secret' people are going to be suspicious of it and furious about the least unkind word against them. That's human nature and hardly something they can be faulted for. If complaints are being made about a person they should be told and should be able to respond. Otherwise they'll always feel like they are being rail-roaded... and sometimes they'll even be right. Conflict over the channel will inevitably continue so long as that fundamental 'truth' of human behaviour is ignored. --CBD 23:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

When the channel was proposed, I asked, repeatedly, why we needed to have differential access to IRC. I'm not exaggerating. I kept asking what it was, exactly, that we needed to discuss without the "regular" editors present. No one ever offered an answer. This was before BLP existed, before OFFICE existed, etc. Now, of course, BLP and OFFICE are retroactively offered as the rationale for the channel, but, when the thing came into being, nothing was even offered as a reason that there had to be a channel, except that wikipedia.irc was crowded and off topic. I have precisely the same question today that I had then: why would we open up such mistrust? What extremely powerful need offsets the very powerful need to be open and free? If we simply look logically at disadvantages vs. advantages, the case is a "slam dunk" against the channel. That said, any mediation of access ("not an admin, but I like him"/"an admin, but I don't like the way he talks"/"not an en admin, but an admin at meta") strips the mask away entirely and really amplifies the problems, and, again, without a word of justification for why it should be this way. Geogre (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The channel was originally created....

This sentence: The channel was originally created by Talrias for Danny to deal with urgent living biography issues doesn't seem to be backed up by any diffs I can find. [15], [16], [17], [18]. I think the sentence needs to be adjusted to something more generic (or removed I guess) unless there are other conversations that include BLP considerations as the channel was created. RxS (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now we are looking at the statements? Not aimed at you RxS, of course, but it's taking all this before people are becoming aware that the page was, exactly as I said and as Giano demonstrated, inaccurate, poorly written, and inappropriate. Good luck on making any changes to the text, though.

To be specific, though, the channel was created to create a less crowded channel. I recall precisely the proposal and the debate. There was a spectacular lack of consensus, but it tended to be consensus against the creation of any such channel. It got created anyway. When it was created, the way to access it was invitation-only. Therefore, no one even know who was on it, how access had been granted, or anything else.

There have been no announced changes to the way the place runs. This page is as much as there is, and it "has been written" with all sorts of evasive language, vagueness, and inaccuracy. All I did, for my part, was take away some of the "it has been found" self-congratulation and insert some cautionary language. However, because en.admins.irc is #1 not for admins, #2 not for en. admins, #3 not subject to Wikipedia policies, apparently only those who spend their time happy there are "experts" on it. (This is the logic, incidentally, of the CEO who wants to preserve "his" page on his company. He tells us that he alone really knows how great his company is, so he should get to write the page and have no changes made to the text.) Geogre (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points Geogre about the lack of consensus. As I remember it, as soon as people began questioning the channel's closed nature[19], Danny got really nasty; the discussion stopped and the channel was set up in secret by the next day, with only certain people invited. --Duk 22:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, anyone connected to Freenode can get the access list for any channel by entering /msg chanserv access #channel-name list. --bainer (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so, especially with the admin channel. Since it's private, the list is only available to people on the list. Majorly (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, Bainer, my last point is that, so far as anyone who does not go there knows, the channel operates now precisely as it did then. Now, of course I know that things have changed, and I also know why, but we can't say, "Now it's open, so it was never not." Also, as Majorly says, that openness is actually illusory. Finally, though, it should never be an issue! Had the doggone thing been reasoned out and been set up transparently, there'd be no question. If access came with the administrator's status and were lost with it as well, if it were for en. administrators, then no one would be saying, "Who has access?" However, Duk is right: those in favor of the channel were not making headway against the questions and weren't answering them, either, and then the channel simply existed, as if there had been fiat chat! uttered.

Why, oh why, does Wikipedia talk about off-Wikipedia passtimes by only some, selected, persons? If it were Wikipedian, it would have needed consensus, and it would have had at least minimal guidelines and consequences set up. Now, I have not unilaterally deleted this page, but I have been tempted, many times, to "userfy" it. Namespace is for policy, and policy for Wikipedia, and then when there is open editing and consensus forming. This page does not qualify. Geogre (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection expired

The recent week-long protection has expired. I'm removing the protection tag, but leaving a note here to remind people that there was recently a prolonged and extensive edit war here, and that it is best to edit the page with caution, preferably discussing on the talk page before making any potentially controversial edits. See the arbitration case for details. Carcharoth (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I never saw any evidence that IP editors were working at this page, nor that the page had been vandalized. Protection was inappropriate, and I believe it was aimed at a single user. I'm glad that it has expired. Geogre (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For the record, that single user has stated that they have no intention of ever editing this page again. For now, though, would you let previously uninvolved editors help guide discussion and make any additions? I suggest that only the most uncontroversial changes are made (if even those), and that opinions are actively sought from the people who previously commented on this talk page (those who didn't use the talk page have only themselves to blame - they can join the discussion at any time). Effectively a mediation between those who participated on this talk page. And please, no reverts without talk page discussion or at least a talk page note. Maybe an agreement to stick to WP:1RR? I'd say WP:0RR, but that might be going too far. Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, well, you can see Bishonen's evidence (provided it's still there) and mine. Only a renewed example of misbehavior made the errors here worth changing. I've never been big on editing the page. I prefer that it merely be deleted, and I can make a good argument for it. Jimbo issued a fiat, but that was brand new. If we are to have a description of the channel, then I think we'd be far, far, far better starting from scratch than from this. I'd prefer, myself, to have nothing on Wikipedia telling users how neato an unregulated IRC channel is, whether it's this one or the general .en.wikipedia one. If ArbCom asserts regulation over misbehavior at IRC, then we should start from essay, to guideline, with consensus over content at every step. (Has anyone figured out what's actually wrong with user:Geogre/IRC considered?) Geogre (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is very weak

As a description, guideline, policy whatever for the use of the admin irc channel, this is not that great. Were I minded to get involved in an adminish sort of way, I don't think I'd go there. If the channel is going to be a useful part of the en.wikipedia it needs a) a better description of what and how it benifits admins and the project, and b) community consensus on how it should run. At a miniumum. If we don't want those things, we should dump this page and be much firmer about admin actions taken with limited explainations on wiki. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1