User:Ryan Postlethwaite/-en-admins

[2008-02-26 04:11:05]  a few folks have held back asking what's been going on with irc and the -ops channel in the background. A lot of the initial head-banging's been done - thanks. If discussion'd be useful it'd be fine, and probably merit wider discussion. [2008-02-26 04:11:44] -->| Flyguy649 (n=chatzill@wikipedia/Flyguy649) has joined #wikipedia-en-admins [2008-02-26 04:12:09]  if anyone wants, its now well within "useful discussion" mode :) [2008-02-26 04:13:31] |<-- bainer_away has left freenode ("ChatZilla 0.9.79 [Firefox 2.0.0.12/2008020121]") [2008-02-26 04:14:13] ? [2008-02-26 04:15:13]  ? == yes | no | what the heck | ? [2008-02-26 04:15:17]  :) [2008-02-26 04:15:36]  im a bit confused by that too, FT2 (by your comment) [2008-02-26 04:15:45]  nodz [2008-02-26 04:16:06]  bascially, does anyone want to discuss how #wikipedia-en-admins should be run? [2008-02-26 04:16:07]  Some activity has gone on in the background on irc, this last month or so. [2008-02-26 04:16:24]  hello Ryan [2008-02-26 04:16:24]  Ryanpostlethwait - into the ground? [2008-02-26 04:16:27] -->| jossi (n=jossif@wikipedia/jossi) has joined #wikipedia-en-admins [2008-02-26 04:16:29]  its involved talk with james, sean, david... drafting of a page that was briefly topic'ed a few days back... discussion of many things [2008-02-26 04:16:30]  hey MZM [2008-02-26 04:16:37]  I think quite a few people were interested in discussing it [2008-02-26 04:16:39]  mostly in the background [2008-02-26 04:17:07]  Ryan, listen. You know damn well - if too many restrictions are put on use of the channel.... another form of communication will materialize [2008-02-26 04:17:33]  now that its now not completely clueless chaos, its possible to discuss if folks who were aware, wanted to know roughly what was all going on and such [2008-02-26 04:17:39] what'sup? [2008-02-26 04:17:39] <FT2> no.. [2008-02-26 04:17:46] <FT2> its not actually a change that much, to clarify [2008-02-26 04:17:52] <Ryanpostlethwait> Dragonfly6-7: I'm not saying anything :-) There aren't going to be loads of restrictions at all - just basic, common sense things that we should all know to abide by [2008-02-26 04:17:56] <FT2> but will help to recap [2008-02-26 04:18:29] <FT2> in practice whats important to emphasize is, the channel -- to those who know it -- actually works pretty well. Theres almost no bans, few real dramas, and not many issues. [2008-02-26 04:18:37] <FT2> So its not a proposal to "change stuff" [2008-02-26 04:18:47] <FT2> but worth starting at the start. [2008-02-26 04:19:14] <Ryanpostlethwait> we certainly aren't suggesting banning anyone that mentions a user in here [2008-02-26 04:19:15] <FT2> Like the wiki, IRC's grown up over the years. [2008-02-26 04:19:24] <Ryanpostlethwait> just that discussion should remain civil [2008-02-26 04:19:29] <FT2> but the old hands who used to be very incvolved, like James, aren;'t much round [2008-02-26 04:19:37] <Ryanpostlethwait> if you'd say it in here, you should be prepared to say it on-wiki [2008-02-26 04:19:44] <MrZ-man> can we be uncivil if we negate it with emoticons? [2008-02-26 04:19:47] <FT2> ryan... tis ok... :) [2008-02-26 04:19:58] <MrZ-man> You asshole :) [2008-02-26 04:20:14] <Ryanpostlethwait> MrZ-man: Works fine you idiot XD [2008-02-26 04:20:15] <FT2> theres a historic issue that because bad stuff did happen here, a lot of people not in this channel have doubts and suspicions [2008-02-26 04:20:17] <Ryanpostlethwait> :-) [2008-02-26 04:20:23] <FT2> the channel actually works damn well [2008-02-26 04:20:25] <Zscout370> FT2: would an admin refusing to talk to anyone about anything grounds for a desysop? [2008-02-26 04:20:29] <FT2> its good, stable, calm, sensible [2008-02-26 04:20:50] <FT2> (hang on zc... or PM) [2008-02-26 04:22:15] <FT2> as part of the irc case, two issues came to light, that are more, reflections on traditional stuff, than reflections on the channel chat and users itself [2008-02-26 04:22:18] <Ryanpostlethwait> nobody has anything to worry about here, we just want to make it clear to everyone what is expected, and to be honest, I can't really recall an incident that would have required a channel ban [2008-02-26 04:22:27] <LaraLove> I like this channel. [2008-02-26 04:22:37] <Zscout370> I can vent to other admins [2008-02-26 04:22:45] <FT2> ryuan - tis okay.,.. :) [2008-02-26 04:22:50] <Ryanpostlethwait> but the ops might be a little more active asking people to calm down a little, or to consider taking up issues on wiki [2008-02-26 04:22:58] <LaraLove> And if I say something about someone here and I get asked about it, yep, I said it. And I'll say it on wiki. [2008-02-26 04:23:35] <FT2> first... historically, the channel's been run by its users (users/chanops)... and ultimately run by james 9and deputy) [2008-02-26 04:23:59] <FT2> so you have this (users) --> (some one or other group who do stuff) --> (james and deputy) [2008-02-26 04:24:28] <FT2> the middle bit's never really been defined, except for "james sort of sorts it out" [2008-02-26 04:24:46] <FT2> but that middle bit has responsibility for chanop issues... and james clearly isnt doing it right now [2008-02-26 04:25:01] <FT2> which means non-admins and people not here dont know where to go if there were some issue, for reassurance [2008-02-26 04:25:04] <FT2> second thing... [2008-02-26 04:25:11] <FT2> irc runs well now (here) [2008-02-26 04:25:18] <FT2> but the outside world doesnt knowq it [2008-02-26 04:25:40] <FT2> we're like in wikipedia in the old days, "dont be a dick" and "no real rules otherwise" [2008-02-26 04:25:50] <FT2> we have our sort of "unspoken code" [2008-02-26 04:26:16] <FT2> a user who harasses here will (or probably should be) talked to or sorted out/calmed down... [2008-02-26 04:26:27] <FT2> a user who canvasses persistently likewise [2008-02-26 04:26:41] <FT2> these things dont much happen, we have a sort of unspoken code here [2008-02-26 04:26:41] <FT2> its nice [2008-02-26 04:26:41] <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it [2008-02-26 04:27:04] <FT2> also channel ops dont know what's okay to do, so if a dispute breaks out, like the bishonen/tony one a while back... should they act? or not. [2008-02-26 04:27:04] <LaraLove> This is almost like poetry. [2008-02-26 04:27:14] <MZMcBride> heh [2008-02-26 04:27:32] <FT2> no clear code for them either, even though notiopnally james has made it their job to help if theres a major flaming here [2008-02-26 04:27:37] <FT2> thats really all thats found a problem [2008-02-26 04:27:51] <FT2> the middle bit isnt well defined 9and wioth james absent its a problem) [2008-02-26 04:28:07] <FT2> and the unspoken practices we have developed here people dont know about [2008-02-26 04:28:42] <FT2> so we have been arguing how to fix those two. In a way, 95% of it is "for people on the wiki"... so they know what this channel does and how it works. [2008-02-26 04:28:48] <FT2> we already know, we're doing fine here mostly [2008-02-26 04:29:11] <FT2> so its like, documenting it, and ensuring we know who can "speak for james and his deputy" if theres a problem like a chanop flame [2008-02-26 04:29:27] <FT2> because we would probably all want action then, not in 2 weeks when we fouhnd one of them :) [2008-02-26 04:29:37] <FT2> thats whats been going on in the background [2008-02-26 04:29:39] =-= east718|away is now known as east718 [2008-02-26 04:31:20] <FT2> (As an aside, irc also inherited a mass of confused "levels", including people who are inactive or now active with really weird ones) [2008-02-26 04:31:46] <FT2> we've gone for the barest simplicity... because basically "you dont upset a recipe that works well" :) [2008-02-26 04:32:31] <FT2> and its that which I'd like to see if people will accept... a lot of folks have contributed, but to document "these are norms we believe are good anyway, and lets document them for others" needs channel chat a bit too. [2008-02-26 04:33:27] <FT2> what we decided to see if people are ok with is 2 sets of proposals... [2008-02-26 04:33:32] (didn't read too much of the scrollback) are the norms of this channel going to be solidly codified somewhere now? [2008-02-26 04:33:42] <Dragonfly6-7> east718 - unlikely [2008-02-26 04:33:46] good [2008-02-26 04:33:55] people that abuse it already get beat up on [2008-02-26 04:34:09] <MZMcBride> hmm.. i would say likely, actually [2008-02-26 04:34:11] putting norms in concrete only encourages creative skirting of them [2008-02-26 04:34:22] <FT2> the first would simply clean up what "levels" mean. Basically - all the 20's, 29s, 31s, 48s etc all vanish. Its simply "usual 5 and 10s" then 30s then james and sean. [2008-02-26 04:34:22] <Ryanpostlethwait> there'll be a userspace page I think [2008-02-26 04:34:24] <FT2> keeps it simple. [2008-02-26 04:35:10] <FT2> the 30's basically would be "ordinary chanops" but if thers a major row, something even chanops cant sort out, they at least might be able to do something, and not get beaten up for it [2008-02-26 04:35:33] <FT2> simple and basic, its pretty much 1/ what goes on anyway or probably would, and 2/ is barely needed as that stuff happens only vvery rarely [2008-02-26 04:35:45] true [2008-02-26 04:35:48] <FT2> so thats #1. remove all extraneous weird levels, and simplify [2008-02-26 04:35:53] i've only seen one kick or ban from here since november [2008-02-26 04:35:56] <FT2> yeah [2008-02-26 04:36:00] and was because hoopydink was drunk :D [2008-02-26 04:36:19] <FT2> so thats one part [2008-02-26 04:37:05] <FT2> the other is to codify very most basic basics... we dont want excess rules, but a few basics are worth it. [2008-02-26 04:37:57] <FT2> its worth saying bluntly... the purpose of irc here is to support the wiki. Thats a major one for non-irc users who are deeply suspicious [2008-02-26 04:38:10] <FT2> if we say "Irc exists to help the wiki"... we know it, they'll value it said. [2008-02-26 04:38:30] <FT2> "dont be a dick" ... old wiki favorite, covers most daft behavior [2008-02-26 04:38:54] <MZMcBride> FT2: shh... ;) [2008-02-26 04:38:57] <FT2> and "consult neutrally for blocks, views etc"... another major concern of non-irc users [2008-02-26 04:39:02] <FT2> basics which we're doing anyway [2008-02-26 04:39:11] <FT2> but will reassure non-irc users if said :P [2008-02-26 04:39:45] <FT2> and more treansparency on channel ops, who have in the past been accused of not having set out guidelines and hence being responsible for abuse [2008-02-26 04:39:48] <Dragonfly6-7> Johnny Benson's Adventures in the Blogosphere - opinioon? [2008-02-26 04:40:08] <FT2> (not something in the last year, but some non-irc users have long memories...) [2008-02-26 04:40:19] DF67: nuke [2008-02-26 04:40:36] <FT2> chanops should be neutral and fair in using their access. [2008-02-26 04:40:37] Robin Brown says she is a journalist; doesnt mention the film [2008-02-26 04:41:24] <FT2> 2 or 3 bullets under each to outline what sort of things are covered... "irc is to help the wiki" ... "dont be a dick" ... "dont canvass non-neutrally" ... "chanops give a good exampple and be neutral in their actions" [2008-02-26 04:41:38] I agree with east718 ; it's mostly a youtube film. [2008-02-26 04:41:43] <FT2> thats about all that needs saying, its pretty minimal, but its felt enough to do the job [2008-02-26 04:41:51] <FT2> and its basically what folks are doing anyway [2008-02-26 04:42:08] <FT2> um.. [2008-02-26 04:42:11] <FT2> thats about it. [2008-02-26 04:42:14] it would help if a list of ops was posted along with that for non-members [2008-02-26 04:42:23] if the channel is still +secret, that is [2008-02-26 04:42:35] <FT2> makes a kind of sense, where this has come from, what its about, and that its kept minimal basuically becauise things work well already? [2008-02-26 04:43:04] <FT2> nods.. a list of ops can be found by anyone using the IRC command.... we could post a list, and how to get it updated [2008-02-26 04:43:22] FT2: you could also mention the protocol for releasing logs; i.e. agreement from the parties who are being quoted. [2008-02-26 04:43:45] that is already noted elsewhere I am sure, but might be helpful. *shrug* [2008-02-26 04:44:01] it's another "norm" [2008-02-26 04:44:02] <FT2> There was actually discussion here in december or early jan, sugesting if the logs were kept by james or arbcom, and never released, but kept in case of questions/abuse checks... people wouldnt mind an "official" log approach. [2008-02-26 04:44:06] <FT2> I dont know if thats changed [2008-02-26 04:44:08] <Krimpet> has anyone here been following this "Anonymous Wikipedian" fiasco? it's pretty disturbing [2008-02-26 04:44:19] <FT2> and nods... "agreement by all parties" is the norm [2008-02-26 04:44:42] Krimpet: ? [2008-02-26 04:44:42] <FT2> the draft looks like this... not final, but as you can see, being kept short and simple [2008-02-26 04:44:45] <FT2> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines [2008-02-26 04:45:01] <Krimpet> east718: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-February/090791.html [2008-02-26 04:45:06] <FT2> irc, dickness, canvassing, logging (forgot that one), chanop conduct. [2008-02-26 04:45:12] *click* [2008-02-26 04:46:55] FT2: point 2 under "channel guidelines" might be better with the addition of "all actions taken are solely the responsibility of that admin" [2008-02-26 04:47:17] i.e. somebody can't defend themselves by pointing fingers at the people in irc who supported them or remained silent in opposition [2008-02-26 04:47:21] <Zscout370> Krimpet: first I heard of it [2008-02-26 04:47:41] <FT2> nods [2008-02-26 04:47:47] <FT2> yeah [2008-02-26 04:48:25] <Zscout370> but it's like 4chan; people will act on behalf of a group or a website and we have no idea wtf is going on until someone calls us out on it [2008-02-26 04:48:40] <Zscout370> and when we get called out, the people who did "our bidding" were just random fucktards who were bored [2008-02-26 04:49:01] <FT2> What process would people like, to decide to formally adopt these or specific improvements? Should it just be "so deemed"? or is there a process needed, or are they all so blindingly obvious that its not a problem? [2008-02-26 04:49:20] -->| I_am_Keegan (n=chatzill@wikipedia/WikiTeke) has joined #wikipedia-en-admins [2008-02-26 04:49:23] these norms are all pretty obvious [2008-02-26 04:49:35] <Rjd0060> yeah, there should be no problems [2008-02-26 04:49:41] hence why i'm not a fan of writing them down anywhere if it weren't for the benefit of outsiders [2008-02-26 04:50:24] <Krimpet> it piqued my interest because I received an e-mail a few months ago from "anonymous anonymous" asking if I had any "leaks" -_- [2008-02-26 04:52:10] <FT2> Well, I dont think we want a rerun of the rollback drama, where some claimed it was introduced by a viote of a few people on a quiet night... [2008-02-26 04:52:13] |<-- thatcher-around has left freenode [2008-02-26 04:52:43] <FT2> so what should be done to avoid that so that channel users / regulars here do not feel excluded ? [2008-02-26 04:53:21] <Dragonfly6-7> money [2008-02-26 04:53:23] <Rjd0060> wasnt that page posted in the topic here for a short time before? [2008-02-26 04:53:23] add it to the topic, and keep bringing it up for a few days? [2008-02-26 04:53:59] <FT2> may I have permission to post my own explanation somewhere so's people who missed it can read too? [2008-02-26 04:54:05] <FT2> Actually I dont need to ask :) [2008-02-26 04:54:08] <FT2> my own words