User talk:Geogre/IRC considered

Noticeboards
I have noticed (in the course of following editors' trails as I formed opinions for the ArbCom elections) that perfectly normal looking admin actions are sometimes taken far from where the admin usually works, and there is no noticeboard notice (maybe just plain "notice") Is this IRC at play? Should skipping using the noticeboards be a no no?

(I guess that a lot of this extends to any off-Wiki contact, right? In a city this big, we could hang and gossip without any chat channels, just the subway, and we would have the same set of problems) Jd2718 04:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true, and you're right that some amount of it is unavoidable. However, the fact that some amount is unavoidable does not mean that all amounts are acceptable.  When the discussion of Chairboy's block of Giano came up, I saw, as you do, that one staggering element was getting ignored: AN/I.  We developed AN/I to do exactly what people claim for the function of the admins.irc channel.  Further, response times at AN/I are pretty darned fast.  I've seen warnings and blocks issued less than five minutes after an issue was raised, so it's not substantially slower than IRC.  However, arguments do erupt.  For those who either fear or disdain argument, I suppose there might be a reason for avoiding AN/I, but, to tell the truth, if the action is at all reasonable, it is almost always going to be five administrators explaining to a single complaintant, and the person performing the action doesn't even need to be one of the five.  Where AN/I will prove difficult for a person making a block or delete/undelete is when the action is aimed at a popular or productive (or just old) user.  Some people seem to think that's a reason to avoid AN/I.  I think it's a reason to avoid IRC in that instance: the argument's going to take place anyway, but now the acting administrator looks like a thug.
 * I came to this page, in fact, to bring up the noticeboards, and it's amazing that your comment came at the very same time. I also want to add a thing about differential standards.  I have looked at an extensive log of administrators.irc where four people were going for about half an hour making fun of everyone who wanted process.  What good could they think could come from that?  There is a very simple way to tell if you're having appropriate discussion or not, and I thought I'd write it up as an addendum.  Geogre 12:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Another nice essay
Not had enough time to fully absorb this one, but I like these essays you are producing. My thoughts on this one are summed up by announce on IRC, but discuss on-wiki. After reading your talk page (after not dropping in for a while), I'd agree that you should consider directing your energies towards these essays and being part of the ArbCom peanut gallery and (most importantly) the normal editing stuff. The lengthy arguments in various places don't really help and ultimately aren't that productive. Carcharoth 01:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't quite agree with the philosophy. I think "announce on the noticeboards," and then you can talk to people like a normal human with normal conversation on IRC, if you're going to be there anyway.  Fundamentally, though, IRC is not part of Wikipedia: it's part of Freenode.  Wikipedia's rules are suspended there, including keeping a history, open editing, etc.  Therefore, if you announce first on IRC, you have, effectively, not announced at all.  I've tried to avoid taking such a draconian line, but that is the actual line.  In the meantime, knowing that people will say things as soon as they notice them, and, if they're on IRC at the time, they'll say it first there, the biggest thing is that every IRC user needs to know that whatever is said there simply hasn't been said at all, as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
 * My talk page should be mysterious to anyone who hasn't seen the logs of en.administrators.irc from Christmas Eve. For myself I will say this much: I don't get actually angry very often, and when I read those logs I was enraged.  That should say something.  No doubt that argument doesn't look helpful, but I'm willing to go through it and look bad, if necessary, to get people to stop sniping from behind a screen.  If they want to denigrate me, want to spend time characterizing "idiots who complain," then they should do so where they have to be subject to the same "assume good faith" and "civility" and "no personal attacks" rules that they have blocked people for (repeatedly).
 * I was working on this essay prior to Christmas Eve. All that did was turn up the heat and encourage me to focus both on general best practices and the fundamental abuse that is en.administrators.irc.  IRC has some rationale.  The en.administrators.irc has none whatever that I can see.  Geogre 11:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Announce was probably the wrong word. Chat on IRC if you wish, Announce on the appropriate Wikipedia announcement page, Discuss on the appropriate Wikipedia discussion page. Of course, what is the appropriate page is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Carcharoth 15:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So far, on WP:AN, and I am trying to read without jaundice, the only rationale for that particular channel has been "I like it" and "conversation." I can't say anything about the former (de gustibus non disputandem est), but the latter is illogical, to me, because I don't know that conversation is actually very easy on IRC.  Presumably, a conversation would have longer lines than IRC clients.  Maybe not for other folks.  Also, a talk page does allow a conversation, and a rather detailed one, in my experience.
 * Anyway, yes, I really don't have a problem even with "announce," supposing that the object of the verb is "a Wikipedia page." I.e. announce that you've warned X or Y (link) or that you have done a block and posted a request for review on AN/I, and it's ok, or at least not bad.  Announcing the block, as if that were sufficient, or the delete/undelete, as if there were no need for CSD or DRV, is not.
 * Much of this document is going to come down to How users should use IRC venues and what they should expect rather than any argument about whether IRC has legitimacy at its core. Also, I can agree that Wikipedia.irc is ok and in no way think that en.administrators.irc is anything other than an abomination and a power grab.  Geogre 20:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. One important note: we need to decide whether the channel can or cannot be logged; I strongly support obligatory and publicly available logging (just like listserv).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, which is "the" channel? It's important to note that I think that en.admins should never have been created and should not now continue, but the essay is not about that.  It's about IRC in general, including the general channel.  I wanted to develop some guidelines for behavior.  The way I see it, complete logging (with integrity) with access to all would be one solution, but I don't think it's possible.  The other answer is to have some set of rules for behavior on IRC and accountability for adhering to them.  If that were the case, private logs would be sufficient to show bad behavior.  Geogre 14:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

IRC is not Wikipedia
I agree with almost everything you are saying. One point that perhaps needs to be made more strongly, perhaps in IRC makes a world apart from Wikipedia, is that IRC is not a part of Wikipedia and therefore not subject to its policies and guidelines. It is run by a separate organisation which is not answerable to Wikipedia. This, for me, is the best argument of all for banning it as a source for anything that happens on Wikipedia. (Of course, by the same token, Wikipedia editors can't actually be banned for going on there and saying what they like, as it's a free world.)


 * I agree with you. You know, when I've made the point before, I have had a person or two say, "Diffs! You must give me a diff to exactly where ArbCom ever ruled that."  The person doing this, by the way, had ironically been ranting and raving about "Wikilawyers" and "process wonks" getting in her way.  Nevermind the irony, though: there are ArbCom rulings.  Even without that, it's just plain logic.  Wikipedia is this thing.  IRC is ruled by Freenode.  It is by sufferance that any portion of Freenode bears our name and by sufferance that any part of our space is hosted by Freenode.  Geogre 20:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions
I think, as a conclusion, the following is rather weak:

Muggings, character assassination, and clique formation are very evil.

The intensified words make the conclusion questionable, in my opinion, because these behaviours are not "very evil", if we're honest about it (I mean, not compared to, say, torturing kittens). These are normal tendencies of human gossip (I remember once planning with a friend to shoot the Duke of Edinburgh—thank goodness real-life keeps no logs). That normal human chat often descends to such levels is enough reason for chatrooms to be ruled uncanonical for Wikipedia business, without recourse to the "e" word. I'm glad I never go on IRC, because I'm sure I'd start showing off with the best of them, though I'm not at all evil (I think). qp10qp 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was being hyperbolic. Perhaps the jocularity hurts, but I was going with the Google "don't be evil" resonance.  They, and other computer online presences, have begun to use "evil" in a non-Satanic sense.  If we were going to be really moral and linguistically pure, there is no such thing as "very" evil, as evil is all the same.  Perhaps this can serve as an asterisk for it and a way to highlight that my intention was to imply, "(they) are extremely dickish behavior" rather than "(they) measure up to Guantanamo Bay."  Geogre 20:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm probably out of touch, having only just cottoned on to the idea that "wicked" these days means impeccable. qp10qp 15:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Confidential actions
Geogre, that's a very thoughtful essay. One thing you might want to address is Kelly and Brad's point that there are some (presumably very rare) actions that need to happen confidentially. How would your vision of IRC address those situations. (IMHO, what we should have is an expansion of WP:OFFICE, that states than in very rare cases, Jimbo, Danny, and maybe one or two other people are entitled to block, protect, etc. with no explanation at all other than "Office". However, even in those cases, it would be fantastically counterproductive to say "I am doing this because of an IRC discussion that I won't disclose."  I would be interested to read your thoughts on (1) whether there is a need for confidential deliberation and action in some cases; and (2) how that should occur.  TheronJ 15:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Before Geogre answers, let me say that of course the people who run Wikipedia need to talk privately with each other; they may also need to talk privately with certain administrators. That's a different matter from people doing Wikipedia business on IRC that could be done on Wikipedia itself. As for Kelly Martin's comments, I think we should ignore them. She seemed to be saying that she goes on the administrators' channel to advise administrators how to handle certain situations; if ever there was an argument against IRC, there one is: if administrators want advice on how to proceed, they should ask on the administrators' board, not work behind the scenes with someone who is not an administrator without telling anybody. qp10qp 15:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Qp10qp is correct and actually understating the case with Kelly Martin, as she, according to ArbCom "left under a cloud." She gave up her administrator's position in the midst of investigation for impropriety.  She also was formerly on ArbCom and left that, as well, with questions.  Therefore, I would suggest that her methods might not lead a new administrator in a good direction.  I can only hope that administrators have enough wit and independence of judgment to figure things out for themselves.
 * The problem I have with "private matters we cannot even describe" is that if they cannot even be described, they really shouldn't be conducted, even by the Foundation. They certainly shouldn't take place between the Foundation and people who are not part of the Foundation, and by no means should they be taking place between the Foundation and some administrators but not others, selected on private criteria.  It runs counter to everything Wikipedia itself is built upon.  It's not hard to say, "We need to talk about CheckUser," but you'd never reveal checkuser data in any IRC channel.  Anyone who ever did that would lose her administrator's status, if she didn't give it up voluntarily, and it would create quite a thick cloud over her if she did.
 * If there is actually sensitive material, then there is only one licit way to discuss it, and that's via e-mail, with a second choice being the ArbCom mailing list. Administrators are no part of any of that.  Otherwise, induct the user into the Foundation.  I cannot think of any justification for something so private that it can only go to elect non-Foundation members and yet so public that it can go to an open administrator's IRC channel, and I can't think it's anything but (sorry for the word, but...) moronic to reveal something that private so publically or to restrict something that public to a forum so private.  Geogre 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Using IRC is against Wikipedia principles
I have been thinking that the essay could make more of an appeal to basic Wikipedia values. I've read over the following several times, and maybe it's relevant here:

{From: User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles.)

"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.

The way I see it is that using IRC for routine Wikipedia business (and, by extension, for gossiping and scheming around that, which of course no-one will ever admit and so is probably less challengeable) offends the principle of openness, by which we are all, even newbies, given equal access to Wikipedia process.

Clearly many administrators use IRC for reasons of speed, although I put up some (reasonable, I think) arguments against that yesterday. I believe in the good faith of the admins who responded to me; but the implication of Jimbo's words is that all security processes should be subject to the strictest scrutiny (and much administration is a security process). As it clearly is not so subject at the moment (nor can be, I fear, when IRC is involved), this seems to me the strongest potential argument against it, one which, given the palpable defensiveness of IRC-using admins on the subject, I have hopes could possibly prevail. Since IRC can never actually be banned, a campaign that makes most administrators aware that it is, in terms of Wikipedia principles, bad form might gradually effect a substantial reduction in its usage. At the very least, such a campaign might induce a code-of-conduct among the admins who use IRC habitually (and, lets face it, probably addictively) for what they see as reasons of speed or efficiency. qp10qp 15:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I love it! I'm going to paste and adapt it into the main essay.  Geogre 15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

IRC is a tool
IRC is a tool, no more, no less. It has some advantages, especially for those more interested in the social side of things, and some disadvantages - in particular it makes some important mistakes easier to make and harder to recover from. I guess the important thing is to make sure that while IRC is used to make things happen faster, it should never produce a different result to what would be obtained by doing things on-wiki. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See, I disagree, there. It has to be open, per Jimbo's statement and Wikipedia process.  Therefore, it kind of can't be the source of any action, unless that action is, "Please investigate and do all your work on Wikipedia."  Geogre 03:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

IRC is the ultimate in procedure bypass, IAR with less traceability. That doesn't make it intrinsically bad, but it does mean that it lends itself to bad purposes. However, for whatever reasons, there are a large number of people that like to use it. That means that to have it banned would require some overwhelming arguements, and I could be wrong, but I don't think the political will exists in the community - people have always been wary of trying to impose our will on off-wiki activities. But what should be easy to accomplish is to get an edict that says: IRC is not wiki, IRC has no official status, all 'workings out' must be copied to wikipedia before they have any weight. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, well, I'm not for banning it. (Ok, I personally may be, but that's not what this essay is about.  Speaking as the essay, "I'm not for banning it.")  This essay's sole goal is to develop a set of best practices, a set of guidelines for the users of IRC.
 * Let's put it this way: the chief problem is never the medium, but the use. As you say, a hammer can build a house or kill your neighbor.  The problems with IRC are inherent (nothing I can do about that) and external.  The essay's goal is to make sure that everyone knows what the inherent problems are and then, based on that, to try to derive a set of guides for the users so that they do not succumb or employ IRC for bad purposes.
 * We can try to "fix" the internal problems. E.g. if we had permanent, accessible, logs that had integrity, we'd be able to check what's said.  I doubt we'll succeed, though.  We can try to "fix" the external problems (misuse), and that we can do.  We can, because we can make these guidelines the documents that channel operators use, if nothing else.  In other words, IRC is not subject to Wikipedia's rules and regulations, but Wikipedians are.  If we can't do anything about the weaknesses and corruption of IRC, we can do something about regulating the behavior of Wikipedians when they're there.  Geogre 12:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A forgotten group in this discussion
Well... according to IRC_guidelines, the IRC channels are Wikimedia-affiliated and the relationship between wikis and IRC is such that policies on either side do not apply to the other. Further, on the user page of a Wikipedia ArbCom member we find this regarding IRC: I'm the Chair of the Wikimedia Group Contacts, which basically means that I'm in charge :-). This to me is stunning. The term conflict of interest comes immediately to mind, as well as several stronger epithets.  There is a perceived and growing dichotomy, some of it based in reality, I'm afraid, between administrators and the "great untrusted" on Wikipedia.  Having a "secret" en.admins+random.groupies.of.the.day.irc channel goes a long way to strengthening this perception.  But is it really necessary or the best practice?

Let's assume that admin-only communication is desirable in some circumstances. What would be wrong with using the enormous skills of the MediaWiki developers to assist in this regard? Has anyone ever tried to approach the issue from this perspective? Fine, have a page, a Wikipedia page, with access restricted to admins. Maybe have a private RSS feed so that admins can send the edits to their PDAs or have warning devices raise an alarm automatically if they want when someone edits the page. Whatever, the implementation details can be left to those who do that best. I cannot believe for one second that their solution would not be infinitely better than using an IRC channel, as far as the benefit to Wikipedia. We should not forget the developers who have made the technical improvements and innovations that have assisted the project in getting as far as it has today. Tim Shuba 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you're saying. I think we should try, though, to distinguish Wikipedia.irc, which is the open IRC for all Wikipedia users, and en.admins.irc, which is the "admins only" (and Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, and Gmaxwell, who are not administrators at en.Wikipedia) channel.
 * I cannot see any justification whatever for the "admins" channel. I opposed it when it was proposed, when it was established, and have never gone there for that reason.  I could not see any benefit that it offered, while it had within it the potential for abuse.  The abuse has now been documented, but, even if it had not been, it would have been one more spin of the barrel without any actual need.  All of the "needs" offered as justification can be met with existing forums, and most notably with the Wikipedia mailing list.  If not that, then the needs of immediacy are better met, I think, with WP:AN/I than an IRC channel.
 * However, the other IRC venues -- the ones open to all -- are still carrying with them the potential for bad action. I wrote this essay as an attempt to try to derive a best practices guideline for all IRC usage.  I go to the Wikipedia IRC channel once a week or so, usually for about :20, and I pass the time.  It's chat.  Other people are logged into it 24 hr a day, with logs running and highlights on any time their names are mentioned.  It's true that that won't be stopped by any on-wiki discussion, but that doesn't mean that we throw up our hands.  If we must have any, even the most documented and open, IRC, then we really need a guideline for how to behave there.  However, we do not "have to" have an administrators' IRC, and we really must not.  Geogre 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, ROFL at the "warning devices." :-)  Geogre 18:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)