Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help/Founder proposal

Discussion of the role of channel contact(s) for #wikipedia-en-help in providing help for new users.  — fetch ·  comms   01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is not a proposal to remove the current channel contacts or accuse them of doing anything wrong—it's a proposal for discussing their role in the channel and its management, whether to add more contacts, and how we can advance the quality and efficiency of help provided in the long run, with the help of the channel contacts.  — fetch ·  comms   01:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Channel purpose
The # wikipedia-en-help channel is used as a valuable educational resource for teaching new Wikipedians, as well as providing an environment for users to grow in their knowledge of Wikipedia and how to help others with the learning and experience that they gain from the process. This process promotes an atmosphere conducive to generating a collaborative and congenial environment; this is a must for the success of Wikipedia.

Overview
Following recent discussions with Chzz, Fetchcomms, Keegan, Skomorokh, Stwalkerster, Algebraist, Jamesofur, Shirik, et al, there appears to be some sort of rough consensus that the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel needs new channel contacts/founders for the following reasons:

Assertions

 * 1) A channel contact, or founder, should be an active participant in the Wikipedia project and community. For this particular channel, #wikipedia-en-help, the contact is expected to be an active user of the English Wikipedia, especially in the area of helping Wikipedians both on IRC and onwiki.
 * Finding: The current contacts are John Reaves and Werdan7. Neither are very active in the channel or on enwiki (John Reaves has not been on IRC for about 14 weeks (as of 10 June 2010) and he has made only 1 edit this year; Werdan7 has written about 500 lines in this channel since July 2009 and has only made 6 edits this year).
 * 1) The channel contact should be able to enforce the policies of Freenode, ensure that the channel is effective, and promote help for new users who come in; these efforts should not be be contradicting to the existing policies/guidelines on the English Wikipedia excepting any official rules imposed by Freenode.
 * Finding: Unfortunately, this is often not the case. Any guidelines for the channel not mandated by Freenode should be determined by channel consensus, per the "Wikipedia way"; this is necessary to advance the quality and efficiency of help provided. However, the channel appears to have some "rules" which limit one's ability to help new users—rules neither endorsed by Freenode nor Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, nor the majority of the channel's regular users.
 * 1) # wikipedia-en-help is ultimately Wikipedia's live help chat. It deals with often-confused new users looking for advice on their articles and other general editing help; such questions will inevitably be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and some "rules" inevitably broken. But the main purpose of the channel is to help users, and if a rule prohibits one from helping a user, then it may be broken.
 * Finding: As it stands now, the rules enforced are contrary to existing enwiki policies and guidelines, but furthermore, there is no sense of IAR in regard to helping a user. In such cases where an article like this is concerned, or where an inquiry is received about a page like this, it is difficult to help if using "inappropriate language" is forbidden (excepting personal attacks, of course). The channel's most active helper, Chzz, has dedicated countless hours trying to improve the channel's effectiveness and quality of help while coordinating similar efforts onwiki (for example with WP:AfC and WP:FEED), but is currently taking a leave of absence until this matter of channel organization is resolved. Compare him to the current group contacts: Chzz has written over 60,000 lines in just #wikipedia-en-help since July 2009; no other helper even comes close to half that amount. The bottom line is, Chzz knows how to help but neither he nor the rest of the channel can continue on effectively helping others if even his efforts are being impeded by the channel's "rules".

Summary
These assertions and follow-up findings present the following goals:
 * 1) The main goal of this proposal is to designate new, more involved channel contact(s) for #wikipedia-en-help.
 * 2) Give more control of the channel by having guidelines be discussed first before implementation
 * 3) Follow all Freenode-established guidelines first, enwiki consensus-established guidelines second, and any other #wikipedia-en-help consensus-established guidelines third
 * 4) Continue to improve the efficiency of helping new users on IRC by improving the quality of help provided

Comments
Please leave comments, suggestions, questions, etc. below.
 * Completely Support this motion. I want to add that it is really hard to find ops when there is a problem user. Chzz has hung around a lot, and does a lot of support for the channel. -- &#47; DeltaQuad &#124; Notify Me &#92; 20:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support  — fetch ·  comms   20:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Supported wholeheartedly. There is no point in having channel contacts who have little or no contact with the channel.  I'd be happier seeing people running and operating the channel who are there regularly and know what is going on, rather than someone who is so far out of touch that satellite telephone wouldn't even reach them.  Barking Fish  Talk to me &#124; My contributions 23:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I agree on this, we need more channel contacts! --Zalgo (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes sense. I've seen myself how helpful Chzz is and how valuable he is to the channel. If anyone is to be a channel contact it should be him. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support (tentative with reservations). I support the general premise of this proposal. It seems intuitive that a channel operator should be active on the channel. It also seems intuitive that the task of insuring a channel operator is continuously available while the channel is populated requires more operators, opposed to few. This is the crux of my reservations. The proposal seems to insinuate more operators while encouraging activity. This is the notion which garners my support. If on the other hand removal of one operator is necessary to install another, the issue becomes less intuitive and requires more research than I have currently done. Thanks for considering even these. My76Strat (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do note that channel operators are different from channel contacts, or founders. We have multiple active operators (KFP, PeterSymonds, etc.), but a founder is able to override any operator action done in the channel. Basically, they have the most technical access in the channel save for Freenode staff. However, they are still expected to be active in the channel, even if the founder flag is not used that much.  — fetch ·  comms   01:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chzz and I are both ops as well. Keegan (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that Chzz had resigned that bit temporarily? I'm not fully sure.  — fetch ·  comms   01:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that is the case, as of this timestamp:
 * Avicennasis: flags #wikipedia-en-help Chzz
 * ChanServ: (notice) No flags for chzz in #wikipedia-en-help.
 * Avic enna sis @ 02:23, 29 Sivan 5770 / 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And me, although I don't think this is about who is an op or not. :)  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  22:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not asserting that Werdan7 or John Reaves need booted, or that Chzz or any other user diserves this responsability.  What I do find important is that, as stated, the group contact(s) should be active both in their channel and on Wikipedia.  It's rather difficult to carry out the appropriate channel maintenance if you are not familiar with either the regular helpers or the process by which they are helped, as well as bot functionality and all the other miscellany that comes with what the contact should do.  -en-help is a different creature from most other Wikimedia channels, because it invites and introduces many that have never even used the IRC medium and also, generally, not even a wiki.  That's how I got started back when it was # wikipedia-bootcamp.  So, again, for me this is neither a recall of our contacts proposal in place of another individual, but a referendum on the system itself.  Keegan (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good first point; I'll add that in to make sure this proposal is not misunderstood. It's simply a way to move the channel forward, which does require some change, it's not supposed to be accusing people.  — fetch ·  comms   01:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Not only does this proposal makes complete sense by it's self, Chzz is Awesome, I have, countless times asked this user for help, guidance and technical expertise, which was answered by Chzz, while juggling 2 or 3 other things at the same time. This user is Very valuable. Mlpearc   pull my chain   'Tribs  01:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify again, this proposal doesn't actually have to do with Chzz actually getting the founder flag, although that may be a viable option in the future.  — fetch ·  comms   02:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify I support the proposal. I was giving Chzz a well deserved "Nod" in the process.  Mlpearc   pull my chain   'Tribs  02:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course :) Just noting for anyone who may be unfamiliar with this RfC.  — fetch ·  comms   03:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support -- this is very thoughtfully written and brings up some important points. I agree strongly that this is a discussion that we should have at this point. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. My thoughts would only echo those above. Avic enna sis @  02:23, 29 Sivan 5770 / 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unknown - I dont know if this is for deletion or what, but yes sometimes people dont help and just sit there, However some people, like myself or Chzz will help anyone who needs it when we are not busy doing other things. so if this is for closing it, dont. The voices (+) should be for people who are actully helping rather than sitting around S ophie  ( Talk ) 15:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal is about the role of the channel contact(s) in this channel. The channel contact basically has the most technical rights in the channel, they can override other channel operator actions, etc. We're certainly not trying to close the channel, just trying to improve it.  — fetch ·  comms   15:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ohh, i vote for chzz :) S ophie  ( Talk ) 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not a vote either--we're just discussing how to move forward. (I support Chzz's efforts as well, however.)  — fetch ·  comms   21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do support the assertions and the summary here and additional and/or replacement contacts, GDonato (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bleh. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Trying to contact one of the founders at the moment is a nightmare, more are needed. And those extra people have to be people who are commonly around, and sympathetic to the views of those who actually do the work in the channel, such as Chzz. I propose Helpmebot - always around, tries to be helpful! ;-)  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support Per all the above comments. - EdoDodo  talk 08:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Naturally, a channel benefits from leadership. Leadership can come from anywhere - be it ops, superops, contacts or group contacts. Issues with the leadership of a channel can, in my experience, often be amicably resolved by communication. This proposal seems worryingly liable to ostracise valued members of the community - and indeed a lack of discussion about the issues would do the same. Activity levels on IRC, as on Wikipedia, can vary in peaks and troughs - I have logs going back to Nov 2008 of the channel and could presumably draw whatever conclusions I wanted about the activity levels of users in there by selecting different time periods. In short, "number of lines spoken", as "number of edits", are bad indicators of the value of a contributor.
 * It is doubtless, to me, that Chzz is a valuable contributor to -en-help. In my time in the channel, too, I've seen fantastic organisation by werdan7 and JohnReaves, such that intervention on their level is often unnecessary. On the subject of language and behaviour in the channel: the channel often has a young audience and while "Wikipedia is not censored", the same cannot be said for IRC, where the relatively fast-paced nature of communication (relative to Wikipedia discussion) means that certain things can be said in the heat of the moment and can then, still in the heat of the moment, be given more gravitas than they deserve. The cycle can continue and thus can contribute to raising the channel temperature.
 * freenode largely leaves channel policy to individual channels. Only a few matters considered offtopic would merit involvement from staff in a channel. Similarly, the policy of Wikipedia/Wikimedia channels on freenode is not at all based upon enwiki (or any other wiki's) policies - for the simple reason that experience has shown us that these policies do not translate well to an IRC environment. To this end, point 2 above is entirely incorrect in that it seeks to transpose Wikipedia policy onto IRC. That's just not what happens in reality.
 * A real part of problem here seems to be that Chzz has felt slighted by a remark made to him about his conduct in -en-help - and there is significant agreement with him. Given his long service to that channel, that he should feel slighted is fully understandable. However, I don't think a debate on channel organisation helps the matter at all. The debate around that must be about channel policy. If we focus on management, there's a likelihood that a new management will be installed and they will, with minimal discussion, make changes to the channel's rules. This will help no-one - rules have to be crafted by a process of discussion and must always be open to change by further discussion, or they will not be accepted. And here I agree with point 3 - any rules must always be treated as "guidelines" (according to Wikipedia lingo) such that any infarctions are considered on their own merits without summary action.
 * Looking at some of the comments on this page, we might think that the question being put was "should Chzz be the contact of -en-help?". Let us re-focus: the channel helpers and ops - the lifeblood of the channel - feel that there should be active contacts. People seem to agree with this. The other two points, above, relate to channel policy - this is something that should be crafted by a group process (meetings on IRC can often work for this). My concern is that a strand of thought on this page is "the policy is wrong - let us bring in new leadership who will change the policy". Policy will only tend to stick on IRC if those who are enforcing and following it are involved in its drafting, and even then it's a delicate process. If there is new leadership, I'd urge them not to make policy changes without significant discussion (on IRC and, if necessary, backed up by policy drafting onwiki).
 * To be honest, I think the best thing for all parties in this situation to do is to get together in a channel on freenode at some convenient time and have a group discussion where they can decide the direction of the channel, and what changes need to be made (if any). This could perhaps be something the Group Contacts might like to oversee. Martinp23 23:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you insightful comments here, and believe me, the last thing that I wish is for any DRAMA.


 * I truly appreciate your taking the time to respond.


 * I fully agree that the channel guidelines need clarification, through discussion and consensus; I do think that the primary guidance for conduct within the specific channel can be embodied in Wikipedian rules, simply becuase the participants in the channe; are Wikipeidans, and they have made their collective opinions quite clear on-wiki; chiefly, WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTCENSORED,


 * It would appear that some folks have interpreted this RFC as a 'request for making Chzz F' - that is not my intention at all; I do not care who is F as long as it is some people who truly understand a) the Wikipedian 'philosophy' as determined in polity/guidelines, and b) they are active in the channel / helping new users.


 * Let's not beat around the bush; this discussion has largely ensued because of a disagreement between myself and Werdan7 about the specifics of the way the channel is run. Currently, as channel contact, Werdan7 has the right to dictate the specific guidelines for this channel; recently, Werdan7 has complained about my conduct in the channel, specificaly that I told a user to "rm all the unref'd crap"; this is an example. I do not feel that I can participate in the channel under these 'rules'; I would be in favour of any and all open discussion of channel guidance to form on-wiki consensus-agreed conduct


 * All I want is, some respect. because of the work I put in. I want to be treated as a responsible adult. I *know* when it is appropriate to say 'fuck', 'God', or 'that is crap'. I know when it is not appropriate to paste 15 lines, and when it is. It's a bit hard to provide help about e.g. the EN article Fuck without using the word.


 * I think that live online assistance to users is a fantastic way to aid new users; time and time again, I have guided new Wikipedians through the basics of editing via IRC.


 * Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a collaboration. The primary communication is via talk-pages, but there is sikply no substitute for live, interactive help. In the future development of the project, IRC is critical.


 * In order to move onwards and upwards, we must firstly, establish new "channel contacts", with the IRC permission flag of "+F". I suggest that these be and  for now - and we can move forward from that; let us develop our own specific channel policies and guidelines. If you (from coments above) want me to be an F, that's fine too; I am not asking for it, but I am happy to do the job if required.


 * IMHO, The channel contacts(+F) should be active on Wikipedia (EN), and at least reasonably active in helping new Wikpiedians, in order to understand the nature of the channel.


 * Let us not waffle;


 * I suggest that Werdan7 be removed as +F in the channel, and be replaced by Keegan, Deskana, and, if you wish, myself; we can move forwards from there.  Chzz  ►  02:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would second what Chzz has said, but also about how Wikipedia's policies cannot be imported into IRC--I see no reason why; this is a channel for Wikipedia; if policies are agreed upon by the majority of the channel, there is no reason why they cannot be implemented as long as they follow the other Freenode rules. Because Freenode allows individual channels to make their rules, how is this an issue? There's been no issue with using strong language in the channel, and I've never seen anyone be reprimanded about it in the past--and "crap" isn't even strong--could we ban "gosh" too, if that "offends" people? I'm not trying to cause more drama either, but I don't see how letting the channel decides policies and management would be a bad idea. It would be particularly beneficial, at least, to have rules actually written down in a single place for this particular channel--I know others channels don't mind strong language at all, so a single general page does just as much good as someone saying "don't do this" randomly.  — fetch  ·  comms   02:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a channel's guidelines (and they can only ever be that, as every case should be examined on its merits and not have policy blindly applied) should be written down. Often it's said that "Wikipedia != IRC". One reason for this maxim is that it is seen in nearly every Wiki-related channel that Wikipedia policy does not translate across automatically. Naturally, parts of policies will be the same, but IRC guidelines should be written separately and referred to separately. What I am getting at is that while "meta:IRC/en-help guidelines" could be cited in some policy infarction, "WP:CIVIL"/"WP:NPA"/"WP:NOTCENSORED" shouldn't be - they are so irrelevant to the IRC environment in many ways that mis-interpretation would be an almost certainty (and at the least they make consulting the rules require an encyclopedic knowledge of Wikipedia policy). I think we appear to agree on this. Moving forward, channel guidelines should be agreed from the "grassroots" and upwards, so I'd encourage anyone reading to start drafting some and allowing the editing and ratification process to proceed. Martinp23 20:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * X2: The basic idea here (as far a I gather) is not so much about what users should have +F, but what, if any, should the requirements be for a user to have +F? It seems to be these users should be active in the channel. While I do not doubt that the current channel contacts have done great work in the past, the issue is that this is no longer the case. This is perfectly acceptable; interest wax and wan, life continues off-wiki, and people move on. However, that being the case, it seems time that the baton be passed down to persons who are active. The same should apply going forward; if anyone gets +F from this discussion, it should be because they are actually in the channel, fighting the good fight, and willing to pass the bit on if needed. Several users in the IRC channel are active here and have commented. The issue with planning a meeting on IRC is not all !helpers are able to be active at the same time for such meetings. However, I do understand the importance of getting their feedback on the matter as well. If someone is willing, A link to this discussion can be set in the room topic, or memoserv'd to all !helpers. Avic enna sis @ 03:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a large part of volunteering is knowing when your other time commitments make it impossible to continue to serve in a meaningful way. I always greatly admire those who can step back and realise it when such a situation arises, and go on to make whatever changes necessary so that the impact on the 'organisation' as a whole is minimised. Martinp23 20:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy to serve as a channel contact if people so desire. I'm already an op in a few other channels so I'm familiar with the technical aspects, and I'd say I was experienced enough on enwiki. --Deskana (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think manufactured civility rules imposed from above is a bad idea, especially with the word "crap", which is not necessarily even uncivil. To have that imposed by someone who, by the statistics above, was only minimally active and thus presumably out-of-touch with current practices is worse; it alienates our helpers, who are already doing an often thankless job. I'm not sure what's the right solution, but I agree that we should have some more +Fs in the -en-help channel, if only to provide somewhat more regular assistance. No comment on whether removing inactive or basically inactive +Fs is necessary. T. Canens (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * X2: This is a notion I agree with. Prior to this discussion, I am sure I have 'cussed' a few times in IRC, and was never called on it. I assumed that Wikipedia rules (WP:NOTCENSORED of course) carried over into the Wikipedia channel. The room topic links to no other ruleset, or, indeed, any rules at all for that matter. Avic enna sis @ 03:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly producing a set of guidelines is a necessity to avoid such confusion. Martinp23 20:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment (in agreement with Keegan and to some extent with MZMcbride): It is my personal feeling that it is better to have some amount of governance by committee where the main group is a collection of superops or ops who, along with the active community in the channel, can decide on general policy. Who is +F? I don't really care but would prefer it to be active users on enWiki and in the channel with a preference to historically active users (not newly active). I believe one of the concerns that occurred was that when approached on changing or discussing policy Werdan basically had a "sorry I'm the channel owner" response. This is not wrong, he is, and I do not know the actual interactions. I have had lots of good interactions with Werdan on IRC and know he wants to do what is best but when there is only 1 active (semi in this case) channel owner this response is all too easy to have. In the end it is far more preferable to have a group who is able to make the decision together. Easy? Perhaps not, but by far preferable. The response when I asked to become an op on #wikipedia-en for example was "I'll have to discuss it with the other superops I'll let you know", This is the response I want to get. I also want to make it clear this isn't a referendum on any specific persons leadership, drama is Bleh (and stupid and useless).  James  ( T   C )  02:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC) I am also against giving helpmebot +F he annoys me by constantly demanding I do work


 * Support - Nothing further I might write here would add substantively to what's already been written. kcylsnavS 03:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment What do mean I haven't been active?! ;) A new Founder sounds like a great idea.  I'd be happy to appoint one if shown that a user(s) has enough support and is competent for the job.  Inactivity has been killing IRC channels for years and I hate to part of the problem. John Reaves 03:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolution? I've added Keegan as a founder. Hopefully that ends this. John Reaves 04:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen Keegan there. heh. f o x  10:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As one of the group contacts (and the only one heavily involved in this case), I've been asked to comment here. I think it's safe to say that you all generally agree that there should be new channel contact(s) that are actually involved in the channel and generally helping people. I see various suggestions here: productive IRC meeting, waiting a week to see if we have a consensus etc. I see John Reaves appointed a new founder. Maybe that's enough? :) -- Filip  ( § ) 10:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to say that I echo what Filip says and will leave things to him since he's the most heavily involved here.  Cbrown1023   talk   14:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Werdan and John for their assistance in establishing this channel. As with most positions on Wikipedia, it's about time for the next lot of people to take over the workload. Support this proposal, with thanks also to Fetchcomms for raising the issue so diplomatically. AGK   10:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely support, pretty much per everyone else. f o x  10:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for all the reasons given above. It would be good to have some additional structure added to this extremely helpful (pun intended) channel. --Deskana (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support- per long list of above. Also, Chzz is very active as are others. I myself have seen how helpful Chzz and others are and how unhelpful the current contacts are.  Mr. R00t    Talk  23:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, definitely. Bejinhan  Talk   10:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Belated support for the thrust of the sentiment here, for collective responsibility/governance by the most committed helpers, and for Keegan's aptitude for the position granted.  Skomorokh   18:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolution
I've handed out a few more op flags, and I'll be working with Chzz, fetchcomms, stwalkster, John Reaves, werdan7, and all the others on formulating a plan on working on the channel. I assume Fox was jesting about me not being in the channel, I've been active there since May of 2006 with the exception of a year off because of work in 2008. I, and the other regulars, are very much interested in improving the quality of our first line of assistance aside from the Help Desk. There is much more to be said and to be done, but we have dedicated volunteers that will address these concerns. Keegan (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)