Wikipedia talk:IRC/Archive 2

Confirmation
How can I gain confirmation for #vandalism-en-wp, since the article doesn't specify? ~ St ep tr ip  13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See User:Pilotguy/Verifications. John Reaves (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

hostmarks & CGI:IRC @ Web-based Java version
The Web-based Java version section mentions that the java client "retains the user's original hostmark, unlike CGI:IRC sites". CGI:IRC (at least in the current version running at ircatwork.com) does show the hostmark in the ircname field. IMO if it's going to mention that it's not available with CGI:IRC it needs to include that information as well. Also, FYI, CGI:IRC can show the same hostmark as the user would have connecting directly with a minor configuration change if IRC admins permit it and the configuration is coordinated. An example of a CGI:IRC instance where that happens is http://landfill.bugzilla.org/irc/ which connects to irc://irc.mozilla.org:6697. LinuxMigration 20:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The term is Hostmask. --ST47 Talk 21:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understood it, hostmark is the value for a specific user and hostmask is a filter used to match against hostmarks. For example what's sent with every message you receive from another user (but not necessarily displayed by your client), in /who{,was,is}, in join/part/quit msgs and displayed by nickserv as the last seen address in a response to the info command would be a hostmark.  OTOH, a hostmask would be a value that chanserv/nickserv use in access lists and set in chanmodes like bans/exemptions/etc.  I have now skimmed/searched the following RFCs: RFC 1459, RFC 2810, RFC 2811, RFC 2812, RFC 2813 and see no mention of hostmark.  I would prefer that the there be some differentiation in the the terminology for the 2 uses I defined but I suppose that's outside the domain of Wikipedia. LinuxMigration 04:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes
I've made some minorish changes to the channel information. Please feel free to change and revert if you don't like it. GDonato (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I took out the change to the #wikipedia channel because of the uproar last night. There should be a discussion on whether it should stay in place or not.  Kwsn (Ni!) 20:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed chan description
GDonato made this change yesterday to the channel describer (for lack of better terms). Now, last night, there was a massive uproar whether or not it should be followed. I currently removed it, but I feel a discussion is in order and the change holds some merit. Please put down support, oppose, or neutral and your reasoning (I can't stress that enough, I don't want this to be a poll) below this so a better consensus can be reached. Thank you.  Kwsn (Ni!) 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And what "massive uproar" is that? I see no edit-warring or discussion here. Also see no great issue with the edit. Thanks/wangi 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Last night IN the channel. Not on the project itself, sorry for being unclear.  Kwsn (Ni!) 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Please observe http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_guidelines/wikipedia at all times :-)"(IRC header) which asks users to stay on-topic, GDonato (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, but the thing is, how can that be enforced? I've been on IRC for ages (not on the WP chans mind you), and one thing is clear in my mind: channels rarely stay on topic.  I mean, it's not like when a new person comes in, it stays off topic, but it does go back on topic.  One can only discuss a topic for a certain length.  Kwsn (Ni!) 20:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (to Kwsn) In which case... Who cares? If folk have an issue with a WP page then they can discuss it on-Wiki. Yeah? Just a bit of perspective. If people did have a real issue then I'd have expected more of an issue here. Thanks/wangi 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (double ec)Drop the bit about #wikipedia-en having fewer users, since that isn't an intrinsic part of -en. The rest is fine, though, since it's basically just documenting what the new guidelines mean. It's not overly strict (as initial enforcement of the guideline was), but should be in line with how the guidelines will be enforced in the future. --Rory096 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ref desk channel
As far as i know, this is the only channel which in some way purports to present factual information or 'encyclopedic' content. This is a spectacularly bad idea. It's hard enough for the desks themselves to maintain even a semblance of compliance with the neutral point of view and verifiability policies, why should we be directing readers and editors to a chat room where it will be next to impossible? The external links guideline for articles warns us away from social networking sites, and "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." I think experience shows this channel would be exactly that: a place where soapboxing, trolling, and innacurate and unverifiable answers are the norm. Why should we be promoting this channel here? Why should we be draining readers and editors away from the project and directing them towards an IRC channel where we have absolutely no control over the content and no assurances that it will meet any minimal standard of content quality or user behavior?&mdash;eric 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The channel exists and is related to Wikipedia therefore it is entitled to exist on this page. Wiki =/= IRC =/= Social networking so there is no real concern. Are there guarantees that any of the other channels have those standards? GDonato (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So far the consensus seems to be that IRC is vastly inferior to the wiki as a medium for reference desk functionality. I see no reason to fragment things on purpose by encouraging folks to use some chat room rather than the wiki.  Friday (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (The discussion I refer to is at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask).  Friday (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, it doesn't seem to be a supplement. I changed "is an IRC supplement to the Reference desk." to " is an IRC attempt at providing services similar to the Reference desk's." ---Sluzzelin talk  01:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would we use Wikipedia's dime to advertise competing services? Friday (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favor of referencing and, particularly, advertising any IRC-channels either, for many reasons, the most important being its lack of accountability and transparency, and the fact that large parts of the community, myself included, have little faith in its usefulness for building an encyclopedia. Another part of the community, however, seems to disagree, and until this is resolved (if ever) I'd prefer seeing a text that describes what a particular channel actually is, not what its designers wish it to be. The desk channel currently is not a supplement to the reference desk, so the text shouldn't reflect this wishful thinking. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed this per the discussion here, but the link was put back without comment. So far I still see no indication of why this channel would be beneficial. Friday (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And so far, I've not seen a convincing argument why it would be harmful, As this is still in disscusion it would be wrong to remove the link prematurely. ShakespeareFan00 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The channel ought to justify its usefulness before getting listed here. The objections again, briefly are: we already have a Wikipedia reference desk.  It's instruction creep to also suggest people use some chat room.  Also, IRC as a medium is much less suited to providing reference desk functionality.  Please, try to keep up on the discussion before edit warring.  Friday (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have a help desk too. You ought to remove the link to that. We also have a Wikipedia. You should remove the link to that channel, as well as all the wikiproject channels, the vandalism channels, the admin channel. In fact, every channel ought to go by your way of thinking. And, it's not instruction creep - just a simple alternative. Believe it or not, some may prefer to ask in a more conversational environment. And you ought to stop with the edit warring yourself before telling others to.  Majorly  (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you think I was edit warring. I made one edit, to address concerns raised on the talk page.  And of course there's the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask page too, where adding a link to this chat room was already shot down for the same reasons.  I'm not out to remove mentions of chat channels that are already ingrained.  But, when someone suggests a new one as an inferior alternative to an established reference desk, I think it's reasonable to think twice before saying "Oh, alright, more chat rooms are always good."  I don't see a reasonable justification for fragmenting the reference desk.  As pointed out elsewhere, we have much less ability to ensure quality control in some chat room than we do on the wiki.  Wikipedia has grown, and we've recognized that getting it right is generally preferable to getting it fast.  Friday (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you joined an ongoing war in an agenda to remove the link at all costs. No comment to the rest of what you said though, this is getting tiresome and I'd rather do something else... :)  Majorly  (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of discussing the substance of the issue, you just make assumptions about my "agenda"? That's really lame.  If nobody's willing to give reasons in support of us linking to the reference desk chat room, I think it should probably be removed from the list.  Friday (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read what I wrote: an agenda. Not yours. Plenty of reasons were given; you've either chosen to ignore them, or dismiss them as not good enough. Is it really worth discussing this, because will anti-IRC users ever change their minds? I don't think so.  Majorly  (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is for discussing IRC channels. Several editors are concerned that it does more harm than good trying to steer would-be reference desk users to a chat room.  So, sure, why wouldn't it be worth discussing?  But I have to say, if all you plan on doing is lumping anyone who disagrees with you together as "anti-IRC users" and disregarding them, that's hardly an attitude that's helpful to productive discussion.  Friday (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"It exists"
We see above that "the channel exists" is being used as a reason to link to it from here. Is this really the threshold for inclusion we want to have? Maybe I'm way off in left field here, but before adding a new one to the list of channels we're advertising, I'd like to see some plausible explanation of why the channel benefits the project. And, if the benefit is unclear, I'd rather see us encouraging the use of the wiki to do whatever it is we thought the channel would do. Friday (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, that does seem to be the only criterion. How does #wikipedia-social benefit creating an encyclopedia, that is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Also, please quote fully, "exists and is related to Wikipedia" (i.e. #ubuntu exists but we're not going to list it here) GDonato (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest being more selective, then. Content in project-space pages should benefit the project in some way, otherwise what's it doing there?  Pointing people to some chat room just for the sake of doing it is instruction creep of the worst kind.  Friday (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem, as i see it, is that this channel claims to have some kind of factual content and you are trying to direct readers to the channel, not just editors. Doesn't that place this channel in a different class from the others? If it is "related to Wikipedia" then shouldn't we be concerned as to whether answers are presented from a neutral point of view and meet our standards of verifiability?&mdash;eric 16:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure someone has pointed this out before, they must have.. but questioning the IRC channel about NPOV or some other standard can be applied to the reference desk itself. In no way is an on-wiki talk page any better in regards to those things. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we'll tend toward NPOV more effectively on the wiki because it's just more visible than some chat room - we'll get more eyeballs on it. I can look through stuff people wrote yesterday, on the wiki.  In IRC, unless I had a client connected to the room at the time, or find a way to (zOMG!) review the logs, I can't see what people already said.  Yes, we still have to do work to ensure neutrality on the wiki.. and we'd have to do work to ensure it in some chat room, too.  We've already got a ton of people keeping an eye on the wiki; I see little value in making more work for ourselves by adding some other venue to keep in order.  Friday (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning IRC
I do not know how to use IRC and I was wondering if it's possible to have multiple accounts for IRC on a single machine. Someone who uses this computer uses IRC for gaming and I want a distinct name so that I can use it for Wikipedia, is that possible or impossible? Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The short answer is yes. You can each use a different client and thus connect to different servers with different user names, or you can do this within the same client at the same time (most if not all modern clients allow this), or use the same client separately (all depends on your setup). IRC is generally a rather fluid medium though, and there are typically not registered "accounts" for regular users in the sense of a Wikipedia user account. Many networks, including freenode, provide "nick services" which will allow you to register a nickname and set a password for it, although this is usually not permanent (the registration will expire if you don't use the registered nick for 60 days, or something like that). When you connect to freenode, just type /nickserv help. See IRC tutorial for more information. Preventing another person that uses your machine from using your nick is up to you (by not leaving the computer unattended when you are logged in to irc, etc.) heqs ·:. 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

History merge
This page was originally at Wikipedia Chat, which was deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. I have merged the first four edits of that history to IRC channels to preserve authorship information. The rest of the history formerly at Wikipedia Chat is now at IRC channels/History leftovers - I saw no reason to keep the rest of the page history deleted. Graham 87 12:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved the history at IRC/History leftovers back to Wikipedia Chat and deleted it. The history just contained redirects and some nonsense, and admins routinely delete such page history. That was my first history merge, so I thought it best to be super-cautious at the time. Graham 87  03:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

another alternative: Gabbly
Would it be appropriate to include a link to under the "Alternatives" section? Gabbly is an online chat service that provides embedded chat rooms for any website. For example, creates an embedded chat room on the English Wikipedia. Since Gabbly doesn't require any installation, more users (especially those who don't like installing too much software on their computer) might find it useful. --Ixfd64 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

preferred choice
Hey, I've been hearing about IRC channels on Wikipedia for a while, and wanted to set myself up for it. What should I do? Which client is best (note: I won't really be on it outside of the Wikipedia channel). J- ſtan TalkContribs 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found WP:IRCT, so I'm all set for now. I'll post there if I need assistance. J- ſtan  TalkContribs 03:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Help!
I can't access Freenode. It says my security program blocked but I can't find it blocked on anything! Help me. Ric36 20:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Immature sysops.in the IRC.
The SysOps in the Wikipedia IRC channels are frankly immature and I do not think Wikipedia should encourage people to use these IRC channels if people are going to run them this way.

Two incidents:

The first time in #Wikipedia I was silenced for "personal attacks," though I was attacked myself and after I was silenced, I was insulted myself, including being called "stupid."

Just now, in Wikipedia-en, I made the remark that I think Japanese language and culture is stupid, except for the religion. The admin clearly didn't read my remarks because he blocked me for "racial and religious bigotry." Japanese language and culture is not a race and I am a Zen Buddhist. After I went to contest it, I was at first told that the block would last for 7 days by sysop, Gambit, in #Wikipedia. SysOp NotASpy (whom I believe is User:Nick) said it was only 6 hours. Gambit then told Nick that he did it incorrectly.

So, on Gambit's suggestion, I went to #wikimedia-ops to complain. After doing so, NotASpy said "!info 3269" amd dircbot popped out the info about how I was banned for "racial and religious bigotry." I laughed, type ROFL, and said, "I said I hate their culture and language, EXCEPT FOR THEIR RELIGION. I am a Zen Buddhist, you nitwit. Read before you block people, please," admittedly a personal attack. It was a knee-jerk reaction which, seconds later, I apologized for, "Nevermind, I'm sorry for calling you names..." NotASpy retaliated by banning me for 7 days.

Please: The sysops need to stop threatening and intimidating people with their powers and such powers shouldn't be exercised so trivially, the way they are over personal attacks, and so on.

If a person is spamming the IRC, obviously, it's disruptive, but as it stands now, the sysops in IRC act like corrupt policemen. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh hell yes. *raises hand*.  I'll be happy to be the first to volunteer that I'm 100% immature on IRC channels.  In fact, I've been on IRC most of my online life&mdash; long before the .com boom.  It's been my home away from home, and my social network away from real life.  Plus, it's a great place to engage in some playful troutslapping.  Even better, we can mess around without offending anyone on-wiki.  I think of it as a bar where you go to relax with your fellow colleagues.


 * You don't go to Cheers to get 100% serious help for real-world problems. You go to chill.


 * Immaturity on IRC? Yep, I'm guilty as charged.  Immaturity on-wiki?  Rare, if ever.  Now that that's settled, can we get back to editing?  Cheers. =) -- slakr  \ talk / 21:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to just accept my block for now and not contest it, because it's occurred to me that, yes, even if I am in the right in any particular situation, unless I have the utmost solemness and serenity, I am going to end up being one of the many good editors that is kicked out of this community.

I wanted to delete this thread to avoid any such continued flaming, but Slakr's already replied, so I can't do anything about it. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, personally, I've found the easiest way to avoid flaming is to simply avoid saying things that might even remotely evoke inflammation, and, be sure to qualify those that might. In communications mediums that lack facial expression or sufficient substitute (pictures, emoticons, voices), it's especially important for one to watch what he/she says, as even normal sentences lack vocal inflection, tone, or just a simple wink to communicate the writer's true message. As a result, anyone along the chain of communication only has the cold, hard text to go on; and, as a result, there is lots of room for interpretation.


 * Worst case, I just say go with the flow. Imagine this whole site is one big, crowded room, and you don't like a certain aspect about the room.  You not only have to weigh how important the change is before implementing it, you also have to weigh how you'll convince everyone else in the room to go along with the change.  It is rare, if ever, that someone who isn't in a clear position of power will be able to get people to go along with a proposed change to the room by being rude. As a result, the only other alternative available is to be polite, and, if needed, sugar coat things.


 * If, even after trying to be nice, you still can't enact a change, then move on. If even sugar and spice can't move people, then getting personal/argumentative/etc over it definitely won't get what you want.  Just keep in mind that no group will ever agree with you 100% percent of the time, as any president will tell you. :P  If, however, that concept is unacceptable, then simply research the alternatives and move on.  Chances are somewhere out in the ether someone else agrees with what you believe within a margin acceptable to you&mdash; unless, of course, you're the Time Cube guy; then, you're pretty much screwed. :D  Cheers =) -- slakr  \ talk / 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Slakr, but that's not really my personality. It's true that if I had, as I said above, the passiveness and serenity of a monk or acted like Gandhi, if they were dicks to me, then they'd get in trouble. But most people aren't like that and expecting them to change themselves like that seems a bit unreasonable. From an individual standpoint, it's the most reasonable thing to do. From an outside standpoint, it's absurd: SysOps, period, shouldn't abuse their power and it shouldn't matter whether the person is a dick or not.

IRC SysOps, as noted above, act like corrupt policemen. They're belligerent, antagonistic, and often seem to enjoy baiting users into flaming so they can then say "LOL, U GET BLOKED NOW!11" That's pretty messed up and if it were up to me, I'd block spammers and that's all. IRC, in general, is so prone to cronyism and so difficult to keep track of what SysOps are doing that it's just not a good thing. The case above is an example where, in my block history on history, it now says I am a "racial and religious bigot," so that any SysOp is going to look at me as a Neonazi from now. That's screwed up, dude.

This is further exacerbated by having a policy that you can't post off-site content here, like IRC. Because, of course, if administrators face any off-site problems on IRC, they can just troll their enemies' contribs, find an excuse, and make something up, then ban them. In IRC, one administrator on Wikipedia actually directly acknowledged the fact that he\she had this ability to just frame users they didn't like for policy violations and then block them, and I've got the IRC log to prove it. When they can do that and get away with it, there's a problem somewhere. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem that your primary concern is the fact that IRC is not fully transparent/logged, however, the same problem exists with Special:Emailuser. There will always be places you won't be able to see, and there will always be locked doors to which you don't have the key.  When we're used to living in a glass house like Wikipedia, it's easy to become comfortable with the perceived omniscience everyone has; for, one can see everything that goes on.  So, once we stumble across a solid wall (as opposed to a transparent wall), it's naturally uncomfortable.


 * IRC is a solid wall. Actually, pretty much every other communications medium on the internet is a solid wall; for, anything that's logged can be easily forged&mdash; including any allegations of what one person said or another in private conversations.  Of course, that's nicely a double-edged sword, because should an administrator act erroneously (for example, by blocking someone due to an IRC comment), it's easy to contest the action and demand proof.  As long as you've behaved on-wiki, you have nothing to fear.  Of course, if you happen to get blocked around the same time as you use IRC for something you did on-wiki, then you've likely done something relatively recently that warranted a block anyway; and, if you haven't, you can quickly be unblocked, since blocks can only be preventative per blocking policy.


 * Taking all of this into account, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, what actions you actually feel need to be taken, or how I (or other viewers to this talk page) can help. I mean, if, say, I could magically wave a wand and all of the current IRC channels disappeared, what would happen?  Everyone would simply migrate over to another network or jump into non-affiliated channels.  Alternatively, they could just use MSN, AIM, Jabber, or any other of the gajillions of instant messaging systems, and the same situation arises:  it's off-wiki.  In fact, they could just start calling each other up on the telephone or use good 'ol email.


 * Long story short, there's always going to be some place where one can accuse others of conspiracies, hence our "there is no cabal" page. In reality, it all goes back to our current policies: if you get blocked, it will always be because of something you've done on-wiki (except in cases of legal threats, I believe). If not, you are free to post an  request, or, if you're worried about an unblock conspiracy too, then you can simply email the unblock list and everyone will see it.  If even one out of the 1,500+ diverse admins thinks you should be unblocked, you can be unblocked&mdash; simple as that.  Then, you're more than welcome to file a requests for comments or ask for arbitration, and if the admin clearly has abused power, he'll be desysopped.


 * Also keep in mind, stub blocks to your block log can be added in cases of accidents/errorneous blocks, so even if a block expires, you won't have to worry about people judging you by a single entry on your block log if it was clearly a mistake. Take a look at Riana's block log, for example.  obviously she didn't edit war, vandalize, or do anything else evil. :P


 * Of course, if his block was justified in the first place by clear evidence, then I guess this whole discussion is moot. :P -- slakr \ talk / 10:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither #wikipedia nor #wikipedia-en are the proper venue for expressing your bigotry. Please join a network other than freenode if that's what you need to use IRC for. John Reaves 09:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"if his block was justified in the first place by clear evidence" -- it isn't. I sent the IRC logs of the whole thing to user Kim Bruning. I'd post them here, but of course I can't do that. I don't understand why that rule exists. It certainly makes sense for off-wiki forums and off-wiki sites. However, while this IRC is "unofficial" it still receives fairly semi-official patronage and support. The lack of transparency with the way it's run is a problem. And I don't really understand why Wikipedia would establish its own official IRC.

"Your bigotry" -- Nick's allegation that I'm a nazi is ridiculously absurd and the existence of "religious and racial bigotry" in the block log is an insult. Please see this diff I left on his talkpage. If you saw the IRC logs, you'd also see what I mean. It's laughable and he should be desysopped immediately. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Note
To head off any questions, by former administrators in good standing I mean simply any former sysop who could get the tools back from a bureaucrat without having to seek them via RfA or the Arbitration Committee. Users who voluntarily give up their tools--be it from ennui, frustration, or inactivity--haven't lost the community's trust and the change in their status is purely technical. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, Mackensen. If you or someone who is familiar with the process for requesting access could please look at the text of the instruction paragraph, I think there are some errant characters there from a past edit; perhaps the process was numbered differently before?  Now that it's on a new page, a little tidying may be in order.  Thanks.  Risker (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks accurate; I have no idea how frequently SeanW does cloak requests, but that's optional in any case. Mackensen (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay...I just noticed the number "5" sticking out in the middle of nowhere, and it looked like a numbering error, but on recalling all the interesting things I have learned about IRC lately, I believe that may refer to the access level. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's correct; 5 is the base level for access to a channel that doesn't have open access (or something like that). Mackensen (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikichem IRC
We've been having weekly IRC meetings. Logs and other details posted here: WikiProject Chemistry/IRC Discussions Perhaps someone can include them in the project page if appropriate? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ghost
I hope someone currently on IRC is reading this...I am currently a ghost and can't get back in. Could someone please ghost me so I can get back? User:Lady Aleena - LA @ 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't do that without your password ;-) Just log in with a random username and type /ns ghost YOURUSUALNICK PASSWORD and the change your nickname to you normal one.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

help
Is this the place to join #Wikipedia-en-help ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Condalence (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, use http://tools.wikimedia.de/~bjelleklang/pjirc/ . John Reaves 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wiki, I can not find a place to contact you, so I'm writing you here. I can not listen to how words are pronounced, and this is a major concern. It asks me to download something, but my mom does not let me download. I need to know how to say Gulag, this is very critical to my future endevours. Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear Gulag soon. Yours truly, Gulag listener —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.253.203 (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dumb question about en-admins
...why does it exist at all? Can someone go over what happens on en-admins that it needs to be restricted to administrators only? Could it function like some of the other channels, where any user can watch but only some can speak? Can the log be published to a webpage, perhaps on-wiki, automatically or regularly? Shouldn't private information be sent to the Arbitration Committee anyway, and aren't blocking and protection and other issues discussed on-wiki all the time? Few if any of those discussions are restricted to admins only, so why should the channel be? Avruch 22:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we discuss BLP violations and quote things that have been deleted in order to come to conclusions - this is the sort of data that not all users should have access to. Other than that, I agree that it could be open discussion, it's just those minor points that means it has to be closed.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that same sort of thing happen on the noticeboards? Diffs to deleted edits are restricted to admins either way, and BLP violations are noted all over the place. Perhaps that means a public log might not be a good idea, but it seems like allowing non-admins into the channel (or combining #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-admins) wouldn't be a big deal. It hasn't caused a lot of trouble lately, but it has in its time and it does seem to unnecessarily reinforce the notion that admins are a special class of users. Avruch 22:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course diffs get posted, but we discuss those diffs in detail, something we can't do always on-wiki. I would suggest that the problems are almost completely gone. As ops we've got more proactive in stopping misbehaviour before it's even started. For the majority of the time, it's just like #wikipedia-en and a bit of a laugh, but there are times when things get discussed that can't be discussed on-wiki.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at length on IRC. The consensus of the (-en-admins) channel users has always been to not allow the channel to be a fishbowl. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's another example: Sometimes someone discover a security hole in Wikipedia and report it to an admin. Then we discuss and analyse the problem in the admin channel. We couldn't discuss such things if anyone could listen to the channel. Of course, once we have discussed the security hole we usually report it to the developers who fix the hole, or we do whatever other actions are needed to fix the problem. If we couldn't first discuss the problem then our reports to the developers would be much more confused. And the developers really are too busy to handle confused security reports, when a discussion among a group of experienced and trusted users (the admins) could first have clarified the problem. And sometimes we admins can fix the problem ourselves. Just that the first admin that gets the report might not know how to fix it.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivia room based on wikipedia
I am wondering if anyone is interested in making a trivia room based on Wikipedia content. It can work like #trivia, but the questions are based on Wikipedia content. Any suggestions?  <font color="#007BA7">miranda  03:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, have you thought about talking to the person that runs trivia? I think it's a good idea actually, and I think we'd get a lot of participation from no WMF contributors - might gain us a few more editors!  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  03:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The person who has the #wikipedia-trivia room is not active on IRC User:One. We need to ask seanw and/or JamesF to drop it and group it with the WMF. We can also ask contributors to write questions by making a note on the watchlist.  <font color="#007BA7">miranda  03:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Articles
Did someone once tell me it was prohibited to discuss Good Articles on IRC? Bstone (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No? - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * you shouldn't be asking users to promote your articles on IRC, but discussing improvements is ok.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be a great tool especially when asking technical or uncommon questions. I couldn't figure out how to get an image aligned properly when Louvre was at FAC, so I asked on IRC and a number of editors tried out a few options until we finally all determined the

template was the solution. I never would have gotten the article to format correctly, otherwise (seriously, it took me and others about 15 revisions to figure it out). So, it can be a very useful tool for that sort of thing (getting many editors to assist on a singular issue immediately). Lazulilasher (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I got banned from the freenode wikipedia channel!
What can I do know? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What did you do that made you banned? Was it a blatant violation or is it a false positive? --frogger3140 (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it doesn't really matter here what you did. Either talk with the operator who banned you, or join #wikimedia-ops to discuss it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Excess channels
I think there are a few excess channels that should be trimmed. Both #wikipedia-en-casual and #wikipedia-en-friends appear to be mostly, if not wholly, unused. Jennavecia (Talk)  12:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll have to talk directly to Seanw or James_F. They're the only ones who can do it (or have it done in James' case).  Can catch them on IRC, or e-mail them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps she just meant from the listings here? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh ... I didn't think about that - just remove them. :-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Block channel
Is there a channel that just lists blocks in real time? Or is there a way to filter just the block notifications from ? I often miss them in the flood of possible vandalism alerts, and refreshing AIV's history over and over to follow up on reports wears a little thin. Ta. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems
I used IRC many times in the past, but now that I'm trying to download IRC again, it won't let me connect. I never been a expert in IRC, anyone can help me out. Secret account 15:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which client are you using? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone that is willing to work. I'm mainly my college computer, and occationally a mac, my college computer is the one I'm having problems with uploading IRC. Secret account 15:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * IRC has a few listed. On their articles, in the infobox, you'll find a link to the product website.  If you use Firefox as your browser, I'd recommend ChatZilla as your IRC client.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know IRC clients, i'm getting this message of Unable to Connect:Null though Secret account 22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I connect to a Wikipedia IRC channel?
Every time I click on a link to an IRC channel, it comes up as "Cannot connect to the page" that error message you get whenever a page isn't there or something like that. Can anyone help me?Stormcloud22 (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you need a client. Take a look at the section above this one, and IRC.  Feel free to ask any other questions here or on my talk page.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Group contacts meeting
For anybody who may be watching this page and not aware, the group contacts are holding a meeting on IRC tomorrow, August 3 at 1900 UTC. For more details, see IRC/Group Contacts/Meetings/August 2009. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Java.lang.error


I opened the IRC site, wrote my user name, and this page appeared: "Startup error: java.lang.error: Unknown configuration property UseInfo". Also, I updated my java version.(v6.15) How can I edit this error? Ravages (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure - others here might be more familiar. However, you could try using webchat.freenode.net instead. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

IRC link added to main Help nav-template
Based on a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Help desk, a link to IRC has been added to WP help pages (header bar). More details at the thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Itouch IRC
Do you know if there are any IRC apps for the Itouch? Thanks Secret account 00:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the iPod Touch? Sure, Colloquy. Or any of the others that come up when you search for "IRC" on iTunes. --Closedmouth (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming Conventions and Project Specific channels.
At present, there are a few English Wikipedia specific channels that are not following the commonly accepted naming convention for IRC channels. These conventions exist to allow easy locof the right channel for the right project as well as general consistency.

The channels of interest that are not following the #project-language-group convention include:


 * 1) wikipedia-mediation (Should be: #wikipedia-en-mediation)
 * 2) wikipedia-medcab (Should be: #wikipedia-en-medcab)
 * 3) wikipedia-BAG (Should be: #wikipedia-en-BAG)

There are a handful of other non-notable projects that dont follow this convention, however I am more focussed on getting the larger / more important channels using the "right" name. It would perhaps be wise to move the channels to the "right" locations.  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Who cares? Is there another Wikipedia with a BAG? Or a MedCab? And are there having difficulties because of the current conventions? If it isn't broken, there's no point in trying to fix it. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its called improving, something most users try and do on Wikipedia on a daily basis. It also makes a lot more sense and will make the channels easier to find.  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's perfectionist. No-one is going to be looking for the medcab channel... and there are no other "mediation cabals" on other projects. The time it would take to update the links is just...
 * Look, if you insist, I will do it. But for the time being, it really isn't a big deal. Besides, we're the cabal! Why would we want to expose ourselves infront of an en-? It goes against our doctrines, which are locked in a safe in an underground lair that only three people with black cloaks (having made the ritual slaughter, of course) can enter. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tee hee. Xavexgoem, why not just make the new channels, and auto-forward; if the other de-cabal etc come into being, we can worry about it then?  Chzz  ►  05:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * IRC =/= Wikipedia. I see no benefit in renaming several channels and only see the downside in that people who have been familiar with their names will be confused as to what happened to them when they seemingly "disappear" from IRC. Discussing this here is somewhat pointless anyway as this is a major change that would have to be proposed to and considered by the individuals who use these IRC channels. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

IRC/wikipedia-en-help founder proposal RfC
There is a request for comment regarding a Wikipedia IRC channel. Please see IRC/wikipedia-en-help founder proposal. Thank you,  — fetch ·  comms   01:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The_GoodLife_Recipe
This article should be titled The Goodlife Recipe per the manufacturer. I have made the changes to the article but I'm not sure what the best procedure would be to change the articles title. []

Ambassadors/IRC
Ambassadors/IRC should probably be mentioned here somewhere... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems
Anyone else unable to get onto #wikipedia-en? I keep getting dumped in #wikimedia-overflow. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Identify before you join the channel. The channel is currently on +r (blocks unregistered users from entering). Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 12:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

2007 Graph
Hi. I propose that the information taken out of this project page in this edit be reinstated. Historical information can be quite useful; we have many project pages which are entirely "outdated" and marked as historical, not deleted. I don't find the reasoning of removing that link as per LiteralKa as a valid argument. Killiondude (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, why not. I agree with the above. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 17:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. In fact, I'd say it's not just interesting, but important to understand the overall current and historic trends so as to be able to predict how users will likely be experiencing the channel. IRC clients vary considerably in how they present the same information, and understanding how users will be seeing that information helps in many regards, including determining what scripts should/could be created/maintained, as clients also vary significantly in their scripting engines. -- slakr \ talk / 17:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As Slakr said, why not keep it around, especially if it's useful historical information? I'm not seeing a very good reason to delete it. –MuZemike 18:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "we have many project pages which are entirely "outdated" and marked as historical, not deleted." While that may be true for an entire project, it isn't the case for ancient factoids of information. Why doesn't someone just update it? LiteralKa (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to update it yourself if you'd like; however, I'd still strongly suggest&mdash;should you choose to undertake that project&mdash;that the historic data also remain easily available so that others will be able to determine trend data without having to spend an hour searching through the page history. -- slakr \ talk / 12:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how I'm banned from the channel for a month for changing the topic, I don't see that as being possible. LiteralKa (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also would support keeping this information. An updated version would also be interesting to compare with the older data. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

#Wikipeida-en-help F
I request f or (pref) F on #wikiepdia-en-help; I had 'f' before but, 13/8 I asked non-voiced, " you're all not 'voiced' in here, and so, possibly, you're looking for help?      If you're experienced Wikipeia users, please see WP:CLOAK"; one user explained wikia cloak, and I wished to /cs access #wikipedia-en-help add Monchoman45 Helper but could not.  Chzz  ► 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this at all through all the typos. Chzz?  Are you ok? I'm not able to help - sorry - shouldn't have butted in.--Lexein (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Translation, aided by Chzz on IRC: August 13th, he asked a bunch of unvoiced people lurking in the channel if they were around for help or to help; one had a cloak and was there to help, so Chzz wanted to give them autovoice (the "Helper" flags). However, when he tried to do so with the green-highlighted command, he was told "access denied" or some such, and so he would like +f or +F in order to do this in future. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 05:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not being clear;
 * I am requesting the 'f' or 'F' permission in the channel #wikipedia-en-help;
 * On 13/8, I joined the channel #wikipedia-en-help.
 * I noted that a number of users were not 'voiced' which, in that channel, traditionally indicates that they are newer users.
 * In that channel, users who have a cloak which is "@wiki?edia" (where "?" is a wild-card) are, normally, granted 'voiced' status.
 * Some of the other users present were, indeed, 'helpers' but did not have that specific cloak. For example one had a cloak "@wikia".
 * It is possible, and previously routine, to grant the"voiced" status to such users; however with current settings, that requires the 'f' or 'F' permission
 * Thus I was unable to set their status to grant the 'v' (voiced) flag,
 * Thus I request it here.
 * I previously had the 'f' flag, but removed it from myself around March this year.  Chzz  ► 06:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

+f reinstated for chzz [00:17]	>ChanServ<	op #wikipedia-en-help Keegan [00:17]	=-=	Mode #wikipedia-en-help +o Keegan by ChanServ [00:17]	>ChanServ<	flags #wikipedia-en-help Chzz +f [00:17]	*ChanServ*	Flags +f were set on chzz in #wikipedia-en-help. [00:17]	<ChanServ>	Keegan set flags +f on chzz. [00:18]	=-=	Mode #wikipedia-en-help -o Keegan by Keegan Keegan (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Help channel disambiguation
I'm putting this here as I guess this is the proverbial water-cooler for IRC stuff. Those in #wikipedia-en-help will know that many people ask things that have nothing to do with Wikipedia at all, but a couple of hours ago, an individual reported that her waters had burst and her baby was on the way. I'd like to suggest that in the vicinity of every link to the help channel, it is made very very very very clear that users whose questions don't relate to Wikipedia cannot be helped, not least when their question relates to a medical emergency. WilliamH (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A cannot type my Question in the IRC Help page
This help function is extremely poor. I was directed to the IRC page and invited to type my question. I was unable to type on the page. This is a very unuser friendly function - next to useless!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.123.139 (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that I will try to make it easier to understand. Petrb (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Records of policy enforcement
I noticed the question raised at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, which leads on to the question I have here: Are there any records maintained of policy being enforced, for example for persistent disruption, defamation or publicly posting and circulating IRC logs without permission? --Fæ (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about it but it is not a problem for me to set up automatic system which would be logging kicks/bans somewhere with appropriate comments from their creators if it was requested by people or operators Petrb (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Public logging

 * As I mentioned on Jimbo's talk page; WM-Bot already lets us do public logging of channels (I think it works). There seems no reason for restricted channels not to be publicly logged - and indeed per our cultural norms they should be logged. --Errant (chat!) 12:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Also; FWIW I believe Group Contacts can get access to some form of channel logs - it may be worth emailing them to confirm). --Errant (chat!) 12:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm throwing my opinion in here, and I have to say, the idea of logging, would just turn people away from IRC, including myself. If your talking about ban/quiet logging, then we can talk. But it's standard practice on channels for things not to be publicly logged. I also hate the idea to think someone could use something I jokingly said on IRC against me. Also, privacy issues come into play if we start logging, then we need oversight, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Furthermore, quite a few channels contain off topic conversations. (Btw, your list of some of the few channels that are logged is here.) -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The anti-logging thing is just a holdover from oldentimes IRC. There's no real good reason for it - especially if a channel is for site organisation/collaboration, and if that site values openness. As to it putting people off IRC, doesn't worry me for one, sorry. As much as Wikipedia is public, so should IRC. And if it continues not to be I think the community needs to review how it is used, and whether it is time to stop "officially" supporting its use. --Errant (chat!) 09:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The term "IRC is not Wikipedia" is often used, but quite simply, the two are completely separate. The IRC network on which most of the Wikimedia channels are registered is managed by freenode, with the Wikimedia group contacts deciding the overall management of the channels. Each channel is run by their own team of operators, with the channel contact managing the operators and channel decisions.

Logging has been discussed by IRC participants before and consensus has always been against. The Wikimedia community has no jurisdiction over the use of IRC, so it wouldn't make much difference. Unless the group contacts decide in their favour, public logging of most of the channels simply won't happen. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 10:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then all mention of IRC as a recommended chat venue should be expunged. As a well-used chat medium the community should have oversight of IRC, or it not be available. Because without oversight there is a significant cabal risk (I've seen it before with IRC on other sites). It's rather a worrisome attitude and makes me more and more concerned about what goes on in there. I am half inclined to go in and keep an eye on this :S --Errant (chat!) 21:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to pop into #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-help, etc any time you'd like, ErrantX! You're also welcome to hang out in #wikipedia-en-admins, since you're an admin and already on the access list. Just keep in mind that currently, the release of logs is not allowed, whether you wish it to be in the future or not, so things that are said on IRC when you're there (or when you're not there) may not be reproduced onwiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an IRC policy that "the release of logs is not allowed," not an en policy. If someone chooses to release logs, there should be no sanction here - unless, of course, you're saying it is en policy, or that you would block a log-releaser or oversight logs. Are you saying that? Hipocrite (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the set of IRC channels in question disallows the publishing of logs, the information is considered private information. If a channel participant contributes with the assurance that their comments will not be publicly published, and then they are, it is a matter of complaint, no matter what the venue is. So yes, it falls under the relevant criteria for the release of private information. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 22:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A third party can say that they want all kinds of things - that does not make their request binding on us. Are you saying you will block me or use your adminstrative tools to delete logs if I were to publish logs and someone whose comments were published objected? Hipocrite (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, they could block you from IRC :) --Errant (chat!) 22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is certainly their prerogative. I have no concerns with that. I am only concerned with onwiki actions. I'd like to know if publishing logs that do not violate any confidences can result in sanction. Hipocrite (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia has had a history of frowning upon "log posting" of any type onwiki--emails, irc, IM, and so on--when all parties have not agreed to allow public viewing. The extent of the frown depends on the extent of what's posted. :) Killiondude (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No confiences would be broken. Participants in IRC are aware that "IRC is equivalent to a conversation in a pub – the discussion may be conducted between a small number of people but may be overheard by hundreds, or more if the logs are published." Hipocrite (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * so things that are said on IRC when you're there (or when you're not there) may not be reproduced onwiki; and this is the issue. Because it is my understanding that collaboration for on-wiki actions happens on IRC. If that is the case then those interactions should definitely be available for scrutiny on Wikipedia. Blocking that is a hugely problematic situation because it produces a situation whereby something not appropriate could be cooked up, but not known about. It also introduces an unnecessary cabal atmoshere - against the majority who do not use IRC. So here is the deal; I will idel in -admins, and will not publicly post logs, but will publicly criticise any actions I see as inappropriate. And will happily search logs on request. --Errant (chat!) 22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Killiondude; I always solved that in the past (as an !op) by simply putting "This channel is logged publicly" in the welcome message :) --Errant (chat!) 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Should we then make it policy to not include statements such as "No public logging." in channel notices and instead always say "This channel may be publicly logged." just to be honest about what goes on? Fæ (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hipocrite: Unauthorized logs are copyright violations, in that one is publishing someone else's written word without the author's permission. IRC conversations are not licensed in the same way as Wikipedia-submitted content, or indeed licensed at all other than being copyrighted to their original authors. As such, they are eligible to be revdeleted as copyvios. Similarly, anyone posting IRC logs onwiki of, say, people calling someone by their real name, or someone revealing that a certain IRC chatter is a minor, may be eligible for oversighting as non-public identifying information of an editor. The key here is non-public - IRC logs are not public, therefore identifying information contained within them is not public, and may be oversighted if it's sufficiently identifying. Outing is not ok, no matter where the information came from. Am I saying that I, myself, would hasten to take either revdel or oversight action in response to any logs posted onwiki? It would depend very much on the content and extent of the log. Am I saying that I would block someone who posted logs? It would depend on their intent and the level of recidivism. Indeed, someone who repeatedly makes a point by publishing what are essentially copyvios on Wikipedia is generally someone who will be blocked sooner or later. I can also tell you that chatters who are known to publish logs of IRC channels with "no public logging" policies are generally removed from said channels by the ops, and I wouldn't hesitate to do so to a person who repeatedly, or knowingly, publishes private logs.


 * @Errant: You are, again, welcome to idle in -admins. You are more than welcome to share your opinion in conversations that go on in -admins, and I dare say it can't hurt to have someone not part of IRC culture give IRC chatters their take on the culture there by participating in it. You are not welcome to publish logs of that channel on Wikipedia. I would also advise you to avoid becoming some sort of log clearing service, where people who want logs come to you to be served. That's skating rather close to the line of public releasing of logs, and it's possible that you could be asked or made to leave channels in which you were doing that if it became disruptive enough. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikimedia channels are "owned" by the group that registered them - namely wikimedia. Wikimedia's content policy states "To grow the commons of free knowledge and free culture, all users contributing to Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works. Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." By typing in one of the IRC channels registered to wikimedia, you are agreeing to a license compatible with pasting into Wikipedia with attribution. Hipocrite (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The Wikimedia IRC group contacts are neither appointed or approved by the Wikimedia Foundation or the Board of Trustees. They are volunteers selected for their IRC experience as well as their Wikimedia experience. The argument that by connecting to the Wikimedia channels means that you agree to license your logs under a free license is simply not true. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 13:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the "group" in question is not wikimedia? Because if you ask freenode, who runs the servers, they would say the channels are owned by wikimedia, and if you want info, contact these contacts. Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The group is called Wikimedia, but it isn't official; while several members of the staff and Board use these set of channels, it has never been officially endorsed. The WMF does not own the "Wikimedia" group; it is "owned" by volunteers. See this post for more information. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 14:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an obvious trademark vio. I'm writing a nastygram to freenode now. Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to be nasty to freenode (I say as someone who could end up dealing with whatever you write, as freenode staff)! WMF owns the Wikipedia (etc) trademarks and so if they asked us (freenode), we'd be willing to appoint any GCs they named. Cheers, Martinp23 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I support logging of all Wikipedia-controlled IRC channels which are publicly accessible. Several channels are already logged, so much of the above discussion seems moot. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Records of enforcement
I am breaking this discussion into two, as I think it has got side-tracked into discussion of general logging of chat. My question was about retaining records of policy being enforced, for example for persistent disruption, defamation or publicly posting and circulating IRC logs without permission. For example, if we were to take action against someone reposting full logs of IRC discussion on a channel where the notice states 'no public logging', then this breach of trust should require action and some record ought to be maintained so that we can see patterns of disruptive behaviour. Petrb suggested automatic logging of kicks and bans, this seems a good minimal starting point. --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All currently enforced bans and quiets are logged by eir and can be accessed in #wikimedia-ops or via PM with the bot. It logs date, time, duration, channel, and which op initiated the ban/quiet. As for your other stuff, I think you should see Peter's post above. Wikipedia really has no control over IRC. Whatever problems you are having there with another user should be discussed with an op from whichever channel has had the disruption. Depending on client, you can use <tt>/msg ChanServ access list</tt> to see who has operator status there. Killiondude (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Applying Freenode guidelines
The Freenode guidelines make a number of issues clear, possibly not helpfully in terms of enforcing Wikimedia values. With regard to channel logging, it boils down to "please try and be nice", it is not actually a rationale to stop anyone from publishing a full log of an IRC channel if they want to. Considering some Wikimedians believe that closed channels are against our values, this would be a rationale to claim that publishing the logs was actually in compliance with Freenode policy.

As a counter example, blatantly #wikipedia-en fails to meet the guidance on "Avoid emotive speech" as swearing to a level that would be highly unsuitable for children and use of "gay" as a casual derogative is now common-place. These are specific examples highlighted in the Freenode guidelines.

Is there any action here, or are we (and the WMF) washing our hands of it; basically recommending that "use at your own risk" applies? If this is the case then I do not believe that we should point new users to IRC help channels as it is not an environment that can be expected to meet our values. --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Purposefully logged"
I am logging wikipedia-en. It is purposeful. How should we add that to the list of logged channels? Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may log privately, but you can't publish your logs here, on Wikipedia, or elsewhere. That's the difference between private logging and public logging. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 14:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're right - regardless, I am logging, and thus the channel is logged, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, if I were to publish the logs on an external website, there would be public logging. What stops me from doing that, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The "no public logging" rule is exactly that – no public logging. If you log the channel privately, that's your business. There is a difference between channels which make their logs available (eg. #mediawiki, et al), and those which don't (#wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins, etc).
 * Obviously if you post on an external site, if you're caught, you will be removed from the channel with immediate effect. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 14:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that you don't understand - it's not our obligation to enforce rules of some group of unaffiliated "volunteers," here. The channel is logged - as soon as I figure out the coding, it's going to be publicly logged. Shouldn't we inform people of that? Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because the rule isn't about to change. If you publicly log any channel you're in, the logs will be removed and your presence in the channel will no longer be welcome. I'm not entirely sure what you hope to achieve, but you're going the wrong way about it. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 14:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a technical fight between me and the unaccountable "volunteers" who have cooped our trademarks. Why are you getting involved, exactly? I'm attempting to reassert project control over our IRC channels. This project wants logging - only a small, self perpetuating group of IRC admins wants to remain cloaked in shadow. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the people responsible for monitoring the conduct of several IRC channels. I'm afraid your crusade will only end up with you either being removed from the channels for misconduct, or a block on-wiki if you post any IRC logs. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 14:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you threatening to block me if I were to post logs on wiki that did not violate any copyright? Be explicit. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you post logs from IRC channels on Wikipedia, without the permission from all participants in your log, then yes, you will be blocked. I think it's fair to say that you've been well warned on this page and on your talk page. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 15:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just a bit of input from freenode - if you post logs without permission from a channel which does not advertise the fact that logs may be published (with that fact advertised (usually via /topic) for the duration of the logging period), you risk being banned from the whole network. We take clandestine release of channel logs quite seriously. This is a network-wide policy not specific to the wikimedia channels. Cheers Martinp23 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

Now, as an inhabitant of lots of wikimedia channels, and speaking just as that, and not as freenode staff, I do wonder whether public logging of the likes of #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia could stop some of the idiocy from certain members of that channel who might be "well-respected" onwiki... Martinp23 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC - logging
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This document appears to state that logging specific channels might result in on-wiki sanctions - at the very least, administrators believe that it is appropriate to sanction for log posting without the approval of all quoted absent other violations. Should the following line (or similar) be added in the policy, somewhere:


 * It is not a violation of en.wikipedia policies to post logs, though it may result in sanctions on IRC.

Thank you for your comments. Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Your wishing really, really hard for it An RFC cannot change the fact that publishing people's words on Wikipedia without their permissions is a copyvio, and that the posting of copyvios on Wikipedia is sanctionable on Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How do the logged channels get around this alleged copyvio problem? Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could also just state in this page that logging is permitted, and use the fact that we have authority over the channels to make it so. Hipocrite (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well first, that's not what your RFC says, now is it. And second , as we keep pointing out to you, channels like #wikipedia-en are not the property of Wikipedia, and it is not within Wikipedia's purview to declare the void the copyright of people not editing on projects covered under Wikipedia's license. I can cheerfully declare that by posting on Wikipedia, you waive the right to copyright that novel you're writing, or that technical document you're working on for your job, or that world-changing piece of art you're doing in your spare time - but sadly for my wallet, my saying it here doesn't make it true or enforceable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this condescension really necessary or helpful? Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a point, Salvio. I was going more for humor, since PeterSymonds and I have already explained copyvio/logs to Hipocrite multiple time up above and just repeating the same words was getting monotonous, but it came across nastier than I intended. I've struck the sarcastic bits. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to resolve the copyright issue is to declare the logs public, or perhaps put a copyleft on them. People should not be saying in private things that they would not want to be said in public. Or is there a national security issue here? 86.168.249.27 (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tendentious, unproductive RfC designed solely to prove a WP:POINT. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The RFC is flawed, I believe it is against the copyright policy and the WMF privacy policy based on the values that the privacy policy references (as the policy does not specifically discuss IRC). --Fæ (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would be a copyvio without the permission of all those in said chat. The channels are not run nor controlled by the WMF so we can't exert control over them in any way shape or form. If they have a rule of no public log posting that is up to them to decide. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - copyright wise, is there a difference between publishing the logs vs. "making the logs available upon request", as in if Hypocrite logs it, and then I email him for it and he sends me a transcript? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tom and my prior comment on the matter. Killiondude (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you support the claim made in that comment with diffs?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this is that you assume everyone on IRC will agree. A user might point out a deletion discussion (for example) they want others to comment on, but the votes of the users on IRC are going to be just as varied as if you selected users at random and asked them to comment, because absolutely anyone can join these channels. There is not any organized group on the so called 'official' IRC channels that attempts to overwhelm opposition by voting in mass on something. That I absolutely assure you. The caveat is that there is nothing stopping such a group from creating a personal IRC channel, or using Skype, or AOL Instant Messenger, or Google Talk, or text messaging, etc from organizing itself. And there is nothing we can do about that. Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  20:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The main issue I have with this proposal is that public logs have the potential to contain information that would be covered by oversight. This is mainly IP addresses of those without cloaks, something that can definitely be logged (my private logs contain such information). From time to time there are also other forms of personally identifiable information which people may (inadvertently or otherwise) post on IRC. Without public logging this isn't a huge problem because the information will cease to be in the public domain after a short period; however with public logging outing is significantly more likely. The potential privacy breaches that public logging on Wikipedia would mean suggests that the proposed statement would be false (as it would in fact be a violation of Wikipedia policies). --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Posting logs is a violation of copyright, it's been discussed many times in the past, it was always declined. I see no argument put forward in this RFC as to *why* releasing logs is or would be beneficial. There is no formal relation between the English Wikipedia and the irc channels in question, and not even between the WMF and the irc channels.  Snowolf How can I help? 19:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * comment how many people turned up to vote here because they heard about this on IRC? Be honest. I recognise at least two regulars above. 86.168.249.27 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...I've had this page on my watchlist for years. Perhaps people interested in IRC will have the project page on Wikipedia on their watchlists? But yes, I'm sure there will have been people who come here because it's chatter on irc. Killiondude (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What would be their view if people from Wikipedia started discussing this, and turned up to vote? This is particularly a question for Fae. 86.168.249.27 (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to want to turn this RFC into a discussion about me. Is this the reason you are hiding behind an anonymous IP address? --Fæ (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No it's a question of principle for you. Do you approve in principle of votes being cast as a result of off-wiki canvassing?  Simple question. Oh and I am not the IP that you apparently think I am. 86.168.249.27 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a few answers to this. Requests to change the rules from those who don't participate will be given little weight. Think about it - we frequently discount deletion votes from those who don't contribute to Wikipedia (SPAs), and why would you expect IRC to behave differently? However, if Wikipedia were to change the rules about offwiki communication in general then the IRC community would be more willing to negotiate releasing logs in exchange for acceptance outside these rules. The fundamental question is this: IRC cannot be used in place of onwiki consensus, so why should IRC comments be subject to onwiki scrutiny? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have thought about it. My understanding is that IRC is used for off-wiki consensus. This is precisely why people are unwilling to release logs, since it would be evidence for this off-wiki consensus building. I have no problem with such a process, by the way, but I would prefer people were honest about it.86.168.249.27 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing so would violate Wikipedia policy, and the channel guidelines. Saying 'per IRC' is not justification for any onwiki action (except for things like U1). If several users all agree with some action on IRC, and agree with it on-wiki, then that's just consensus. The IRC part doesn't matter. That said, IRC is generally not used for organizing onwiki action, but instead is mostly idle chat. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  20:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "If several users all agree with some action on IRC, and agree with it on-wiki, then that's just consensus." - uh, what? Wish you said that during the EEML case. I mean, I'm sympathetic to that point of view - I think WP:CANVASS is a pretty dumb policy, but it is still a policy and should apply to everyone - but we need consistency here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously no one is going to say 'per IRC', I am not naive. But in any case you're saying that, in fact, no votes are canvassed on IRC, or ever have been. That's fine. I was worried for a bit.  Can everyone who voted on this page also confirm that please? 86.168.249.27 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on posts to Wikipedia Review about this discussion, I think it will be obvious that it is not in the interest of this RFC for anyone to reply to the trolling of what can be deduced to be a Wikipedia banned user hiding behind an anonymous IP address. Particularly when hypocritically complaining about off-wiki canvassing. --Fæ (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw this discussion before it got (re)mentioned at WR. You're turning cause-and-effect upside down. And you are attempting to silence opposition, even before it has a chance to speak, by poisoning the well. I also see no trolling in the above, but honest - though perhaps "tough" - questions, and it is a personal attack/incivil for you to designate other people's comments as such.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if personal assurances are sufficient here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The amusing part of it all is that Hipocrite posted about it on possibly the most watched user talk page on the wiki and then wondered why people showed up here to comment. -DJSasso (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I received IRC logs of a user pointing this discussion out. (Limited, Biased, Partisan, Secret, for those following along with WP:CANVASS). Hipocrite (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You do know that pointing out a discussion isn't canvassing unless the person asks (or implies) for them to vote a certain way right? And since anyone can go in those channels its not a limited group of people because a group that large is bound to having differing opinions. To be honest your posting at WR on the other hand does look like canvassing. -DJSasso (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My post on WR looks like canvassing? My post is limited, neutral, partisan and open. This compares unfavorably to the (ongoing) IRC canvassing, which is none of the above. If "anyone can go in those channels," why can't I, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what WP:CANVASS says, you should read it again. It is not necessary for there to be an explicit "ask to vote a certain way" for it to be in violation of that guideline.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the part in brackets that says (or implies). Canvass goes out of its way to say that neutral pointing out of a discussion is ok. Perhaps you might need to go read it again. -DJSasso (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The notification I was shown (of course, since I'm banned on IRC) was Biased, Partisan and done in Secret. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) You're not getting it. In addition to what the content of the "message" is, WP:CANVASS is pretty explicit that Audience, Scale and Transparency also matter. Quite honestly, though, WP:CANVASS is written so that it can always be interpreted in a "canvassing for me but not for thee" kind of way where what really matters is WHO is doing the canvasing (admin or no-name editor).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am getting it, I also put a sentence in my comment that mentions how it wouldn't have met with any of those other conditions as well. -DJSasso (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Still not there. The problem is that while the group may be "large" in this particular case, it also has a vested interest in this topic. It's a bit like canvassing the Republican National Convention to edit the Obama article and then saying "oh that is a large group so it's bound to have different opinions". BTW, Hipocrite didn't post a notice on WR and he certainly did not canvass there - someone else noticed this discussion - hence, you should not try and imply that he did. A bit of er, ... "accuracy" please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am quite happy to publish En Wiki admin logs on Wikipedia openly in my name. I have done it before and will do it again, if I see anything in them that is a net gain to the community as a whole. If Admins have something to say, they can say it here. Giacomo Returned 20:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Could we get some serious and sourced evidence for the claim that IRC chat logs are subject to copyright protection? I guess it could be true, but right now all we have is just a few people asserting this "because I think so" in a "I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the internets" kind of way - and it IS a little TOO convenient of an excuse in this case. Color me skeptical. Volunteer Marek 21:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have used IRC but not for many months; I am here from User talk:Jimbo Wales. This is clearly a case of one person not understanding how things are done: IRC is like people talking in a bar, and carries as much weight. Some people don't like the way things are done—so start your own IRC channel and/or your own encyclopedia because many users do not want their quick thoughts at IRC (often with an unclear context) permanently logged. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't understand the copyright argument as IRC doesn't seem like a creative work to me and I was under the assumption freenode was in general an "open source"/"anti-copyright" project (could be wrong). That said, I do know about privacy and the recording of someone's conversation, whether verbally or electronically, should not be allowed without all party's consent.--v/r - TP 22:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:POINT is bring played out here. Where do I start... 1) IRC will be abandoned in WMF channels and non official ones will be created and people will flock there 2) Oversight issues...trying and put the Oversight team on a suicide mission? Were going to have to oversight everytime a planned attack to disrupt in a matter that a manor that violates someone's privacy. 3) Would you want your convos with your girlfriend/boyfriend, wife/husband, significant loved one, or your counselor's discussion with you publicly logged? Thats essentially what your telling us. 4) There is the complete opposite of consensus on the issue you raise...so you going to override consensus, tell me how are being the difficult ones to deal with when a consensus exists. 5) This service is run by freenode, not Wikipedia, jurisdictions are being crossed here... 6) What about the famous WP != IRC, for issues like consensus. So now WP = IRC? I believe that wraps up a few major points. Let's just walk away. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see what's wrong about logging in a public forum. Also, Wikipedia website space and IRC space are two different beasts. Wikipedia has no authority over IRC. If IRC ops want to kick or ban somebody, it's their right, but the IRC rules should not affect Wikipedia (and vice versa). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's nothing wrong with the logging, then shouldn't this be a Support? Volunteer Marek 00:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - IRC is IRC, Wikipedia is Wikipedia, and my understanding is that the line between the two is distinct and very clear. What happens there does not bear consequence on WP, what happens here does not bear consequence on IRC - never the twain shall meet. Stamp the WMF's authority on IRC, and everyone will sod off to form their own channels where the WMF have no control whatsoever, and can do nothing about the content. <font style="background:white;" color="blue"> BarkingFish  00:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me ask an innocent question here. If I start a private IRC channel and call it, I don't know "$$exp(e^{mL})$$" or something (it would be about Eastern European mathematicians), would it still be true that that channel is that channel and Wikipedia is Wikipedia and there's a distinct line between the two and never the twain shall meet? Also if somebody publicly logged the activity on the "$$exp(e^{mL})$$" and posted it somewhere and a bunch of people downloaded the logs would they be guilty of illegal file sharing and copyright infringement? Or is this just another instance "I get to connive in private, but you don't" kind of thing? I mean, I don't know you, so it may very well be the case that you're willing to be consistent on this - but I'm just saying that this is NOT how Wikipedia admins/authorities have treated private off-wiki communications in the past. In the past, it's been pretty much free game, copyright-what?, privacy is a dirty word, kind of thing. Volunteer Marek 00:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Historically posting private, off-wiki conversations on-wiki has been frowned upon. That applies to emails and that applies to instant messaging (such as IRC) regardless of who is having a conversation, and where they are having it. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  00:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But historically, posting "digests" of private, off-wiki conversations on wiki has been okay (encouraged by a previous ArbCom even). Would that be the case here? Volunteer Marek  03:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Depending on what you mean by digest, depending on if that digest is actually relevant to Wikipedia, and depending on what it is being used for, it may be. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  04:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose &mdash; for most of the reasons stated already. IRC is primarily for informal discussion without ever being worried about some casual remark, opinion, ambiguous phrase, or bad-taste joke being posted, dramatized, and archived forever and ever. When you live in a glass house like Wikipedia, every single thing you say or do is transparently visible to everyone, 24/7. At some point, we draw the line and simply say, "no, we're not making the bathroom walls transparent&mdash;people want their privacy." -- slakr \ talk / 02:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this feels very POINTY --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  20:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's been said that there is a very clear divide between wikipedia and IRC. In one sense, I would agree; but let's not forget that the IRC channels are used by enwiki editors, often to talk about events/articles on enwiki, often using an obviously-related pseudonym. In terms of technology (and presumably some legal stuff) they're separate, but in terms of discussion the lines are blurred - and half the encyclopædia runs on discussion between editors. This might not be very relevant to logging but if there were something else afoot on irc - outing, canvassing, whatever - involving editors discussing stuff which would otherwise be discussed on-wiki, would we still be arguing that the two platforms are completely separate? bobrayner (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ouch. Hurricanefan25  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 21:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * I feel like I should comment on this a bit, since it was me who inserted publicly logged channels to WP:IRC. There is a difference between work channels where developers and wmf people coordinate their work and channels for wide public to discuss all kind of stuff, in work channels logging is desired and without that it might be really hard to keep updated what's even going on, the channels are strictly on topic and all what is discussed there is very public. While the off topic channels like #wikipedia-en are for general public and discussion there is probably barely worth of logging, I disagree that consensus is being established there, I myself asked many times there for opinion, and I was slapped for not asking on wiki, because irc is a not a place to start such discussions on. Logging such channels would not make a point, however I disagree with making strong rules against it. It's nearly impossible to keep people from doing that, because everyone can use tor or private proxy to change their ip, ident and register an account, then join and log the channel for years. What I am trying to say is that there is a high possibility that someone is logging the channel, people should know that and think before they say something that should be kept away from public and more forbidden publishing logs is, then more likely it might encourage such "attackers" (having a log from a logged channel is not a big victory for someone who want to troll, while getting a log from a channel where it's forbidden apparently is). There is a little point in having a public logs for channels like #wikipedia-xx and there is also a little point for making "brutal" sanctions for posting them on wiki. I think that removal from channel is pretty enough, since blocking person from wikipedia doesn't really help much (unless they do that repeatedly and purposefully, I am pointing to that, some people may release log on wiki in good faith, just because they didn't know the rules). And if some people really want to enforce this on wiki, then I support inserting a line about these sanctions to main wikipedia rules. Petrb (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:IRC channel
Is Template:IRC channel one of your templates? It has been nominated for deletion, and relies on the FreeNode IRC server -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recognize this. I don't see a reason to keep this template. Does anyone else? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 06:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is public IRC considered private?
I've seen this statement made a number of times on Wikipedia, that anything said on the public IRC channels is to be considered private information. Why? It is a public IRC that anyone can be involved in and join. It is no different than posting on-wiki. The only difference is that the IRC is not an actual part of Wikipedia, but we are always allowed to link to, say, posts made on outside forums. It is all public. If it is a private IRC channel, that's different, but i'm talking about the public ones. Shouldn't the public IRC channels be considered the same as any off-wiki forum in terms of evidence (in that it is less substantial than on-wiki statements, but can be used to suggest a bias or an act of canvassing)? Silver seren C 10:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's also misleading to people using public WM-related IRC channels, that they're told that public logging is not permitted, but in reality the contents of the channels are routinely logged and then posted online, and no on-wiki sanctions follow against those who then post links to (or "ways to find") those logs, even in (for example) RfA discussions. It would be more honest to be blunt about it and admit that the channels are logged and that nothing is done about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My view is that copying and repasting off of IRC may be a copyright violation. I too have wondered why people weren't penalized for this if they did a copypaste from IRC to wiki. But as far as public channels are concerned, people may privately log but not publicly log, for reasons which include keeping IPs confidential since IPs sometimes appear in the IRC windows. Unlike on Wikipedia, there are no revdel or oversight functions on IRC. On the subject of talking about something that happened in a public IRC channel goes, so long as it doesn't involve a copypaste or a privacy violation, I don't think that talking about it would be considered "public logging" or otherwise be forbidden. The main concerns are about user privacy and I personally also think it may be a copyright violation to do a copypaste from a channel where public logging isn't specifically allowed. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 18:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But linking to the routinely logged logs is perfectly fine then? Since linking to them isn't a copyright violation, as the recording of the logs is done by the IRC owners anyways. All of the stuff you said and the availability of linking to the recording of the logs should be clearly outlined in this page then, when it doesn't appear to be. Silver  seren C 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If other people are posting public logs then I would frown on posting links to them since those logs may contain IPs or other privacy sensitive information. I also think posting links to clearly copyvio material and/or public logs which are forbidden by IRC policy would be ethically questionable. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 19:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "the recording of the logs is done by the IRC owners anyways" - unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, no, that's not the case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh? Who is making the copies of the logs then? Isn't that a direct copyvio? Silver  seren C 03:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I misunderstood you when you said that they were routinely logged above. I thought that meant they were logged and recorded by the IRC site itself. Silver  seren C 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are IRC logs routinely posted? I think that is discouraged. I've seen it discouraged, and reverted, and revdel'd, in the past, but maybe that had more to do with user identity outing, than generic IRC log posting. Feel free to type "whoosh", but is it the case that the advisory wording should be "No public log posting?" --Lexein (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's more of a business perspective. You have to think, well they're probably just wanting to get it in the market (because wiki still profits) so the CEO or whoever is in charge of coming up with bright ideas in the Corp. will suggest just putting it in words that they warned the users, it will cover them by law. Business' have a different set of laws than people, they can just hide behind the name. JayBrazzle20 (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That actually brings up another thing! Loopholes in law that are usually used en masse by corps and bad people. JayBrazzle20 (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes
I'd like to chat but it says "The address wasn't understood". Da fuck? <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  03:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Yeah it looks weird.

Chatroom policy?
Just a random light-hearted question. Isn't there a chatroom policy somewhere outlining the basic DO's and DONT's? Reason I ask this is because, even though we have a room, places like  is always bloated up with personal chats of about 2 or 3 people, effectively shooing away anyone who comes in for a serious on-topic chat. Reh man  01:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is listed in the channel's topic (at the top of the channel's window in your client, generally). It is found at IRC/wikipedia/Guidelines. I generally visit wikipedia-en for a few hours a week and 75% or more of the time it has little to no discussion at all. Killiondude (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. UTC+05:30, I see tons of "private matters or subjects unrelated to Wikipedia" being discussed, mostly in the mornings and evenings... Who or what's responsible for making sure that the guidelines are followed on those chatrooms? Kind regards, Reh  man  02:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * #wikipedia-en should seriously be monitored... It's a mess. Any genuine post is quickly swamped by nonsense being discussed by two or three folks. Reh  man  05:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. One issue is the lack of active (active in their duties, that is) channel operators.  Another issue that I've encountered is that users complain when action is taken because it rarely is, when it comes to extremely off-topic discussions and comments.  Something for the "higher ups" of the channel to deal with, in some way.  Rjd0060 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Almost a year has passed, and nothing has changed. It's pure nonsense in right now.  Reh  man  13:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * An attempt was made many moons ago to move social chatter out of #wikipedia and it basically killed the channel dead, and I suspect any similar effort in #wikipedia-en will have the same effect. I think when you start laying down bright-line rules on what's considered too social, and insist conversations be moved to the designated fun zone, people kinda just roll their eyes and wander off, and you end up with nobody chatting about anything. Which I guess is a chanop's paradise. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

IRC needs more care to maintain anonymity than Wikipedia editing does
I just wanted to contribute to the topic of IRC anonymity and started creating an article about IRCCloud and to point to the referenced section: IRCCloud where I mention how to join: #wikipedia-en-help unfortunately this article has been nominated for AfD: Articles_for_deletion/IRCCloud please help improving this article, I'm sure this service is quite more useful than any other software-based IRC Clients, specially for beginnners in this field. So if the article will stay, maybe there is a way to mention this service in the beginning of this article, just lined up after the normal software clients, but I won't edit here anyway without any feedback of you guys. Thanks for your feedback! --Never stop exploring (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Technical Advice IRC meeting
We'd like to invite you to the weekly Technical Advice IRC meeting. The next one is tomorrow, Wednesday 3-4 pm UTC on #wikimedia-tech.

The Technical Advice IRC meeting is open for all volunteer developers, topics and questions. This can be anything from "how to get started" over "who would be the best contact for X" to specific questions on your project.

If you know already what you would like to discuss or ask, please add your topic to the page. -- Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

there is no channel for support for mediawiki developers...
wikimedia-dev is not #mediawiki-dev, so it seems as not right channel for support for mediawiki and its plugins' developers. what if somebody makes something not for wikimedia, but only for his own site or for mediawiki cms/engine, ie not for the different dictionaries and libraries and news and ... of wikimedia. also, #wikimedia-tech is not #mediawiki-tech. --Qdinar (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is #mediawiki not a viable channel to discuss this in? I haven't idled in that channel in years (if ever?). However, if you don't think that is a good place to discuss, I would talk to the group contacts and perhaps propose #mediawiki-dev be opened. Killiondude (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * #mediawiki, #wikimedia-tech, and #wikimedia-dev are all fine choices. I don't see the issue here. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)