Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:IRC channels

Aside view by Dmcdevit
We've already spilled immeasurable virtual ink on this issue, and for nothing but more division. Assuming anyone pays attention to this at all, let me tell you what will happen: hundreds of kilobytes of discussion, consisting of alternately rambling, self-aggrandizing, heated, bitter, or uninformed back-and-forth. It's another battleground, and a distraction. Everybody has something to say, even those who probably don't really have anything original or aware to contribute—and some people have a lot to say. Of course, this is heaven for the kind of people that live to exercise their high-flown rhetoric debating governance and the nature of human dignity, and, this being Wikipedia, we have no shortage of them. Then again, I recognize that for all age-old conflicts, there will always be an influx of people for whom it seems new and exciting. Ultimately though, I don't foresee a dozen "outside views" (is that facetious, or just unintentionally funny?), scores of votes, and Yet Another venue for petty squabbling and dredging up the past as in any way doing any good for the community or the encyclopedia. Then again, it's not like anything said here by me will really stem the flood of commentary—look, I've already added my half-a-dozen kilobytes! ;-) But here's to trying... Dmcdevit·t 12:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I endorse this? Is that allowed?--Docg 13:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Another possibility is, that with the preamble (the long preamble) behind us, this discussion will be calm and productive. The MfD was fairly calm, for example. Only one brief edit war, and a few barbed comments. Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Technical question
Is it possible to have a wikipedia page that is only accessible by certain categories of users? If this were possible a sysop-only page could be created to replace the function of IRC. This would have the advantages of (1) being on-wiki, (2) being more open than IRC (because people like me would have access to it [no I don't want access to IRC]), and (3) easier access without all the fuss of registering for a separate IRC account. DrKiernan (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, the problem is that you can't make people use it. All it would be is an alternative venue. We equally can have sysop only forums and or mailing lists, but people need to choose to use them.--Docg 13:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've read of media-wiki, the open nature of the software rather prevents 'secure areas'. I'm not saying it's impossible to do but currently There's all sorts of problems I think. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is something to be said about the different mediums. IRC is more instantaneous - it's more like having a chat with a group of colleagues. Using a wiki page for the same concept would be cludgy and would not have the same feel. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening up admins
I see no reason why #admins shouldn't be able to be viewed by everyone. As Doc pointed out, there is the problem of trolling, an I can imagine that it can be useful for admins to speak amongst themselves. What I am wondering however, is why no public logs are available of #admins, and why #admins it not for example public, but moderated. If it was more open, I believe there would be less criticism, and for now I don't see why we wouldn't do it. (but do tell me!) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of what we talk about is sensitive to others privacy. undefinedUntil  19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If an admin BLP issues channel was in existence, are there other reasons why invite only for the existing admins channel would be desirable, and if so what are they? (General query to anybody.) 86.44.28.245 (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My notion here is that discussing matters unrelated to BLP in a closed BLP channel would be obviously wrong and would therefore not occur. A BLP channel would be accessible by all admins in the same way the present channel is now, to monitor this (and deal with BLP issues, obviously). Paranoia about the closed channel, if any, could therefore be more persuasively dismissed as paranoia. Not offering voice to non-admins in the admin channel proper is an option to protect signal against noise. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)