This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giano II (talk | contribs) at 07:29, 17 January 2007 (→#wikipedia-en-admins is part of wikipedia: I shall not be funding but ignoring.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NOTE

The comments below reflect an earlier version of this page, before it was rewritten by Jimbo.

Oppose Get real. Do you really think you can stop all off-wiki policy discussion? jguk 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I support this page a great deal - all policy changes should be on wiki, something I've been saying for months. This is a GREAT idea. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the theory is, it just can't happen (ie "is not able to happen") in reality! jguk 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is nothing we can (or should) do to stop people discussing WP and its policies by email, IRC, mail, smoke signals, carrier pigeon, or however the hell else they wish to do so. However, I would say that off-wiki discussions should never be considered binding, especially for potentially contentious matters (blocks, deletion, arbitration, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's thought of smoke signals yet but the carrier pigeon network should be up soon. Jtkiefer ---- 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is terribly worded. It should be under a neutral title to gather consensus. Next off policy discussion is great as long as we make it clear all policy changes need to be supported by on wiki consensus and/or Jimbo decree. - Taxman 21:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose first of all this is pointless since you can never force people to give up off-wiki forms of communication, and secondly the way it's phrased makes it sound like a rant and not a serious suggestion. Like it or not off-wiki communications are a large part of getting anything done on the project. Jtkiefer ---- 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• See also RFC 1149. Radiant_>|< 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, using an avian network for data transmission, I guess the only stablity risk they'd have to deal with would be bird flu. Jtkiefer ---- 21:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand the harm to openness you are concerned about, but feel the disadvantages outweigh the benefits in this case. --Improv 22:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think there are two issues here. Discussing policy on the mailing lists and IRC is ubiqitous, and there is little harm and several benefits to do so. There is no reason, and also no realistic possibility, of halting such discussions. However, I do agree strongly that consensus in these venues is not enough to enact new policies. Before any new policies or procedures are finalized, at least some discussion must occur on the wiki itself. - SimonP 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support, particularly the sections related to IRC and logging. It is my opinion that the "no public logging" rule is not only ill-advised, it's dangerous. It removes any accountability from actions that are precipated by IRC discussion, and hides evidence of certain types of vote-stacking from being reviewed publicly. My first visit to the IRC happened to be upon the day of the "userbox purge", as some have come to call it - and this highly disruptive action was clearly precipitated by events in the channel on that day. In addition, I was able to observe that rules of civility don't necessarily apply in the IRC, which certainly gave me a negative opinion of a particular admin when she made several statements to me that could easily be considered troll bait. And finally, I observed discussion about a user who was involved in an RfAr, where several admins openly stated that he was a dumbass, dipshit, and troll. What's the point of ArbCom if the decision is reached before the case is even off the ground? Allow public logging, and require accountability.

As for the mailing list, it's an open tool - anyone can review contributions to it, thus making it a very wiki-esque system. There is certainly accountability when it comes to the mailing list, and thus, I do not feel that this is a major issue. --Blu Aardvark | 04:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• May I remind everybody that this is NOT a vote? >Radiant< 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Great idea. Now, how the hell are you going to enforce it? --Carnildo 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately clueless despite having been presented in the most sincere of good faith. "Considered Harmful" Essays Considered Harmful: "Because "considered harmful" essays are, by their nature, so incendiary, they are counter-productive both in terms of encouraging open and intelligent debate, and in gathering support for the view they promote. In other words, "considered harmful" essays cause more harm than they do good ... Typically, "considered harmful" essays gets written because someone has an axe to grind, and they feel like making that grinding process both public and dogmatic. This is a form of grandstanding, of course, but it is done with a purpose beyond simple publicity seeking. Usually such "considered harmful" essays are intended to draw attention to a little-known subject about which the author is passionate, or to highlight what the author feels to be a poor decision by someone else. In addition, there are those "considered harmful" essays that are written as part of a long-running argument that has gradually escalated." - Eric Meyer

You are about fifteen miles from the point

This suggestion is ridiculous. What you are suggesting is to basically remove the mailing lists (or make them basically worthless). The mailing lists are very useful. It is far easier to have a coherent conversation there, the formatting is simpler, the archiving is standardised, and it's easier to check you've paid attention to everything than it is with a watchlist. Now, all major policy changes *do* get made on the wiki. If you think otherwise, please make a citation.

You want to abolish the Arbitrators' list. Well, I'm sorry to put it bluntly, but that just ain't gonna happen. The ArbCom mailing list allows Arbitrators to have frank discussions without the pressure of participants sniping and being generally obstructive.

No serious policy matter takes place on a mailing list. Nothing is said in #wikipedia-en-admins that would be said on the wiki. Nothing is said of any substance at all in #wikipedia!

Sam Korn 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• See . "Jimbo writes to and reads wikien-l, and policy is discussed and announced there. You may not care to notice wikien-l, but it may care to notice you. It's part of the Misplaced Pages infrastructure; you can pretend it isn't, but that's you choosing to exclude yourself from the loop and nothing more." That seems a pretty clear statement that wikien-l is being used to make policy. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Also, I'm curious as to what kind of arbitrators' discussion requires that no one else even have read access to it. The only one I can think of is CheckUser. What else is there that can't or shouldn't be discussed openly, and why? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Part 1 is inaccurate. Policy is discussed there; sometimes things are announced there; never is policy *decided* there. Big difference.
  • Part 2: Arbitrators want to give opinions, as I said before, without the pressure of participants sniping and being generally obstructive. Is that really unreasonable? If it is, well, I'm not really sure that I can say any more to persuade you. Sam Korn 21:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, in spite of that claim (Crotalus's 1st point), I am unaware of any policy that has actually been created from mailing list discussions, except for the recent "blank AFD debates" bit which was really a Jimboism. Policies do frequently get discussed there, but more along the lines of "this process sucks" - "no it doesn't" - "let's turn it off and see what happens" - "no, WP:POINT" - etc. Radiant_>|< 21:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal. The mailing list is a poisonous pit full of invective and can solve nothing except to increase the hostility between and among editors. I only occasionally dip into the archives and am invariably horrified by what I see. Were you to judge by the content of the mailing list, AfD and its sister xfD pages would be immediately deleted, and and anyone attempting to remove any pages from Misplaced Pages would be hounded out. User:Zoe| 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And the disadvantage to hounding out deletionists who want to damage the encyclopedia by removing information is...

That aside, though, I have to support this policy despite the disadvantage of making life less hard for those with the weird fetish for destroying the work of others known as "deletionism." There needs to be accountability and transparency in the policy-making process; if policies are decided offsite through unknown means and then simply announced here, then there is no accountability or transparency whatsoever. Rogue 9 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do see the point of what the person who wrote this is saying, but all in all I think I could not support it unless it was toned way, way down. I could support something like:

• "The admin IRC and mailing is for frank discussion of cases (individual editors and pages, usually). Admins are encouraged to bring broader policy discussions into the community as soon as practicable."
• "The use of private, secret mailing lists for any serious policy discussions is not encouraged. Again, editors are encouraged to bring policy discussions into the community."

The main mailing list is not really off-Wiki; anyone can subscribe to it. If there are private mailing lists (besides the one for admins), I don't think WP should be providing support for that, if it is; let people do their own networking. The point that the mailing lists generate too much data -- well, if you tried to bring all that data onto talk pages you would need constant archiving and it would be harder to make sense of the discussion. Zoe, if what you say is true about the emails, then 1) maybe its better to keep that poisonous pit in its own seperate place, and 2) it sounds like its just people ranting, anyway -- after all, xfD pages have not been deleted, so the person's point "policy should never be dictated on a "consensus" from the mailing list alone without first consulting the broader Misplaced Pages community" -- is this actually happening? Herostratus 04:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've always thought that the mailing list is the most thoughtful Wiki-related space, at least in terms of intelligent discussion and general conversation about the direction Misplaced Pages should be moving in. Nothing ever comes of it and that's how it should be, no policy is decided there. There's plenty of well considered debates and general commentary...no harm comes from it, there's way worse off-Wiki conversations that go on. Rx StrangeLove 07:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I do take offense to you simply linking a speculative thread on a lightly-moderating open forum that isn't officially connected with Misplaced Pages as an example of "bad off-wiki discussion". I've seen far worse in the official IRC channel. Except you can't conveniently link that, because, you know, there's a "no accountabilty" rule (excuse me, "no public logging").--Blu Aardvark | 08:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  There is no official IRC channel, and no policy is decided there. Sam Korn 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I've always thought that the mailing list is the most thoughtful Wiki-related space. Are you reading the same mailing list I am? User:Zoe| 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I believe I am. There's less hysteria, less sharp shooting and it has a tendency to linger on topics longer letting ideas develop a little more. It's also a little more open to new ideas, it doesn't shout them down as fast as on-wiki. It's probably a matter of fewer participants...it's a calmer place. Not perfect and there's point scorers there but overall a nicer environment for strategic discussion. Nothing ever really comes of it, there's a lot of navel gazing that goes on but that's ok. Rx StrangeLove 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Previously discussed?

It seems to me that this was brought up years ago on the mailing lists talk page... but that discussion was abandoned after they failed to reach consensus... Paul/_T+ 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Off the mark?

Perhaps this proposal should not be called "Off-Wiki policy discussion considered harmful", but "Off-Wiki policy decisions considered harmful". Clearly it's not good to have very small numbers of people making major decisions on their own in secret (trying to hide it off-wiki), and I would suggest that this is already at the level of unwritten policy. Trying to stop all off-wiki discussion on the other hand is certainly not a good idea. The mailing lists and IRC channels are fast, efficient methods of discussion, and in my opinion the more discussion the better.

Editors should be encouraged to be more thoughtful about policy, and if having more avenues of communication helps this, then they should be promoted. --bainer (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The admin IRC channel

I've written extensively on this (ironically to the mailing list?). Thoughts on admin-only IRC channels and RC patrol. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC policies

See also meta:Talk:IRC channels for some older discussions on whether policy decisions should be banned on IRC. Angela. 01:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Great idea!

I think we need next to write Misplaced Pages:Editing Misplaced Pages considered harmful. Consider the ridiculous load it places on the servers and the need for a complicated piece of database software and a Byzantine server structure. Compare instead our mirror sites, which can just serve static HTML very fast and are frequently one-person sites. This will also make it easier for us to reap the cash bonanza of Google ads, like the mirrors do. It's an idea whose time has come - David Gerard 11:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The mailing lists are the primary driver of ultimate policy

"The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Misplaced Pages."

I consider this to be as true today as ever.

In general, I consider this entire policy proposal to be confused on several important points.--Jimbo Wales 03:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have written a counterpoint

Misplaced Pages:Off-wiki policy discussion considered essential expresses the original and true ideals of Misplaced Pages much more than this terrible misguided proposal.--Jimbo Wales 03:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is rejected

This policy is clearly a statement of a concept which has been considered and rejected overwhelmingly and completely and continuously throughout the entire history of Misplaced Pages. There is zero chance that it could ever be accepted because it is incoherent and wrong about just about every essential point. There is something sensible to be said about off-wiki policy making, and some of the problems associated with it, of course. But the idea that it is 'wrong' or somehow in violation of Misplaced Pages's principles is just massively confused. --Jimbo Wales 03:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New comments

Stats on mailing list participation

This is a result of parsing the level of participation from the mailing list. The top five contributors to the mailing list made as many contributions as the bottom 144.

I noted that January was approximately twice times the average size for 2005, so I went back to october, but the distribution is almost identical. I'll only reproduce the top few rows here:

Rank Contributor          Number of posts   Overall %  Cumulative % 
1    geni                 176               8%         8%
2    Anthony DiPierro     155               7%         15%
3    Alphax               152               7%         21%
4    Tony Sidaway         148               6%         28%
5    David Gerard         130               6%         33%

I'd welcome comments on this. brenneman 02:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, #3 in October and January... probably #140 in between though. The great thing about email is that you can attend to it when you're offline - which for me is pretty often. Alphax  13:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also much easier for me to participate on when I'm at work, and generally a format much better suited to serious policy discussion. Wiki discussions force you to summarise your entire argument into a paragraph. Email lets you develop an argument over several paragraphs. I feel vaguely embarrassed to be in the top 10 though. Stevage 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm #50? Surprising. I considered myself just a dabbler in the mailing list. :{ Johnleemk | Talk 09:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just don't pretend there is no..

Some lists (such as the Arbitrators' list) are inaccessible to the public altogether, which provides for a number of essential benefits. First, particular problems can be discussed on such lists in a frank and open way, without potentially accidentally casting aspersions on innocent users. Second, policy discussions can take place in an atmosphere of calm without the interruptions of those who do not understand the full context of the policies being discussed.

Internet Relay Chat (IRC) is a common forum for policy discussions. At least one Misplaced Pages-related IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-admins) is restricted to administrators only. Also, according to Misplaced Pages:IRC channels, some channels have a "policy against public logging", which is in keeping with longstanding community traditions, and allows for a semi-private space for users to joke around, have honest and open discussions, without fear of every word spoken being permanently recorded.

Excellent, talk behind the regular ("logged") users' back. Since an encyclopedia loves definitions, I will add some:

Clique - A small exclusive group of friends or associates.

Cabal - A conspiratorial group of plotters or intriguers.

Which one is #wikipedia-en-admins/arbitration list? how would I know, because I'm not allowed in. I'll assume the latter. --Anon84.x 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied from "Misplaced Pages talk:Out of band communication considered harmful."

If not the namespace problem, this could have been an article with WP:FAC potential...

...because it strikes into the core of the problem. Just my thought. --Irpen 20:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want it, you can have it:

Misplaced Pages is now vast. It is so vast that, at any given moment, most people have no idea who you are. When one is a new user, one does a few edits, gets a few kind words, responds, and gets a few more. A few more edits, and one establishes a small group of known contacts. A bit more, and a person is perhaps on WikiProject X or Y. If one passes an RFA, there is even more good feedback. A telling post or two here or there, a problem solved, and one can get to feel pretty famous. In other words, all the users end up with circles of admirers and mentors, friends and supporters, and this is an alluring part of the experience, even if it is the "wikister" part. All the same, we all go out into the deep waters of Misplaced Pages and get brought up short by someone saying, "Who the hell are you to express your opinion?"

It's natural, therefore, to have circles and to feel frustrated when what is plainly right to you and your circle is being viewed suspiciously, or even dismissively, by others. There is a temptation to want to tell people how important you are, to demand that they respect you. This is a temptation to sin and evil.

IRC, and even small projects, allow us to move the fence posts in, to define our spaces carefully, to set up our own Venn diagram where only those like us are communicating. So long as we remember that "our" group, whether that is the IRC monkeys, the article authors, the taggers, the categorizers, or the checkusers or arbitrators, is the tiniest small part of the site, it's ok, but when our frustration at not getting the wider community to admire us or give in to our demands forces us to smaller and smaller and, most importantly, quieter and monologic areas, it is dangerous. Any discussion or discussion area that is not available to the entire site cannot legislate, militate, or organize the wider site. Any group cannot force its will on the rest. Even arbitrators are arbitrators at the mutual consent of the wider site. Anything done in secret is invalid as policy or guideline. Geogre 01:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Though the phrase "IRC monkey" and the term "militate" might need changing. Also, the term wikister might be unclear to some (I'm not 100% sure what it means). Carcharoth 09:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. "IRC monkey" is the default name Mozilla/Firefox's Chatzilla gives you when you use it the first time, so I was trying to joke a bit. However, to be more neutral, it should probably be "IRC talker." "Wikister" is perhaps a private joke as well. I have, elsewhere, ranted about how Misplaced Pages is divided between the encyclopedia and the wikister (the Friendster of Wiki) and that the two have been in tension since the project started. "Social networking side" is more neutral. The "militate" is the only one I still agree with, although you're free to change it to something less vehement, because I was trying to suggest that all groups of friends rally troops and charge into the field with their private associations, and that's the problem. Talking is good, and sharing interests is good, but going off to a homogenized discussion area is a bad idea, whether it's Schoolwatch or that IRC channel, to create an army. Geogre 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated at

Misplaced Pages:Off-wiki policy discussion to some degree. Even essays probably shouldn't fork. - brenneman 14:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But, they're obviously different. That one is wrong, and this one is right. Perfectly clear, right? Friday (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Looking at the talk page, I see Jimbo weighed in over there. See:

• Wikipedia_talk:Off-wiki_policy_discussion#I_have_written_a_counterpoint
• Wikipedia_talk:Off-wiki_policy_discussion#Of_course_it_is_rejected

Though that was back when that page was asking for (near) total rejection of mailing lists and IRC channels. I am persuaded by some of the arguments on that page that off-wiki communication is needed, and I think maybe this essay should be retitled as something more neutral, like "Long-term disadvantages of off-wiki discussion" (as this essay considers more than just policy discussions). Carcharoth 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this was written in response to a specific problem. And, yes, it's inaccurate to say that all IRC communication among editors is automatically harmful, so I've probably overstated the case, here. Anyone wants to fix it, feel free of course. Of course, maybe this should just go away for being redundant. Policy discussion is almost certainly more useful off wiki than on- this was aimed more at things like deciding to make a block based on off-wiki conversation. Friday (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I hang out in IRC all the time, and seek advice there, but I'd never say I did something because IRC said so (or someone on IRC said so). Hopefully I'd only take an action because I was convinced on its merits, and I'd state those instead. Someone who basis their authority solely or primarily on IRC is an open proxy and should be blocked accordingly...Mackensen (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll second Mackensen, with a caveat: He's sensible, many others are not. I've seen "Hey gang, I've got this idea to <insert pestiferous concept here>" followed by a gattling-gun of thoughtless "Go for it!" responses as well. While it cannot match the miasmatic funk of the mailing list, it certainly beats it for making bad things happen with celerity. - brenneman 03:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Many users use private communications. E-mails for one. Indeed individual talk page discussion can form friendships too. And although anyone can read it, it isn't possible to watch all talk pages - so subgroups exist. Whilst IRC excludes some, IRC is at least (usually) fairly public and has a cross-section of the community involved. Do bad cliquish decisions originate in IRC? Heavens, yes. But they originate also on wikiprojects and in many nooks and cannies of this vast project. Good thoughts, worked out after long and careful discussion come from all these places too. We're better to judge the outcome than the process. If the idea, thought, or decision is bad, then slam it. If not then praise it. Ultimately on wikipedia, every deleion, protection, block and even every post is the unilatteral action of one user, for which they are individually responsible.--Doc 09:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• We seem to all agree: existance of off-wiki talk good, relying on the talk for on-wiki actions, bad. Is that about right?
  brenneman 10:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Correct. We should always be encouraging more communication, not less, with the caveat that you will individually be called upon to justify your actions. Mackensen (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. I think this essay has it wrong as it stands, because IRC is not harmful in and of itself. Decisions need to stand on their merits, though. Who said what when (urging a decision or action) is not justification, justification must come from sound principles. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is an acceptable statement of Friday's point of view. I happen to think he's factually incorrect to state that "someone on IRC said it was okay" is often cited as justification for an action. But if that's what he thinks then he's entitled to have his say. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does IRC specifically discourage accountability?

One of the things I've been shocked to see, in the few times I've visited the #wikipedia channel on IRC, is that posting of the logs is such an unallowable thing that violators will be banned from the channel. This seems like pure disadvantage, with no offsetting advantage. Am I missing something? Are we not specifically encouraging people to behave badly in this venue by making it a crime to expose what's said there? Does a secret venue help the project in some way? Friday (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I was always under the impression that it was a freenode thing, at least for #wikipedia. With the admin channel, it has to do with the possibility that a sensitive topic (e.g. WP:OFFICE) might be discussed. Mackensen (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. As I alluded to above, perhaps this whole essay is stupid or misguided, I dunno. I've heard the horror stories about what goes on in IRC, but how much of a problem is it really? The main thing I'm concerned about is such astoundingly poor on-wiki behavior that I can only assume the troublemakers are being encouraged by their buddies in some back channel. I'm disgusted by the occasional comments I've seen to the effect of "you're being watched by me and my friends, and we're putting you on the enemies list", but I suppose I lept to the conclusion that IRC is where the unknown watchers hang out without any actual evidence. Really, to be fair, I suppose we need to seperate the bad behavior from our guesses about what might be causing it, eh? Friday (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think much of it is overblown. Consider: at any given time there are about four dozen admins lolling about, not doing much of anything. I have, on occasion, seen a discussion that would qualify as a "horror story," but the person in question was usually angry (and ready to do something stupid) before they showed up. I've also seen instances where said person was calmed down by others and an atrocity prevented. I really don't see much encouragement happening and think the presumption, absent evidence, is just that. Now, I can only speak for what happens in #wikipedia-en-admins, #wikipedia-en-checkuser, and #wikipedia-en-arbcom (the latter two go days without anything being said). I know there's a channel out there called #wikipedia-en-cabal, or some such, which is at the center of the (failing) admin bid by Rory096, but I've never been in there nor do I know anyone else who has. Despite the name, I don't think the Real Cabal hangs its hat there. Mackensen (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen, if there are admins out there capable of committing an "atrocity," they need to be identified and desysopped, not calmed down. As for the horror stories, there are plenty, including information from check user being discussed, which is a violation of both the check user and privacy policies. There are totally unacceptable personal attacks on editors, and in general a bullying atmosphere with certain editors encouraged to act as attack dogs for others. I was stunned the first time I saw it. SlimVirgin 20:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of at least one such instance, and that user is no longer a sysop. I can't say I've observed much "attack dog" behavior, maybe I'm on at the wrong times (I never see you there, for that matter). Mackensen (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone who went a time or two and was unhappy with what they saw probably wouldn't come back. The only conclusion I'm able to draw from what I'm hearing is that a certain amount of bad behavior goes on there, but there's disagreement over how much. I'm still not remotely convinced that such a channel does more good than harm, but I realize there's no making it go away either. So maybe all that's left to do is to make sure that the problems with such communication are clearly explained. I'm also not at all convinced that policy pages should specifically recommend using IRC, but that's a question for those individual talk pages. Friday (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing that would help is a willingess on the part of those in the channel to clean their own house. Without going into specifics, I think that's happening already. Mackensen (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Both m:IRC channels and Freenode's channel guidelines say that the default is assumed to be that channels don't publicly log. But that channels can post a notice that public logging is okay in that channel, in which case people can.

#wikipedia-en-admins was set up explicitely to prevent disclosure of discussions by Jimbo, OTRS folks, etc., so that clearly shouldn't be logged. And #wikipedia has had logging issues by Brandt (google "Misplaced Pages Hive Mind Chat Room"), so there's probably resistance to logging that as well. --Interiot 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

New admin IRC discussion

Copied from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops, with a specific mandate to keep Wikimedia IRC channels polite and courteous. Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Misplaced Pages. Fred Bauder for the Arbitration Committee 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

End copied section

placeholder - brenneman 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll note that in the October discussion I made the same points that I've made now. My views haven't changed. Now, my sanity might be a different matter... Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any way that consensus will be reached. Basically one side is not willing to negotiate, is ignoring requests to take things down RfC, and is basically trying to disrupt WP until they get their way and the targets of their wrath are desysopped/blocked. SirFozzie 02:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Err, that doesn't gel at all with my impression. That (why not name names, let's not be coy) Giano's call for resignations/deadm-minning/arbcom-spill/whatever are extreme, there are certianly several reasonable voices covering a large spectrum of opinons on this matter. Comments like that only serve to polarise, and add nothing to the debate. - brenneman 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that extreme. Whatever evidence he's tossing out there was enough for Arbcom to step up and say something, for sure. The simple, logical answer is this - discussion involving how to handle problematic or controversial situations should never take place off-wiki. If there's a question as to whether a situation may be problematic or controversial, it is. If administrators are found to ignore this directive, then they should be removed immediately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant "extreme" not in the sense that it was wrong/insane/partofthevastrightwingconspiracy, but only that it was an outlier: To my knowledge he's the only person calling for it. - brenneman 02:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Add Geogre, and the rest of Giano's group in there. When comments like If this is merely round two of a three round fight, if we have to wait for yet another horrendous case of star chamber blocks and rallying to destroy users, then that's a disgrace that proves that it's not what you do, but who you know. and folks using open proxies to disrupt the thread. That's 90% of the folks disagreeing with the ArbCom announcement that they are putting additional Channel Operators in the admin channels to help keep things civil. It's obvious from the discussion that they consider themselves justifying disrupting WP because "some admins had been mean to them on IRC". They do not want change, they want retribution. SirFozzie 03:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Beg differ Jeff; some of these discussions can't take place on-wiki; particularly those in which checkuser, oversight, or even the dreaded OFFICE come into play. Let me add that many discussions can easily take place in both places, but some simply cannot. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE is separate from everything here, and has no place in this discussion, and, as I understand it, checkuser/oversight has specific processes in place already. Are thoe not being followed? Keep in mind, as well, that if you're saying that checkuser/oversight issues are being discussed on IRC, security obviously isn't an issue. We need to end the secrecy, not make excuses for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. They are being handled privately, but the checkuser/oversighter is found via IRC. Sometimes the matter is of the utmost moment, and it is simply faster to use IRC than to email. Mackensen (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, I hate to say, that's a major problem. If security is why we can't have them take place on wiki, why the hell would one use such an insecure medium such as IRC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you maintaining that the wiki is more secure than a private discussion between two people and only two people, when each knows who they're talking to? Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. i'm maintaining that, if security is the issue, IRC is a horrid medium to use, not matter if you believe that the person you're talking to is who you think they are or not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, it's been my experience when I am asked (as, say, a commons admin consulted about an image, or a level 10 op asked about access), or when I ask in turn (as, say, someone seeking a checkuser, or seeking clarification on an OFFICE request I just got from Danny) that the initial request might come in over a public channel, but it's vague and non specific. The details are discussed, in real time, in a private query, one on one. That's not leaky. But it IS a lot faster than email. The times I have carried out OFFICE actions, or carried out deletion of images from commons to combat main page vandalism, no possible email system could have communicated the details as fast. IRC needs reform? Sure. But IRC is bad? IRC can be replaced completely by on Wiki stuff or by email? No way. Some things move too fast. I haven't said much but I surely am tired of this IRC isn't good for anything line of thinking. It's just not supportable. Now, I suppose talking someone out of a block COULD be carried out on AN/I but it's not as efficient. ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's a logical answer. During Giano's most recent block, Jimbo discussed for some time the possibility of unblocking or reblocking Giano, in the admin channel, and he was trying to privately get in contact with Giano to discuss the issue. Should Jimbo be de-admined immediately? I'm not sure what the specific concern over discussion of blocking is. (conspiracies? civility?) I've discussed a specific ethical issue related to blocking someone before with a friend who's otherwise unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages, was that wrong? --Interiot 03:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is Jimbo, we know full well none of this applies to him whether we want it to or not. Should he have come to AN/I or something to do it, though? Without a doubt. The "specific concern" is that issues with users that need not be private are being handled in a private venue that shows no apparent consistency as to who's privy to the discussions, and that it is causing harm to the userbase. Transparency is key. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to #admins

This section is unsigned on purpose, use it as a sandbox, it's mostly culled from ANI and does not by default represent my views. - brenneman 02:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Removal of channel
  1. Pointless, it will exist anyway
  2. Current incarnation has official imprimatur & corrupts noobz
• Restriction to admins
  1. "Trusted" non admins allowed in
  2. Trusted by whom?
• Removal os chanop rights for some
  1. Application process on-wiki
  2. Removal process on-wiki
• Addition of new, saner admins - Implemented, and David Gerard as well
• Add new items here

Works fine

No Changes needed (this is my view. SirFozzie 03:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

• If there are new, credible and sustainable allegations of uncivil behaviour in the admins channel in the future, then use dispute resolution.
  • Is incivility is the root cause

Yes. Both Ways (I think one side is greater then another, but my feelings are well known at this point) SirFozzie 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Are there possible problem behaviors that are not overtly incivil

I'm honestly not sure: The only thing I can think of is "off-boarding", ie on-Wiki decisions made off-wiki only. I think the best way to settle that would be a reminder that while discussions and sounding boards may take place off-wiki, that no decision should solely be made on off-wiki discussion. Let's not tie everything down in rules and regulations. SirFozzie 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • How would any posible dispute resolution step deal with
    • IRC being "out of bounds" as far as policable behavior (FB's note suggest this has changed), and
    • How would evidence be presented?

There is enough admins now in the channel that any "cabal" would be find it hard slogging to try anything in front of all of those (probably logging) users. Confirm that whole, unedited logs can be sent privately to the ArbCom for use in any RfC or RfAr if need be. I would specifically invite Giano and/or Geogre, under STRICT behaviour parole, to join the channel. It's time they put the money where their mouth is, and being inclusive... can't hurt to try, right? SirFozzie 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins is part of wikipedia

• #wikipedia-en-admins may be off-site, but it is part of wikipedia. It was proposed , given specific mandates and announced on the WikiEN mailing list . It continues, by all accounts, to be a place intended for discussion among wikipedia admins for wikipedia issues. The foundation donates money to irc in recognition of its importance to wikipedia. All actions there, including who becomes channel ops, should be accountable to the arbcom and the wikipedia community. The latest posting by the arbcom only partially acknowledges this , they need to do better. To start with, a complete review of channel ops should be done - on wiki and transparently (for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel only). --Duk 05:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now cancelled all wikipedia donations, and advise others to the same. Donating our time is enough from now onwards, if the money is ro be wasted in this fashion. The whole thing is now ridiculous if Cyde, Mackensen and their friends want to inhabit a private world of spite then let them, so long as it is poweless and all opinions which eminate from there are shunned, ignore or laughed off, then what the hell. The place is and its occupants are thoroughly discredited. I don't see there is a lot more to say, I shall not be funding them but ignoring the actions and views of all IRCadmins and no-nadmin cronies from now on. I advise all others to do the same, thus leaving wikipedia a better place. Giano 07:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)