Meta:Babel/Archives/2011-08

Main page

Hello. While setting my preferences into "es" I'm seeing Página principal which is not in Spanish but on Portuguese. Can somebody fix that? The correct one should be Portada/Es. Thanks, -- Dferg 13:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, updated MediaWiki:Mainpage/es. Cbrown1023 talk 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Now it is called Portada/Es in the Side Bar. Ruslik 15:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know any way to avoid that without making all of the links fail for all other languages. Cbrown1023 talk 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You can probably use mainpage|mainpage-description (which is the default in the software anyway). SPQRobin (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks Robin. Cbrown1023 talk 18:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Grants

I noticed that Grants page currently leads to the grants given to WMF in the past. It hasn't been updated in a long while, there is a message there that it is being updated as of 2009. Since, grants being given out by WMF is a much bigger issue now maybe we can archive that page, mark it as historical and redirect it to Grants:Index and redirect Wikimedia grants as well. Just in case I'm leaving a message here, if anyone objects. I would do the mentioned changes above. Thanks. Theo10011 20:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

 Support Ijon 22:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• An updated page about grants received by the foundation would be very welcome. Perhaps the Foundation's Grants and Information Officer or Head of Partnerships and Foundation Relations could provide some information (if these positions actually exist). ~ Ningauble 14:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Done-Move done, Thanks Asaf. Theo10011 15:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for this, the page it was moved to is Grants given to Wikimedia Foundation. ~ Ningauble 15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ningauble. Theo10011 16:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes in my site

How does one stop changes to one's own site made by someone else? I had a general page about me (a best selling cookbook author) and my site was not only removed, but an English actor's site (with the same name) replaced it. When trying to set up a new site for myself Wikipedia said I was no longer ever allowed into the page and was told today I can't vote. Lynn Fischer

Responded here. Killiondude 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories of projects

Hi, is there a category discussion page here? I want to create a new category for all huwiki-related pages (Category:HU exists, but is not relevant for general purpose); where to place it, which is the right parent category? Are there similar categories? Bináris ^{tell me} 15:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Global bans

Forgive me for the naivete of this question, but I'm not very familiar with Meta. I was just reading the section about Poetlister at the top of this page, and how he has been recently globally banned across all WikiMedia projects. So here's my question: why aren't all bans global? If a user violates policies sufficiently seriously to get banned on, say, es.wp, why should they still be able to contribute to en.wp?

Contributing to any WikiMedia project is a privilege, not a right. Some users behave badly enough that they have that privilege permanently removed. The WikiMedia projects are supposed to be 'sister projects'; that, if it means anything, should mean that they respect one another's judgements about when a user should not be allowed to edit.

I believe that getting banned from one WikiMedia project should mean getting banned from all WikiMedia projects. There probably isn't much support for such a policy, but I imagine it would help deter serious misconduct on all projects. Does anyone else agree? Robofish 16:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The most rules of our projects are based on community decisions, so if a community have nothing against the user who is banned, they can let him work on the project. Therefore it is possible to be banned, but still unblocked on a specific project. Contributing to a project is not a privilege, everyone can edit and we are happy about every single (constructive) edit. But if someone get disruptive, s/he can be blocked, or like in case above, banned. --WizardOfOz ^talk 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree for the more serious violations, such as longterm mass copyvios, or child protection issues, they should be banned across all projects. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 18:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Donation of three months' access to Feminist Economics

Routledge has kindly offered three months' free online access to Feminist Economics, a peer-reviewed academic journal, for up to 15 Wikimedians. The sign-up sheet is here, and will open at 22:00 UTC, Monday, August 29.

Please pass the word along to anyone you know who might be interested. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Low-level multi-wiki disruption

An editor (single-purpose account) keeps adding a POV category to a single article (Compulsory voting on en) over a period of about six months on four different language Wikipedias (EN, FR, ES, PT). He got blocked on EN (ultimately indefinitely, but was given chances to improve before this) because the article has more eyes on it there; however the low-level disruption continues at the other three. What is the best way to handle this situation on those? Orderinchaos 03:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute, it should be solved locally (local block as done on enwiki). I´m just wondering that his edits on es, fr and ptwiki are not seen as disruptive. If it is proven vandalism, he could be blocked on global level here. --WizardOfOz ^talk 04:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Reform of Wikipedia IRC

As per Jennavecia, I'm linking to the old discussion: Please don't reply, it's in the wrong place.

(I hope this is the right place)

I know that this proposal has been on the English Wikipedia lately, and it has not been received rather successfully, although at the recommendation of an IRC user I have chosen to write this proposal again, this time on Meta, as Group Contacts work across all Wikimedia projects. I feel that Wikimedia IRC does not involve the community as much as it could, and in my opinion, as it needs to. While we take the name of "#wiki?edia-?", we do not use the essential, co-operative, collaborative, consensus-based values and structures of Wikimedia. Group Contacts, although they do a mighty fine job, are not selected by the community, and they are selected by the previous Group Contacts in an oligarchic structure which reduces the community's rights and powers to involvement in channel and group administration, and possibly marginally increases the chances of inactive Contacts being around (although this has never happened). Channels cannot select their operators or change their policies, and the suggestions of some users are ignored (I will provide examples of these should you request). This is not Wikimedia. Wikimedia is consensual, co-operative and collaborative. And should you claim that "Wikimedia and IRC are separate" I would like to contest that claim. On the English Wikipedia alone a lot of our help templates direct new users to IRC channels, we have huge documentation pages about IRC, and even our users direct new users to IRC channels. We need to either make IRC unofficial, removing references, or make it official integrating the community into channel and group governance. I will make my proposal, and I invite the Meta and Wikimedia communities to make theirs. Please note that I have nothing against any of the current Contacts, if there was a GC election I would vote for them. --123Hedgehog456 15:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

123Hedgehog456's Proposal

I propose that two GCs every year, and should they leave or become inactive, a replacement will be drafted like the English Wikipedia system, or possibly the next candidate in the last election. I propose that the community have the right to propose new policies for IRC on-wiki or on-IRC, and via a consensus system choose them, and the same for removing policies. I propose a consensus-based freenode IRC system to the extent that freenode will allow. Thank you. --123Hedgehog456 15:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if two group contacts being elected would be the best way. I think it would be more appropriate if they were connected to the WMF because group contacts are supposed to handle the behind the scenes more mechanical aspects. However, having ops elected would make more sense, as many of them aren't even admin nor would be approved. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I have to agree there, but GCs do wield the ultimate power, so perhaps we could have op elections and founder elections too? Anyway, amending proposal to add your consideration. --123Hedgehog456 17:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And what then? IRC is not part of Wikimedia Foundation, so they are not under any obligation to follow any consensus that can be reached here. So, your proposal is just unenforceable. Ruslik 18:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are wrong there. "If it's run by a larger core group or by voting across the project, the voting group should make a collective decision to register and should appoint one of their number as primary contact." (Freenode policy) Since we are a consensus-based project, then consensus decides the contacts, which is not happening. The Wikimedia community needs to establish a method of selecting its contacts, and this proposal allows that. --123Hedgehog456 18:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Elected ops and founders removed as per consensus in #wikimedia-ops. --123Hedgehog456 20:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This policy is about how to register, not about how to take over existing channels. You with your friends can form a 'larger core group', appoint your contacts and create you own channels. But the existing wikimedia/wikipedia/etc channels are registered to Wikimedia Foundation, not to any 'consensus-based project'. You can make any decision here, but support of the Foundation Freenode will ignore it. Ruslik 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

While I believe you are right on your first sentence there, I have another argument to make. The appointment of the GCs is technically in the hands of the Wikimedia community as stated by someone on the mailing list ([1]), so we should start electing our GCs and deciding our policies, as stated by this proposal, which establishes procedures for the election of GCs, founders and ops, and the creation of new policies. The Foundation does not control the group 'wikimedia' and its contacts, the Wikimedia community does, and we should start to exercise these powers for a more collaborative IRC system. --123Hedgehog456 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That was from 2007. Things could have changed, no? —Gfoley Four— 19:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no indication of them having changed. Meta's IRC Group Contacts page still refers to the posting as policy, and by establishing community control and elected GCs we ultimately get a better system. Nothing has changed, Gfoley, and the community only has to establish the structures for selecting Group Contacts and administrating the group and channels. --123Hedgehog456 19:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ruslik, the rules and guidelines for the channels link directly to Meta. Also, those like Cary Bass had a lot of say over who was given power in certain channels. Individual projects do not have a say over IRC, but the WMF definitely has a say. Just find out who exactly registered the channels and you'll see. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Okay, since 123Hedgehog456 (for a reason I still can't fathom) virtually begged me to respond, I will be as unequivocal as possible. This idea is not only at best quixotic and unworkable on a technical/proceedural level (for all the reasons spelled out carefully by Hersfold, Ironholds and slakr on Village Pump) it is also downright destructive to the project. Let's take it a step at a time, starting with the Wikipedia/IRC relationship from the user's perspective.

Have any of you guys stopped for a second to consider how many Wikipedians even know of IRC, let alone have visited (maybe to get some useful help information), let alone have a chat client on their computer, let alone spend the considerable amount of time per day that Wikipedian IRC regulars tend to do? I'd back of the envelope it by saying that Wikipedian IRC regulars comprise less than 20% of Wikipedians. If I happen to be wrong, hey, it's an empirical calculation waiting to be solved. What's apparent is that none of you supporters of this proposal seem to have even considered the question. You might also consider that many people who don't use it have negative impressions of chatrooms, from either past personal experiences, anecdotes their friends tell them or the general trove of internet horror stories. Putting this together with a decided minority of IRC devotees, one gets a recipe for some of the conflicts that may have arisen in the past between Wikipedians who do and don't habitually use IRC: that it cultivates "cabals" (private channels where friends hang out), that the snarky, anything-goes atmosphere breeds a sort of Wikipedian at odds with the the values of civility, deliberation and objectivity (not to mention good grammar and spelling), that the "IRC kidz" had a potential to "spoil it" on-wiki with their flippant, freewheeling attitudes.

Now this is an extrapolation I just made up. It seems plausible. But it also seems to be about as "real" as the demons you guys seem to want to protect us from. And while I know virtually nothing about the responsibilities and regulatory powers of GCs and am too new to have a feel for the ordinary decision-making processes here, this is what I do know. As a matter of principle: I do not want people making decisions about Wikipedia IRC channels who have little affinity for or understanding of the IRC experience. Opening a vote up to Wikipedians in general to set policy on IRC is an un-democratic slap in the face to the 20% or so of us who use and appreciate it. It is an archetypical instance of the Tyranny of the Majority, and on this alone your idea fails even if WMF has full rights to regulate the channels.

Beyond the new proceedures you're proposing (and, again, I'll leave those criticisms to the likes of Ironholds and slakr), what are the policy changes you're looking for, what are the things you'd like to see to enhance the IRC experience for Wikipedia and facilitate collaboration? Upon query yesterday in #wikipedia-en (which included steward Peter Symonds), 123Hedgehog456 admitted that he has three basic goals: consensus input on "swearing," extending on-wiki user bans to IRC and the ability to remove cloaks from problem but un-ban-worthy users as a punitive "shock." Apparently they have no positive vision of what they think IRC could be, but a clear one of what they think IRC shouldn't be. I'll leave the appropriateness of curse regulation to the eloquent remarks of slakr on Village Pump. Ban extensions I don't think many of us would object to on principle; Wikipedia pests tend to be pests on IRC. Peter said that in the very few instances where cloak removal is necessary, the system in place works fine. However, increasing the likelihood of this rare instance struck everyone, including the channel op, as obtuse and counterproductive in the extreme. The way Wikipedia generally works with problem users short of banishment is to try to appeal to their better natures. Basic psychology tells us that punitive "shocks" (123Hedgehog456's revealing term) would only increase their resentment and entitlement to grievance, and the further chance this would lead to more, not less disruptive behavior.

What would WMF, even assuming a dedicated server, be able to do for regulating IRC that Freenode can't? This is a question that appears unexplored, let alone answered. If all this proposal amounts to is increased behavioral moderation, then everyone with experience on IRC appears in unanimous agreement that it would simply gut the channels, because people go on IRC to let their hair down, vent and have the sort of freewheeling exchanges that might in a moment of real-time interaction produce an indiscretion that, permanently logged on-wiki and searchable, could (e.g.) come back to haunt a person's chance at an RfA. The people who appreciate IRC just for those reasons will simply go elsewhere by creating new channels on Freenode, removing their valuable Wikipedia insights from "official" discussions. Despite a rare (and doubtless inevitable) brush-up or two with an individual channel op, for the majority of Wikipedians Freenode's ops and policies haven't produced much consensus complaint.

Finally, if Wikipedia strongly requires a "flagship channel" that duly reflects the values and spirit of Wikipedia, I'd suggest that one currently exists: the #wikipedia-en-help channel. By mutual and effective self-regulation of the helpers, there is no cursing at all, no snark, and any well-meant mistakes made in articulating policy by a new helper (*ahem*) are quickly and pleasantly corrected by their more experienced fellows. If WMF wants to "cut loose" the other channels from official Wikidom with a dedicated IRC server and focus any new stringent content/demeanor regulations on it, nothing at all would change. And if nothing at all would change in the single channel that help documentation suggests Wikipedians draw on as a resource, then I'd suggest there is no substantive issue to correct here at all.

Snardbafulator 10:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to counter that, Snardbafulator.

• I believe that I made clear that a change in swearing policies, cloak removals, and extended bans are simply a possible result of my proposal, not part of the proposal itself. I support those policies (except for the first one), but they are not part of my proposal and they are not really a valid reason to oppose my proposal, because my proposal only provides for elected Group Contacts and the ability of the community to make channel and group policies. They are not my basic goals. --123Hedgehog456 12:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

They're the clear implication of your policy change, though. Why should "the community" make decisions on something that most of it doesn't use? Why shouldn't "the IRC community" which includes not only Wikipedians motivated enough to become channel ops, but primarily Freednode, be allowed to continue making and implementing the policy? Why should prejudices against chatrooms be allowed to figure into this by giving Wikipedians decision input into something that they might not use, might not understand or perhaps have fixed, prevalent ideas that it's something inherently negative? I strongly echo Ironholds below to insist that you answer the question: What do you feel is the current harm?

Furthermore, I respectfully suggest to you that it is disingenuous to claim you support certain policies which would in fact produce the results I am talking about (especially cloak removal) and then immediately deny that these things are the goals of your policy. Snardbafulator 11:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Snardbafulator, IRC is forced upon the community via policy pages, templates, and social norms, and yet the Wikimedia community does not have a say in the operations of IRC. A mailing list clarifies that the "wiki?edia" IRC groups belong to the Wikimedia community, and we need to make a transition to either official IRC or unofficial IRC in order to properly represent the Wikimedia community.

They're "forced" upon the community the way an article on, say, entomology is "forced" upon the community: by simply being available to draw on or ignore. You have yet to explain how the relevant segment of the Wikipedia community -- those who use IRC --- feel as though they aren't adequately represented. You obviously feel very slighted. Opinion noted. Snardbafulator 13:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, just because I support something doesn't mean it's part of my proposal. I support the abolition of slavery in counties that have it, but does that mean that this proposal calls for the abolition of slavery? It's the community's decision to enforce policies if this proposal succeeds. --123Hedgehog456 12:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdums about slavery don't demonstrate that you're debating here in good faith. You obviously want some kind of further IRC regulation. When pressed, you disingenuously attempt to deny your own deeper purposes and go on to make an argument about democratic and consensus principles. When this is countered by the Tyranny of the Majority that "input" by a community vastly larger than the people affected by any change (and who don't care) would impose, you refuse to address it. This is becoming tiresome. Snardbafulator 13:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Did I say we would log channels? Did I say we would impose bureaucracy on the IRC channels? And how on earth does this amount to more moderation? People would still be able to enjoy the same IRC conditions as before. Just that what parts of the community that are interested can propose and create new policies. If the IRC users don't like them, they can oppose them. And elected GCs isn't much of a "moderation measure", it simply stops possible community dissatisfaction with the GCs, and unpopular GC actions and policies.

Thank you. --123Hedgehog456 11:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Did *I* say you would log channels? Once again, you need to explain how "creating new policies" on IRC doesn't amount to simply adding more bureaucracy and regulation. And I'd also suggest you need to clearly demonstrate that "possible community dissatisfaction with the GCs and unpopular GC actions and policies" is more than your own personal opinion.

No one else who has commented, even those who support the idea of greater Wikipedia community input in IRC, seems to have concurred with that opinion. You yourself said at the top of this section that you'd vote for the current GCs. Where, again, is the current harm? Snardbafulator 11:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It simply allows the community to have a say in what it rightfully should have a say in. At the moment, despite IRC being forced upon them (with users being warned when they try to make w:WP:BOLD edits, changing the channels mentioned) If the wiki?edia IRC group is the official IRC group of Wikimedia then the community should have a say. That is the current harm. And there has been no current dissatisfaction, but the proposal would help prevent it. --123Hedgehog456 12:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The larger community either doesn't care or would make an uninformed judgment if they (gratuitously) had the option. The proposal gives every indication of creating the very harm you appear to be concerned about for the reasons outlined by JoeGazz and Ironholds. Until such time that Freenode policies produce substantial complaints from serious-minded users, there's no need impose somebody's idea of "democratic principle" when it will in fact dilute the voice of the people directly affected and thus undermine the principle of democracy. Snardbafulator 13:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The following point-by-point rebuttal by Snardbafulator 00:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• There's a small % of Wiki?edians using IRC, but it could become a larger aspect - certainly, there's huge potential for helping newer users in the environment; I have personal experience in assisting many, in that way - and sometimes things that are very challenging to explain via talk pages can be demonstrated "live" in minutes (such as, problems adding a piped link/refs/images). That's also been demonstrated through the Wikipedia In Education programme, and other developments (Example: en:Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Resources/Lesson_2#Example_session)

The forum exists; it's called the Help channel. Since I've been an IRC regular for a month, continually logged into both en-help and en-helpers, I have not seen your nick even once. Your views about its lack of adequacy are therefore outdated and do not trump the consensus.

• Most users don't have a client - they don't need one; there's a web link in the help template and elsewhere, to [2]. There's also potentials for further integration; see http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/LiveHelp

You don't need a client for a short stint in the Help channel, but WebChat is notorious for frequent IP shifting which bumps people out of IRC. Anyone who wants to do what the IRC regulars do and stay logged in for most or all of the day have no choice but to use a client.

• You seem to oppose use of IRC in general, for understandable reasons (IRC kidz, etc) - however, these channels exist, and I've seen plenty of examples of productive collaboration. The current lack of a clear system is stifling potential progress

All this does is demonstrate your lack of observation. I've been an IRC regular for a month, like the other regulars logged in most of the day and occasionally get people asking me why I spend so much time there. It is thunderously obvious that I'm a strong IRC supporter.

You need to demonstrate with a cogent argument based on relevant (current) examples your unsupported assertion that "the current lack of a clear system is stifling potential progress."

• Re. "Opening a vote up to Wikipedians in general to set policy on IRC is an un-democratic" - it would be a discussion, not a vote - and opinions aired would be viewed in light of experience, and so forth. And, it's not a democracy.

Discussions are the sine qua non of consensus decision making, and consensus decision making is diametrically opposed to a tyranny of the majority -- used precisely to counteract groupthink and mob rule. It is more small "d" democratic than a democracy. This means that in order for your proposal to fly, you need to get past a bloc of well-reasoned, strongly felt and unified opposition which will no doubt be represented in any set of discussions. You and 123Hedgehog456 haven't come remotely close to approaching, let alone meeting that bar.

Where are your supporters, Chzz? Why aren't they voicing their support here?

• I appreciate the need for IRC to allow much more permissive "venting" - and there's no reason why that cannot happen. However, having the ability to develop channel norms (guidelines, what is considered acceptable) through discussion/consensus will allow for any and all such things. IRC is a fundamentally different medium to Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean 'anything goes'. Whilst appropriate behaviour is certainly different, there are some things that we could agree and document as being acceptable and unacceptable

You flatly contradict yourself. You say you "appreciate" the need for "much more permissive venting" but that doesn't mean "anything goes." You also need to explain why it's appropriate for people who don't use IRC to have input in guidelines imposed on those who do.

• #wikipedia-en-help is not as great as you think, and could improve considerably. There are, frequently, concerns where users get inappropriate advice, are abused, bitten, attacked, and all kinds of other inappropriate behaviour. (Examples upon request) Chzz 19:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia-en-help currently functions close to optimally; you can poll every single one of the current helpers, solicit their views, and I am confident each will tell you precisely the same thing.Snardbafulator 00:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you wouldn't re-factor comments as you did above, because it is so hard to see who-said-what-when.

Fixed :)

However, in response,

I have not been active in the help channel since March this year. Prior to that, for around 2 years, I'd been by far the most active participant. I was also, at that time, one of the most active "account creators" via #wikipedia-en-accounts, as well as being very active in other channels. After attempting to resolve this situation in every way I could think of, I gave up on it, and decided that until this oligarchy structure changes, I do not feel comfortable participating in #wiki?edia- channels. I believe I have good knowledge of the channel operations, and I'm sorry if you consider my views outdated. If everything is as wonderful as you claim, that's great; I'll stay out of the way. Best, Chzz 03:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious response, Chzz. I guess I'm still stumbling on what "this situation" is supposed to entail; many people become disgruntled at Wikipedia and/or IRC and the community moves on. If we all had an idea of what the problems were instead of listening to you guys speak in the vaguest generalities about them, our reactions might be different.

I only registered on Wikipedia in March, did nothing for about two months, had an insanely long dialogue on my talk page with a user who liked my ideas about fixing an article and made tentative stabs at editing a few articles I have interest in before I even discovered IRC through the help channel. I'm still such a stone-cold newb I don't know what an "account creator" is or why they'd need a channel. I didn't even know other channels existed for my first week, so I hung out on Help and observed, and being a quick study (heh) began tentatively tossing in my two cents. At first, I was astounded at the obstinate cluelessness of some of the "why isn't my MySpace band notable?" types and dropped a few snarky remarks, which immediately led to PMs from Hersfold, Demiurge1000 and others very gently admonishing me that this was like Customer Service, the point's to leave these folks with a good impression of Wikipedia. That quickly moderated my behavior and now if necessary, I toss my snarkbombs in PMs to other helpers for a private chuckle. The point being that this is an entirely self-enforced policy by conscientious helpers and it appears pretty effective. If I see a helper newer than I doing the same thing, I'm sure I'd tactfully admonish him/her in the same way.

And I think my experiences will have objective confirmation from the other current helpers. Snardbafulator 05:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not see any chance that this will increase the activity of the group contacts; to the contrary, I believe it will decrease it. In the current set of arrangements, if group contacts become inactive, they can be quickly and easily replaced, with very little downtime. Under a system of selection (or election) there would be a need to debate, a need to have particular candidates, a need to have particular candidates discussed....and all this takes time. Rather than reducing the downtime between active GCs, this proposal would actually increase it by ensuring of days or weeks of form-filling after GCs become inactive rather than a simple appointment. Ironholds 10:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have changed my beliefs, and while I no longer feel that this will reduce inactivity, it will most definitely decrease possible community dissatisfaction with the GCs and their actions and policies, because every GC will be approved by the community and they will be able to be removed by the community. And I don't see why it would take "weeks" of form-filling: it would only take 2 days of nomination and 5 days of election, or vice versa, and the previous GCs would keep their posts during the election: if it's that much of a problem you could always draft in 'interregnum' GCs. --123Hedgehog456 11:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

2 days plus 5 days is 7 days. So, a week, assuming nothing ever goes wrong. Previous GCs keeping their post does not help if the reason you're appointing new ones is that the old ones aren't doing anything.

More importantly, what community dissatisfaction? Do you know what the GCs do? They hand out cloaks and make sure nobody camps in our spot when channels become inactive. Precisely what is there to get dissatisfied about? Ironholds 11:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first counterargument can be easily fixed. Instead of holding an election every time a GC goes inactive, just draft in a replacement consisting in the next most successful candidate in the last election. Then hold an election every year. Simples. *ckkrrr*

GCs have far more powers than that. They technically, theoretically, and practically run the group, appointing founders and deciding on group-wide policy and some channel policy issues. All of these actions can be controversial, and incur the wrath of the community, and then they won't want them selecting their successors. --123Hedgehog456 11:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And when those actions do become controversial there might be some need for this. So far, they haven't. Simply drafting a replacement candidate does not work - if the replacement candidate got say, 20 percent of the vote, your entire "that way the community will be happy with them" argument is torpedoed. Ironholds 11:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The community can easily raise its objections and torpedo the replacement, but since the last GC has been removed for not doing anything, they'll lose a lot of support and that support may go to the replacement. --123Hedgehog456 11:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose in the Strongest Sense - I'm in agreement with every single oppose here. You've yet to explain what policies we need, why we need them, and why the majority of Wikipedia would even care. There are hundreds of wikipedia IRC users, but there are about maybe not even 5% of them who care who the Group Contacts are, and if they get a say in IRC. I come to IRC to hang out, talk, and relieve some stress of Wikipedia. GCs do exactly what Ironholds said, they get you a cloak and they make sure we have our channels. Everyone has a real life, we all are busy, so are the GCs, they're real people. Do you realize how much freenode HATES changing Group contacts? They don't want new ones unless the other one HAS to leave for super important reasons or you die. That's it. I'm not seeing why people care about electing new GCs, no one really (No offense in any way) cares who they are. They just care the job gets done. Back to policies, what is going to make us follow policy set on meta for IRC? Nothing, WM != IRC, it's that simple. People really could care less about policy and stuff on IRC, that's why it's so stress free and all that. From what we've discussed on IRC in #wikimedia-ops, you're having issues with certain channels, where you should go deal with those channel +F first and then you should take it up with them. Changing all this would require work for over 200 channels in every language, do you want to write those policies in all these languages and then have to explain it to all these users who could care less in other languages? If only 1% of WP/WM users use IRC, what's the big deal, this is being blown way out of proportion. Joe Gazz84 12:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Amen. As Hersfold said, it is a solution looking for a problem. Snardbafulator 12:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my proposal would take policy matters from the GCs and into the hands of the community, reducing their burden, reducing their stress and helping them to live a stress-free life, without policy concerns. And the claim that WM != IRC is blatantly not true because of a mailing list post mentioned earlier and a Meta policy page holding it to still be policy. The group belongs to the Wikimedia community, so the Wikimedia community should get a say. And if you read up, I think you'll find what what policies we need, why we need them, and why the majority of Wikimedia would even care. --123Hedgehog456 12:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hedgy, Hedgy, Hedgy... That mailing list post was from 2007. The WMF's name is on the GRF, therefore they technically have the power on freenode, they're leaving it up to the community as to what they want to do. I personally see it as our GCs have enough common sense to impose policy as they see fit since then we wouldn't have to come here and vote all the time on policy and debate like this. I see no reason to debate this. If you want a policy, talk to the GCs. I'd like to get a GC here, is being a GC really /that/ stressful as HH seems to claim? All I'm seeing as I read up is that you want the community to make policies, not actually what they are and what they'd do. I'd also like some input from others who aren't necessarily involved in being ops or anything, to tell me, have you noticed what HH is saying being an issue? Maybe since I'm an op in a channel and talk with the ops all the time I'm immune to seeing it, I don't know. I think you're having issues with individual channels. What prompted this concern to you, I hardly see you in WM channels. I don't see what your point is here. I'm also not seeing why the community cares, as I said, I think the GCs are there because the previous GCs knew these GCs would have the common sense to make the right decisions, which they are. If they didn't then I'd see a need for this to come up but right now I'm not seeing any reason for this. So answer me this, what prompted a reform from you? Joe Gazz84 13:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Not a lot of reasoning that others haven't already given so I'll just add my voice to the group. Theo10011 13:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• I see this has pretty much been rejected, but for the record, my view is that IRC should be governed by on-wiki consensus. The system we have now, basically where nominal authority has been passed down from the first people who ran the wikipedia channels, isn't appropriate on principle. I also think some kind of chat space (whether IRC or something more user-friendly) should become a real part of Wikipedia, rather than a 'separate-but-not-really-separate' virtual space like IRC is now. We could do a lot more with an ephemeral chat space that we do, but it seems that we're stuck in our ways and in our attitudes about how to use IRC. But, alas, it seems clear that most people prefer the status-quo here.--Ragesoss 17:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Underlying relationship needs sorting out

We need to sort out the relationship between the WMF and Wiki*edia IRC channels. When people try and change things related to the IRC, they are shot down because "IRC in not part of the WMF", and yet here there is a good deal of evidence to indicate that the the WMF does have a close association with Wiki*edia channels. Until we nail down the relationship and make that realtionship clear to everyone, conversations on improving the IRC will get snagged on the issue, like they have now. Sven Manguard 03:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sven, the actual relationship makes things a lot easier than to have to contact the WMF for change. As stated in this mailing list, IRC belongs to the Wikimedia community, not to the WMF. Anyone who claims an overlap between the two communities is also wrong, because we link to the channels on our policy pages, meta pages and templates (and all of them, NOT, just #wikipedia-en-help, so the Wikimedia community ideally should have a voice in what happens on IRC, and my proposal does help that. --123Hedgehog456 10:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does the Wikimedia community need a voice in something that the vast majority of them either doesn't participate in, doesn't care or has ill-informed opinions about? Snardbafulator 13:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've explained this a quatrillion times, Snard. --123Hedgehog456 13:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

My fear is that you have a hidden regulatory agenda which you're now spending much efforts attempting to cover up with a proceedural discussion. You were drawn out on policies in the discussion yesterday and the things that you support all entail firmer moderation. It would be better for all of us if you come clean about the specific user behaviors you feel need addressing on IRC which you claim are allegedly "crying out" for community input. Snardbafulator 15:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Snardbafulator. I have no regulatory agenda, only a few things that I would rather like to see but which I have no power over and would leave to the community. The policies that may be implemented as a result of this proposal are not this proposal. --123Hedgehog456 16:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I absolutely know you mean well, Hedgie. But you're putting the cart before the horse. The Americans didn't fight the Revolutionary War because they "wanted democracy." The only thing all the Colonies could agree on in 1776 was that they were sick of Britain telling them what to do. Only years later did they hammer out a form of government in the ratified Constitution. Agreeing on a common grievance came long before the concrete decisions on how to fix it. Snardbafulator 17:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Then we have to agree on the fact that the Wikimedia community is not adequately represented when IRC is forced upon them, their templates and their pages, and then we can create proposals, agree on one, and implement it. --123Hedgehog456 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hedgie ... what gives you the idea that we have to agree here? Isn't it enough to see that Ironholds, Hersfold, Lara, JoeGazz, Theo10011, Tom Morris, slakr, myself and doubtless others who may consider putting in to this unnecessary are standing firmly, in solid agreement, against you and Chzz? Saying the same things over and over again isn't helping your case; if anything it's merely eroding your reputation in the community. Snardbafulator 02:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the same thing here. If you had a set of grievances that you feel would be solved by general community input into GC process, then we could discuss how that might happen. But you're very reluctant to lay out the "few things that [you] would rather see" and you treat them as if they aren't even the point. Well you're wrong. They're precisely the point. Because what you're asking is that the community adopt a whole new set of proceedures and that takes effort and coordination. In order to do that, in order to invest the energy into changing the way we do things, we'd have to feel there's a compelling reason to. "More community input" is not a compelling reason. That's a means to an end; not an end in itself. Snardbafulator 17:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The only point(s) I am trying to make in this proposal is that the Wikimedia community is not represented adequately when IRC is forced upon them. "No taxation without representation", you might say. So when lots of channels are forced into Wikimedia templates and policies, I'm sure that the Wikimedian community deserves a right of deciding a bit of what happens in IRC and who represents IRC to freenode. And the fact that channel users aren't represented adequately in the same ways while they're the ones using IRC. --123Hedgehog456 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hedgie ... the Boston Colonists tossed a boatload of British tea (!) into Boston Harbor to demonstrate their grievances. Where's the uprising? Where are the Wikipedians who feel aggrieved at the way IRC is run and want to change the policies? You also must realize that if you went out and solicited support for your proposal, you would be "forcing" your views on others in the precise way you maintain that IRC is being "forced" on the community.Snardbafulator 02:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If you could lay out a convincing case as to what's wrong with IRC as it stands, we'd all be a heckuva lot more likely to take seriously any plans you have to try to fix the problem you described. Snardbafulator 17:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've laid out a case, and if you find it unconvincing I'll make it more convincing. Tell me why my case is unconvincing. --123Hedgehog456 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You haven't laid out a case, Hedgie. For whatever motives (and I'm sure whatever they are they're quite well-meant) you try as hard as you can to avoid the question of what you'd like to see changed on IRC. You keep chanting slogans about "democracy" and "community input" without even addressing the strong case made by Ironholds, Tom Morris, Lara and myself that regular IRC users do not want further commmunity input into the running of IRC because we feel there's no reason to give a platform to uninformed and/or prejudiced opinions about chatrooms. This is where consensus decision making trumps voting democracy and mob rule. Snardbafulator 02:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

123Hedgehog456's Second Proposal

Considering impracticalities in the first proposal, community consensus, and a suggestion from an opposer of the original proposal, I have decided to create this second, far easier to implement, proposal. I propose that the current system of GCs be retained, as it is easy and the GCs are trusted to appoint someone they trust as their successor. Instead, I propose that the GCs and the Wikimedia community collaborate on matters of policies and group administration, with some aspects of channel administration. The Wikimedia community and the GCs will have the right to propose new policies and discuss administration, with the results of the discussion calculated by the merits of the opinions and thus community consensus. The discussion should take place on-wiki. I personally do not like this proposal, but minimal change is better than no change --123Hedgehog456 13:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• what policies? Ironholds 13:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Before I vote, could you explain what policies you'd be looking to implement or change? I think I saw it above, but could you elaborate? Joe Gazz84 13:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to reply to the comments of both Joe and Ironholds by saying that my proposal gives me no dictatorial powers, so that any policies that are implemented by the community are not mine. The community would have the power to implement policies. --123Hedgehog456 13:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said the policies gave you dictatorial powers, but if I'm understanding what you're saying, you are saying that the community could have any policy they choose, whatsoever, apply to IRC channels, and the group contacts and ops would be bound to enforce them? Ironholds 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the GCs would be involved in the policymaking process, they could point out policies that are impossible or at least extremely hard to implement and possibly veto the policy (close the discussion) for that reason, if it were a genuine reason. --123Hedgehog456 13:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• The word you're looking for, then, is "yes". Let me be clear, then; I strongly oppose any effort to make IRC a direct extension of the community, or give the wider community, who are divided mostly into doesn't give a shit about IRC/hates IRC and everything it stands for camps, a little playground for them and their policies. Ironholds 14:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Standing Ovation: The crux of the issue. Amen. Snardbafulator 15:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The word I'm looking for is "no", Ironholds. The GCs will maintain the right to say 'no' to policies which are deemed an invasion of the IRC ethos or are impractical, or both. And if we force IRC onto the wider community, putting it on our templates and our pages and our policies, then the wider community deserves a say. A bit like "no taxation without representation". --123Hedgehog456 14:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We do not "force" users to do anything. The big distinction between IRC and taxation is that you can say "no" to IRC. The two situations are not at all equivalent, and IRC is not "forced" on the community; if you want a simpler solution to this, remove mentions of IRC fromt he wiki. Sorted. Ironholds 14:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd strongly dissent from removing IRC from the wiki, Ironholds. While the "no taxation without representation" analogy is beyond ridiculous (being "forced" to look at stuff on Wikipedia? Seriously? WTF?), the en-help channel provides an invaluable (in lieu of a decent Help system, I'd argue irreplaceable) service and it's by far the most active WP channel. Snardbafulator 15:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That has been tried, and the user trying it got a warning and was reverted. If any user is directed to an IRC channel, it must be in the Wikimedia group. No other help channel can go in the {{help me}} template. Do you call that a choice? I don't. --123Hedgehog456 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Chzz tried changing the channel name, and reverted, not removing it altogether. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 14:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins no longer get to delete the Main page anymore either, so I'm led to understand :) Snardbafulator 15:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose giving the community any input on IRC matters. They are separate. The current system isn't broken and the proposal is vague and seems convoluted anyway. The initial concern seemed to be largely about how GCs are chosen, but this new proposal agrees that the current method is efficient and effective (why was this proposed to be changed initially then?). It then goes on to add bureaucracy where none is needed. The vast majority of WPians don't use IRC and have only a cursory understanding of it. It would be silly to ask them to weigh in on such matters. It would also weigh down IRC matters with pages and pages and pages of mostly pointless discussion and back and forth, just as things are on WP. Why subject ourselves to that? What problems are to be remedied? What are the benefits of that new system over this one, specifically? All these questions need to be answered for such a proposal to be justified. Lara 18:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

They are simply not separate. We force aspects of IRC upon the Wikimedia community: on their templates, their policies, and their project pages. And not just the main help channel either, this is done with many channels within the group. So if we force IRC upon them, and where channel or group changes cannot be perpetuated due to being reverted and warned, then surely the Wikimedia community should have a say in how IRC is run, so the IRC being forced onto them is one that is helpful for the project and its community and not just IRC's users. And there's more. This is a mailing list mail that clarifies that IRC belongs to the Wikimedia community and not the IRC community or the WMF. Old? It may be, but according to this Meta policy page it's still policy and nothing has changed. IRC belongs to the Wikimedia community so the Wikimedia community should have a say on how its own resource is run.

Hedgie ... we do have "a say." We're perfectly free to discuss the flaws of IRC here, on Village Pump and doubtless other fora that myself as a (relative) newb aren't aware of. We also have a "say" on IRC itself. Occasionally people there complain about troll issues or a particular chanop's bad action or whatever, but I have yet to see any discussions that fixing it would require more input from the vast segment of a community who chooses not to use it.

This is an idea that you and Chzz cooked up in your own heads. You're perfectly free to present it and if you get encouraging feedback, to consider taking the next step to move it forward. But no encouraging feedback has been forthcoming. Neither Wikipedia nor IRC are MM RPG games. This is not Harry Potter and the Magic IRC Cloak. Your hit points have vanished and your spell potions are depleted. Maybe it's time to stop restoring your old versions and keep trying, because it appears you're never going to get beyond Level 2 here. Snardbafulator 03:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not personally support this proposal but added it at the request of an IRC user who insisted that the "previous proposal would fail" but "this one may succeed". So while I feel that the Wikimedia community should be able to choose its ultimate IRC authority and representative to freenode, some change is better than no change.

This proposal has failed also. The arguments have become entirely circular and now I'm risking my own credibility in the community by continuing to indulge in them. Snardbafulator 03:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And if you do not support the sort of bureaucracy that stems from consensus-based systems, why take part in them? Bureaucracy is a sad side-effect of Wikipedia's system, but a required and a permanent one. A bit of paperwork is nothing to how much the ArbCom uses up in Workshop pages. --123Hedgehog456 19:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Arguing that more bureaucracy is okay because they're already too much of it is astoundingly fallacious. Too much ArbCom "paperwork" is an argument for less bureaucracy, not more. Snardbafulator 03:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

But this is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. We shouldn't be introducing bureaucracy unless there's a sigificant reason to do so. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That is simply false. We offer IRC as an option. It is not forced upon anyone. There are many other things (such as the tool server and others mentioned below by Tom Morris) utilized by Wiki*edia, but they are not forced on anyone. They exist as options. Many members of the Wiki*edia community do not use these features and rightfully have no input on them. We don't need uninformed editors making decisions about the tool server. And we don't need uninvolved editors making decisions about IRC either. That said, who are you making proposals on behalf of and why haven't they made the proposal themselves? Proposing something and then stating you don't actually support it completely shatters your credibility, for future reference. Lara 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Toolserver isn't really forced upon the community because it enjoys an immutable eminent monopoly on any tools that require access to a fairly updated version of the database. No-one can force Toolserver on the community because it's the only thing there is. And yet we can replace the current freenode IRC group with a new server, or move it to a new network, or even replace it with Jabber or etc. So the fact that the community has IRC as a forced method of help and discussion, in the templates and the policies and the pages, and yet any attempts to make it 'unofficial' or change it are reverted and warned. 'No taxation without representation', and the constant forcing of freenode IRC upon Wikimedia is almost like taxation.

And also, I meant that I support this proposal (a bit) but that I like the first one better. Sorry I said it wrong. Thanks, --123Hedgehog456 21:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, the taxation analogy is completely lost on me. No one is forced or obligated to join IRC. They can use WP for help. It's a slower method, and perhaps not the preferred one, but it's definitely there and it is unquestionably one that a majority of editors choose. So your taxation analogy really needs revising considering taxes generally apply to a large majority and in this case the large majority doesn't use IRC. Lara 21:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

IRC as a help method is forced upon the community, there are rather large and dominant references to it in pages, policies and templates, and yet any attempts to disassociate wiki from IRC always fail. Freenode IRC can not be removed from the community and their templates at the moment, and IRC is such a good resource that the only way to fix the problem is to give the community a say in IRC matters. --123Hedgehog456 21:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, again, forced is the wrong word. Forced to read it on templates? Okay, maybe. But they aren't forced to use it. And what problem? You keep making references to problems, but you can't seem to clarify what, exactly, the problem(s) is/are or in what ways this proposal (or the other one) will fix any problem(s). You also haven't explained why giving over decision-making power to a group of mostly uninvolved (in IRC) people is a good idea. Lara 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose the there are far more negatives then positives about this proposal --Guerillero 07:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as someone who participates on multiple Wiki IRC channels and on the Wikipedia website. Unless something needs improvement and the proposed changes are a good solution to that problem, it seems clear there are more productive ways for everyone to spend their volunteer time. I feel that this proposal amounts to hitting a thumbtack with a sledgehammer. Pine 08:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

An analogy

IRC has the sort of the same relationship to the projects as OTRS or the Account Creation Interface or Toolserver: it's separately run, even though it's heavily intertwined. This separation of powers is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. There are various things I would like to change about IRC: I'd especially like it if we could have a rule making it so that mods would have the option to ban people who are known to be banned on-wiki (not just blocked but indefinitely community banned or ArbCom banned). If someone is an extremely disruptive user on wiki to the point they get indefinitely banned, that should be a clue that we shouldn't give them the time of day on IRC. That's just my opinion though and I exercise it through judicious and frequent use of my IRC client's "/ignore" command.

Of course it would take the inestimable Tom Morris to make a more clear-cut case for an issue IRC might look into addressing than either supporter of this proposal :) Of course I agree with you and would have no problem if those permabanned on EnWiki were automatically permabanned on IRC. The problem though, is the really egregious EnWiki banees tend to get banned from IRC, too. It's the "halfway trolls" who are currently creating the issue on -en; one or two peeps who are capable of maintaining civility and making the occasional constructive comment who also can't seem to restrain themselves from typing for the sake of typing; flooding the channel with intentional inanities, deliberately mangling context in an attempt to be funny, dominating exchanges, etc. Using /ignore is problematic because they tend to drive out real conversation. But how, exactly, do you regulate against somebody who doesn't go the full WP:Dick monty? Look ... all of us IRC aficionados harbor a not-so-secret love for penis jokes, cryptic inappropriateness, snark, irrelevant funnin' around. That's part of what makes IRC a relaxing, pleasant experience as JoeGazz has said. If we could give the ops the authority to "draw the line," where would it be drawn and how does one be fair about it?

Don't get me wrong, Tom; I think we're both in agreement that in these borderline cases more moderation might well turn out to be a cure worse than the disease as long as we have /ignore. Snardbafulator 05:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Overall though I'm reasonably happy with how IRC is run, think the ops (on #wikipedia-en and other channels) are well-selected and for the most part sane, and think we should be inherently conservative about IRC policy: it ain't broke so don't blimmin' meddle with it. This proposal and any others like it that suggest we need to reform or change IRC governance, I'm opposed to them in the same way as I would be if enwiki started regulating OTRS or requiring wannabe Toolserver users to submit to approval of the enwiki community. And, yes, Hedeghog's "no taxation without representation" argument applies just as much to Toolserver: there's plenty odf links to Toolserver from enwiki for everything from user counts and RfA toolbox to things like IP stuff, and the argument is as absurd for those things as it is for IRC.

In short, putting-words-in-bold terms: oppose; burn it with fire. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that your example of OTRS or the Toolserver is correct, because WMF owns and runs both of them. This is not true for IRC, where the 'Wiki?edia' group is owned by the Wikimedia community, not WMF. So if it's owned by the Wikimedia community, shouldn't the Wikimedia community manage IRC? 'No taxation without representation' applies wherever and whenever it can be applied. --123Hedgehog456 19:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just say the Toolserver was owned by the WMF? Killiondude 19:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikimedia Deutschland, with help from the WMF. But it's not operated or owned by the community. --123Hedgehog456 19:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And Freenode, err, 'owns' Freenode. The point is that they are managed independently of the particular project communities, so "Wikipedia has a dependency on X" (e.g. the helpme template on enwiki) isn't really enough of a reason. If the Group Contacts aren't responsive to the desires of the (enwiki) community, then the (enwiki) community has the prerogative to, say, start an RfC on disaffiliating enwiki from IRC. But unless there's an actual real concern about management of IRC, the current proposal seems like a solution looking for a problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WMF does not govern the tool server, which operates separately from Wikipedia, and the community does not "own" IRC. You really need to research before making claims and also choose your words more carefully, Hedgehog, because you further damage your credibility when you don't have your facts in order and when you say things like "forced" repeatedly for things that are optional. Lara 21:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
*Comment Without wanting to comment on the subject matter - I can see pros and cons on both sides here - I do want to comment on the way this is being discussed. Reading through this has left with with an uncomfortable taste in the mouth; for my taste, there are rather too many words / remarks such as "disingenuous" (x 2), "tiresome", "hidden agenda", "attempting to cover up", "beyond ridiculous", "astoundingly fallacious", and so on.

I will stand behind every single one of those phrases in the context in which they were used. Snardbafulator 09:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to oppose a proposal without resorting to ad hominem attacks on the proposer, and using language which appears to be patronising, condescending, and (basically) name-calling. So please, if this applies to you, cut out the snark. It's unnecessary. Cheers. ThatPeskyCommoner 08:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to criticize language usage without mischaracterizing it as an ad-hominem attack. If you're going to note all of this, you need to also note the two times I assured Hedgehog that I felt his motives were good. Patently risible ideas are, however, patently risible ideas and in my view deserve neither coddling nor patronization. Snardbafulator 09:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Meta on incivility, which specifically includes "belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" as an example of incivility. Also WP:CIVIL. Both point out that judgmental and belittling behaviours are uncivil, and WP:NPA which clearly says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." This was unworthy of a contributor of your age and intelligence; apologies would probably not go amiss. ThatPeskyCommoner 11:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Pesky, you mischaracterized what I wrote as an ad-hominem attack, which amounts to twisting my words out of context. Hedgehog also has extremely good language skills, so I couldn't mock them even if I was {cretinous} and {immature} <--- enough to engage in debate like that. I did not insult or disparage Hedgehog personally, I used disdainful language to describe his ideas. If that left a bad taste in your mouth, I'm sorry, but I'll also save the deeper remorse and repentance until I hear from other people that my rhetoric was over the line. Snardbafulator 12:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And I'm sorry I have to say this next, but even alluding to my age on-wiki is inappropriate, as I told you my age in a private message. Referencing my age to attempt to make a point also happens to be the dictionary definition of arugmentum ad hominem. Snardbafulator 14:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I did say elsewhere that I didn't intend to answer any more - that wasn't really an invitation to put stuff up which I wasn't about to reply to. I didn't mention any figures - but it's pretty clear that you're not, for example, a teenager. My point was basically that, even without putting any numbers to it, it's fairly clear that you'd be old enough to know better. I wasn't attempting to undermine any argument of yours by reference to your level of maturity - I was merely saying that I felt that what you had done was unworthy of you. ThatPeskyCommoner 15:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Argghh. This has gotta end. In the name of peacemaking, Pesky, I apologize to you and anyone else if you felt my tone was beneath the level of decorum expected here. I guess I don't know how to criticize something strongly without using strongly critical language. But if you examine what I said, there are no personal attacks and several assurances that I believe (and still believe) that Hedgehog had acted in good faith. I did not reference anything about Hedgehog himself to imply things about the way a person "like that" "should" think -- which is what an ad hominem attack is. I called him no names. Was I aggressive? Yes? Relentless? Of course. One of the grievances aired is the fact that someone wanted to delete the help channel link on EnWiki and they couldn't get away with it. I consider this and similar ideas dangerous for both Wikipedia and IRC. These ideas needed strong challenge, which I provided. I had no intent to personally humiliate Hedgehog or harm him in any way, but he says he wants a life in politics. Well ... politics entails just this sort of disputation. Snardbafulator 18:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted, on my part. :o) ThatPeskyCommoner 19:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Who runs it?

It might help these discussions, if the facts were made clear.

As of now,

• Who decides the role of "Group Contact"?
• Who decides the "Channel Founders"?

• I mean - who, ultimately, has authority to choose them, to appoint them, currently?

Please, could this be made clear. Thanks, Chzz 03:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

On its face this is a legitimate question. My views have modulated somewhat since the debate of several days ago, but I am still concerned that until we have a clear grasp of what the grievances are, who holds them and why, that it's a relationship it's best not to monkey with on the general principle of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." No one to my knowledge has ever complained about a Group Contact and until several hours ago, I didn't know what a Channel Founder was. Nonetheless, it's a question certainly deserving of an answer, and certainly an answer I can't provide.

I'd like to revise my earlier comments about en-help. After speaking with some experienced helpers, the better way to describe it is "adequately run." While nobody seems rushing in a particular direction to change it (consensus seems to be that changing the op wouldn't necessarily be the way to go), recently there was a civility incident, helpees sometimes get inconsistent advice and sometimes helpers don't arrive quickly enough, especially during the "shift change" hours after the US has gone to bed and Britain/Europe/South Asia hasn't woken up yet. So if people want to brainstorm on ways to improve en-help, I can't see any objection save to note it's not a discussion we should have on Meta. I have no idea how the help system functions on the other language wikipedias.

Note also that my fundamental objection to Hedgehog's idea falls away if reform is restricted to the help channel. Here, the entire Wikipedia community deserves input into how it's run, because it's a resource used by people who may know nothing about IRC (who visit through the WebChat link) and Wikipedia has a vested interest in tightly vetting everything said in there. Bear in mind that the reason for this is that en-help is not a "chat" channel.

Others whose opinions I respect decline to go even this far, and object to any involvement of the larger community into IRC because they feel it would set a bad precedent; that if Wikipedia can regulate one channel, it might start sniffing around for ways to regulate others (e.g. wikipedia-en) which could cause a culture clash between Wikipedians who loathe IRC and all its freewheeling offensiveness and snark and those who appreciate it for those very qualities.

My hope is to spark a discussion here on ways to improve en-help. (There's also a project underway with Foundation backing to reform the entire on-wiki help system from the ground up which might eventually moot the IRC help channel, so here's to dreaming of that :) If people jump in here on en-help improvement, then I'd suggest we take the disucssion to Village Pump or another more approprate forum for that strictly EnWiki-related issue. Snardbafulator 13:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've spoken to dungodung, who is one of the GCs, earlier today. He said that "previouos GCs chose new GCs. it's the way it worked for a long time now; the older ones have the best understanding of the job and can make the best decision about who would be most suitable for the position". Wctaiwan 13:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(Amendment) As I showed you in the logs, dungodung, as GC, says that founders can be chosen by "clear consensus throughout the channel". Wctaiwan 16:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What prompted these questions and proposals? This system has been working with no obvious serious glitches for a really long time. What is the purpose for wanting to change it now? 75.183.115.83 20:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Full logs of my conversation with User:dungodung: en:User:Wctaiwan/IRC_management Wctaiwan 04:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Still - keeping this short - can someone please document here, who has the technical ability to appoint GC's? Chzz 01:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of all, could someone document what's the point of the question? The whole discussion seems quite off-track and I see conclusive answers by dungodung in the last link. Nemo 17:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hrmph. Killiondude 17:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)