Talk:IRC/Manifest

Should the Wiki error page link to the IRC chat room?

Please sign under "yes" or "no" and explain reasoning if possible.

Yes

1. 203.59.82.103 04:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC) I don't see any problem with leaving this linkage as it is.
2. Wikipedia's so big now that any website we link to would get overloaded immediately (this happens now to OpenFacts). We need the link to the IRC channel, I think. - Mark Ryan 05:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Yes, but not to #wikipedia. If the wikipedia has a moderately active IRC community, then the link should point there. --es:Usuario:Angus
4. really i don't think is the best solution, but i can't think anoter better so sure, why not. --es:Usuario:Evazquezm

No

1. Absolutely not. It should link to the IRC channel for that language. EN should link to en.wikipedia, ES to es.wikipedia. It will reduce the number of people that flood the channel in an outage, and it will ensure that everyone entering the channel can communicate with the invidiuals who know what is going on. -- Essjay · Talk 03:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure

1. It's a rare enough occurence nowadays that it's not a big issue. Our redirect page should go somewhere, and while I'm not sure #wikipedia is the best idea, I have not heard a better alternative. Raul654 04:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
2. I convince #wikipedia is not the best idea; for non English speaking people, it is annoying to get a foreign language message in the midst of trouble and suggest to go to English channel. On the other hand, English seems to be a lingua franca here on all the project and most of people who are informed (can) speak in English. So until a multilingual error message is set up and provide channel(s) in several languages, #wikipedia doesn't look a bad idea, but it is not a smart way to lead all visitors to #wikipedia, on the website(s) around 30% of access aims to the other languages than English, specially in case that there are several active other language channels serving each own language community. Aphaia++
3. Yes and No: it should give the "localized" link as a first option, and the #wikipedia as a second option. Someone from every channel needs to get to #wikipedia to see what's going on, in order to distribute the news. \Mike(z) 13:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Can it be concluded then, as bot the votes in favor and against suggest the same thing, that the IRC error page links should be Wikipedia specific, and perhaps, that #wikipedia be used only for minor languages for which it is not realistically possible to create an error message?

Should there be an exclusive official language of #wikipedia?

Please sign under "yes" or "no" and explain reasoning if possible.

Yes

1. Klingon --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No

1. 203.59.82.103 04:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC). As stated, this channel should exist for all wiki-ers (and non wiki-ers) to use, in any langauge they wish. Other channels can be created if too many users, etc becomes a problem, but #wikipedia at least should be free & open to all.
2. There is no official language for the channel at present, and I see no reason to impose one now. - Mark Ryan 05:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
3. I don't like the idea of having an official language. However, the convention is to use english and if you want to have an extended discussion in another language, please use private messages. Raul654 04:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Most of people use English but we cannot ban the other languages. The users of #wikipedia must be free to talk in any language. Alhen
5. Sorry, I don't support Raul's idea "use private messages if you want to talk in other languages than English". It is another type of anglo-centricism and far from our multilingual culture in my humble opinion. --Aphaia++ 23:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
6. I think spanish spoken people be more confortable being leading to #es.wikipedia, but, of course with a error page in spanish... and anyway I don't find any reason why the error page can't both channels... always english spoken people wants easier ways than others... #wikipedia should be international and #en.wikipedia for english spoken, like all the rest --es:Usuario:Evazquezm
7. There should not. Moreover, the en conversation should really be moved to en.wikipedia, and perhaps, #wikipedia closed. -- Essjay · Talk 03:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
8. --Orgullomoore 05:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC) I agree with the rest, #wikipedia is for issues that pertain to all Wikipedias, in all languages.
9. \Mike(z) 13:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC) Nope.

Conclusion

It appears that it, even though the selection is small, the community is strongly in favor of a multilingual #wikipedia.--Orgullomoore 05:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Should a set of basic rules be established?

Please sign under "yes" or "no" and explain reasoning if possible.

Yes

1. We need a page that would explain some basic reasons for which one could be kicked/banned Alhen
2. Orgullomoore 05:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC). My reasoning is well explained in the proposal.

No

1. Common sense is the best rule, when applied appropriately. If a channel operator has dodgy common sense, they can have their access revoked. - Mark Ryan 05:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
2. I Concur with Mark. Raul654 04:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Extreme Lesbian Mark Ryan Agree! Redwolf24 08:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed rules

Please leave some suggested rules that you would like to see established and explain why.

1. In situations in which a channel operator is personally offended, he should request an opinion and perhaps action of another channel operator before kicking/banning/silencing the offender.
2. Operators are to hold themselves responsible for their actions. If a user does not understand what he has done wrong to deserve being kicked, the operator must take a reasonable amount of time to explain it. Reason is to be applied here, that is, if a user posts "djflkdjflkdsjf dsjljdfladsj" or other text without sense or uncalled for offense, the user deserves no more than a line ("You were kicked for intentionally flooding the chat with patent nonsense.", for example). Further, a user who has directed abusive commentary towards an op may be ignored by that op. For example, if a user is kicked for using profanity towards an op, that op is not required to justify his actions to the individual. He or she should, if contacted by the kicked user, ask another op to intervene.
3. When any user feels personally annoyed by another, and that user is not bothering anyone else, it is recommended that he use the /IGNORE command or mentally decide not to pay attention to the user. This applies to operators as well, who should leave it to other operators to decide whether or not the users actions merit punishment.
4. Profanity is not to be used in the explanation of a kick/ban. Instead, a genuine reason for why they are being kickbanned is preferred.
5. propose a rule here

Archived Comments

The comments posted before the rewrite of the proposal are archived here.

IRC guidelines

I had no idea that this manifest page existed until I was browsing the category today, and thought it would be appropriate to link to the guidelines that have recently been rewritten. Does either page supercede the other? Thanks. —Xyrael / 16:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)