Talk:IRC/wikipedia/Guidelines/archive 1

I would replace policy with guideline. The word is less strong, yet you can have a blurb at the bottom stating that the guidelines are, in fact, the bottom line. It's just part of the 'keep the stuff positive and friendly' issue. We assume the overwhelming majority of people to be friendly, thus we should gear the guidelines to their needs, i.e. a look-up kind of thing.

It would probably be a good idea to create a new channel for smallish wikis that do not have their own presence. If a substantial part of channel traffic is non-english, it can (read: does not have to) disrupt service for anyone.

I would not threaten with +q and +b right at the start. People _know_ that, ultimately, non-compliance will lead down that road. No need to threaten before you even explain _what_ they are supposed to do.

You will need to either explain what a catalyst is or to link to freenode pages. Both is fine.

Some minor adjustments to the guidelines have been made, if you don't like them feel free to revert :)

-- RichiH 10:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep it clean

Good, There should also be a general prohibition on matters of a mature nature out of context given the age spread of Wikipedia Users 62.56.83.49 13:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

At the same time we must achieve a balance with Wikipedia is not censored for minors. —Sean Whitton / 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if anything comes up, the spambots will kick them out anyway. Also, it's pretty entertaining. EdBoy 15:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The anti-spam bots only kick for flooding and spamming web pages. Sean William 18:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

They're supposed to. But... let's not kid ourselves ;) Gracenotes 05:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Show of hands: who can guess who that IP is? - Vague Rant 05:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

so...

So if I want to know the answer to a question not answered on wikipedia, and I ask here, that's off topic? needs to be clarified much more.Swatjester 15:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

#wikimedia-social

The off-topic chats are proposed to be transferred to #wikimedia-social. Do the current users of that channel know about this? #wikimedia-social currently is a group of no more than 15 close friends, so I think that another channel should be used. --Ali K 01:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a different idea. The channels prefixed wikimedia should serve the public interest as Wikimedia Foundation and its project primarily. For me it isn't a good idea for "no more than 15 close friends" to believe they can use it as their private holdings. --Aphaia 01:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The channel wasn't registered by any group contacts, it was made by one en:User:Buickid around 30 weeks ago, and no contacts have (yet) asked him to transfer it over (one contact lurks in there daily, I may add). Writing up new policy for #wikipedia is all good and dandy, but let's not negatively impact on other channels in the process. --Michael Billington 02:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. freenode's main social channel (#defocus) may be a good place to point people at, or we could create a new channel for social talk among Wikipedians (maybe #wikipedia-social?). Either way, I also think that another channel should be used. --Michael Billington 01:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that only 15 people should use it as "their private holdings". I was saying that it wasn't discussed that all the off topic conversations were going to be transferred there so I am bringing it up here. --Ali K 02:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I took your word since the channel is already occupied by those people, those off-topic should be talked under another name. If it isn't what you intended, it is okay for me. Otherwise, I'd say again #wikimedia prefixed channels should serve the Foundation, not the purpose you mentioned. Again, I would like to point out that User:Buickid hasn't been served Foundation in any official capacity as far as I know, and as such not involved into Foundation activities (in this context participation to Wikimedia project isn't a case) either employee or volunteer, thus so I am not sure why he wanted to create a such channel under that name. --Aphaia 02:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right that Buickid didn't create the channel in any 'official' capacity. He simply created the channel as another less-crowded place to talk. A lot of channels start like that, and are either transferred later or go inactive. In this case the group contacts are aware of the channel, and have shown no interest in either shutting it down, nor asking for it to be renamed nor transferred to them. It is my honest opinion, that this being the case, we should simply point users elsewhere. --Michael Billington 05:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The #wikipedia-social channel has been re-opened to serve the purpose of being a public channel for social discussion amongst Wikipedians. Problem solved. :-) --Michael Billington 11:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As you say, this has been dealt with now. Really, the channel ought to be called ##wikimedia-social and #wikimedia-social or #wikipedia-social could redirect to the other as our global social channel (probably Wikimedia). This is the case with ##wikipedia-geeks. All of this is based off freenode policy but right now I think it's more important that we deal with one channel at a time. It requires very little effort to change it over to the freenode way described above at a later date, and we can discuss this with the current inhabitants in #wikimedia-social. In short, it's not a current priority. —Sean Whitton / 11:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should the current users of #wikimedia-social be afforded any courtesy when none can be spared for the current users of #wikipedia? there was no announcement before these took effect, no chance for community input. --Random832 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My esteemed opinion

Let's go.

"All channel members in #wikipedia are charged with a duty to act as a "catalyst" in ensuring the channel’s conversation is free-flowing and efficient. Comments which are not helpful are not generally appreciated. There are some wise words on this philosophy at freenode's channel guidelines." freenode's definition of a "catalyst" specifically states that "No one is required to be a catalyst, but the users who perform this role ensure the smooth and efficient functioning of the network." Once all #wikipedia users are expected to be catalysts, freenode's rules will be falsified. Further, freenode states that "An important characteristic of successful catalysts is the infrequency with which they wear authority or invoke special privilege." Several ops in #wikipedia fairly frequently display their rank, and while this is most often justified, it doesn't take away from the fact that they invoke that privilege rather frequently, which would seem to disqualify them as catalysts. Are those ops to be banned from the new #wikipedia for not fulfilling their duty of being catalysts? Returning to freenode's definition of a catalyst, catalysts are stated to be: "Realistic. Accept the personalities of your users and concentrate on problem resolution. Don't expect people to suddenly change their personalities to make problem resolution easier." Isn't the assumption that everyone in #wikipedia has the appropriate character to be a catalyst at least a tad unrealistic? Does this mean that anyone who agrees with the IRC guidelines is a bad catalyst and will be banned from the new #wikipedia? I believe I've made my point.

Back at the IRC guidelines, we have, under the "Assume good faith" header, "what is often meant as a joke, friendly advice or simply an honest statement of fact may be misinterpreted as a personal attack." Under what circumstances are jokes on-topic? Even jokes which explicitly concern Wikipedia aren't helping the project. Jokes do not fit into any of the criteria in the "Purpose of the channel" section; presumably there will be no jokes in the new #wikipedia, rendering that statement reduntant. If jokes are to be allowed, then where is the line drawn?

"The #wikipedia channel operators (‘ops’) are experienced members of the Wikipedia community who are known to be level-headed, reliable and trustworthy." I don't know which logs you've been reading, or who modified them enough to actually make the ops look level-headed, reliable and trustworthy, but while a number of such do exist, several ops on #wikipedia are as far from any of those adjectives as possible. While I don't disagree that in the best case scenario, the ops would display such traits, to state that they do is disingenuous. I will expect such ops as do not fit this mold to be deopped before these guidelines come into effect.

Finally, assuming all social chat is confined to another channel, how many people will actually be present in #wikipedia to help those who need it? I go out of my way to help people who have questions regarding Wikipedia, regardless of whether I'm presently engaged in a social discussion. I also encourage others to do the same (Guys, how many times do you remember me saying, "Everybody shut up, this guy has a question"? That's encouraging, right?), and without those among us who are willing to take time out from social conversations in order to help others, I remain unsure of how many people will actually remain behind to make themselves useful. I'd prefer an on-and-off-topic channel where I can find help to an on-topic channel where I find none, and I suspect those with questions will find themselves feeling the same when they voice their queries to an empty room. What's golden for you is useless to those who actually hope to gain something from joining #wikipedia; silence won't advance the project. Vague Rant 05:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I'm quite impressed to see these guidelines come into play without any discussion whatsoever. Or at least, with only a one-sided conversation of people disagreeing with the guidelines and no one responding. It really shows the community-minded side of our new overlords. I was informed by deputy Dmcdevit that the reason for the lack of any response was: "It's been a day..." Which is great as long as in the course of that day, the new rules aren't introduced, but whoops, looks like it's too late for that one. After explaining that I'd rather follow rules which had actually been agreed upon by ... anyone, I was told that I "should accept them currently, as well. They are in place right now, period." Which was pretty classy, I'm into a bit of submission now and then, but full-time domination didn't strike me as my ideal fantasy. Upon asking where one should express unhappiness with the guidelines, I was directed to, wait for it, this page. Isn't that cute?

I must also voice my admiration for the thoroughness of these rules. After asking why off-topic statements were being allowed, I was told that I was using "overly-sensitive interpretations of on-topic". I checked my thesaurus, but "overly-sensitive" wasn't listed under "literal"; will you call Roget or shall I? While rules always tend to be rife with subtext, metaphor and symbolism, it seems that these ones are particularly so, since a literal interpretation of "Extensive discussion which does not satisfy one of these purposes is regarded as “off-topic” and is not permitted" apparently leads to a misunderstanding of the rules. Deep questions of what "not permitted" is actually a symbol for will probably plague humanity for years to come, since "The on-topic guidelins[sic] is just a guideline."

I also like how all the ops were cleared out, to be replaced by those who agree with our sheriff and his deputy. I think that's probably the best way to go about it, since disagreements with those in power can't be permitted. That would be pandemonium, if people were allowed to question authority. I mean, look what happened when people started questioning Bush. That's right, 9/11. If we want IRCLand Security Advisory System to stay at a comfortable level, there's just one thing we need to do: obey. Obeying makes us all happier, safer, and protected from any threat, and most importantly, keeps those in power comfortable, and who would have it any other way? Now, when do we invade #gnaa? Vague Rant 09:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Dmc will have to be deopped: turns out he was wrong about that "guideline" stuff, and since there's no disagreement among the authority, it's only a matter of time. My sympathies, Dmc. seanw has started silencing dissent. Congratulations, what was sarcasm a few hours ago is now fact. #wikipedia is a dictatorship. I bet the on-topic conversation in there is really heating up by now. I can just see people getting help from all the silenced users. Oh wait, no, that's the administration's state of mind. I actually have a grasp on ... just checking ... yep, anything. I hope you guys enjoy your dead channel, you've earned it. Vague Rant 13:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, you made the mistake of posting all that on a Meta talk page, where you can guarantee it will be ignored. Try the Foundation mailing list next time :) 86.137.47.163 19:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

comments

In light of my objections to the new guidelines, people asked me to contribute to this discussion. I seriously considered it, but decided i just couldn't be bothered. If people want to change the nature of a channel, and start a rulebook (esp. on-topic rules) which just don't fair with me, then I can discuss it, or just not care and move on. I'm not gonna adapt my behaviour because of such a thing. It's sad that the group of regular attendants in that channel is falling apart in separate groups, but in the end, I just don't feel like I need to write down and explain my objections. I have stated them on IRC and you are welcome to search your backlogs for "thedj" 130.89.169.27 19:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

To further clarify, an analogy might be appropriate: I feel people want to change the channel from a public wikipedia square to a hotel desk. I'm no desk-employee. So I cannot reside in the channel anymore. 130.89.169.27 19:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Change made

It's been long-standing (and sensible) practice to divert conversations about Mediawiki topic to #mediawiki and Foundation issues to #wikimedia. Therefore I have added these two criteria to this page. What do people think? - Tabu 06:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In practise, Foundation issues are discussed on #wikipedia because, frankly, having seventeen different channels for particular things each with hardly any people in is stupid when you have one channel with lots of people in and where you can guarantee someone will be interested. Mediawiki questions get diverted to #mediawiki when nobody on #wikipedia can answer them (which is often), and indeed that is sensible 86.137.47.163 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of full disclosure

However, those who do "unofficially officially" run the channels have stated that they are official, and so, within #wikipedia at least, these rules are binding :-)

And who might these people be? June 15, 2007 (or thereabouts) saw a sudden change in how #wikipedia on Freenode is administered. Nevermind that this was only announced on the foundation-l mailing list, which many people who frequent the channel do not read or perhaps do not even know about. This meta article makes no mention of whose decision-making resulted in the sudden rise of stricter channel guidelines and why a sudden need for clearing the chanops access list was needed. Perhaps if people "in authority" stopped making decisions in private that affect large numbers of people, then maybe we would trust their actions and be less suspicious of their motives. Bumm13 06:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest that it is freenode staff wanting more control over #wikipedia-Tartlez 03:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We (as wikipedians) should have a full disclosure - seanw, seeing as he is the "group contact" needs to organize and put SOMEWHERE all discussion that he was involved in leading up to this drastic change - especially discussion with freenode staff, if that discussion happened -- AfterDeath 70.253.36.123 04:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Wow, you've done it. You've written policy (it carries the weight of banning, it ain't a mere guideline) that destroys the channel. Congratulations.

People don't hang out on #wikipedia so they can say "go to #wikipedia-en" a hundred times a day. They don't sit there waiting for non-existent spam blacklist discussions. Press enquiries and board election discussion belong on #wikimedia.

People hang out because they can socialize. And because they hang out there, they are available to perform admin actions, answer questions, and generally help people. You won't get many volunteers to staff a channel where they are required to be silenced for mentioning the Bush administration's latest escapade or the season finale of House.

Actual enforcement of these policies will result in a sterile wasteland devoid of anyone available to help the users. Non-enforcement means the rules are a joke. -- Cyrius 11:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I endorse this opinion --Random832 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
2. While you said that a bit strongly, I'm inclined to agree, as you make a good number of valid points and thoroughly identify the logically flawed nature of these changes. And frankly, what better way to have a warm, welcoming front than to have #wikipedia be a mostly social channel? -- AfterDeath 70.253.36.123 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
3. I too agree. There was nothing wrong with #wikipedia without this guideline. Users who came with questions usually got their answers, because the channel is a helping environment as it is so laid back. Sack this thing! --Dcabrilo 07:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
4. I agree with Vague Rant as well. People who jumped out of the woodwork going "oh, I hated how the channel was before!" are opportunists and their behavior is pretty high school to me. Mike Halterman 72.187.198.187 08:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Agreed. There's nothing new under the sun, and as I was relating to a fellow chatter, I have been party to experiments like these before, at a very large MUSH with a chat system. The administrators tried to tighten the topic screws on the main channel, in theory shunting the "off-topic" discussion to other channels. Instead, what happened was that as the flow of chatter stopped, so did all discussion. There is nothing more inviting to a channel newbie than discussion. Some off-topic inanity ensures that their "stupid" question won't seem too stupid to ask. In fact it's vital to the function of "the main channel" that it not sit silent for hours a day. Social chatter produces a newbie-friendly environment as well as the attendance required to ensure people get help. I have rarely seen someone seeking help not get it (or have difficulty getting it) and when that happens, it's almost invariably on-topic discussion, about wikipedia or channel management, that produces the problem. Demi ^T/_C 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Agreed - Though I am willing to stick with this I believe the fact that it took 5 DAYS to reach Channel regulars from date of publish on here, who are the ones who generally HELP AND KEEP THE CHANNEL ALIVE is an absolute disgrace, despite whether the people who wrote up the rules were busy. Of course, I don't expect any response to this because I believe it was created by people who do not spend much time in the room (With the exception of Mark_Ryan) who don't come into the channel often to sweep the "undesirables" into another channel. - Boochan 10:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
7. What Demi said, and I too think that this was done in an incompetent way. The fact that everybody ignores a page for a few days, even if it's linked from the topic, doesn't mean that everybody agrees that it's a good thing. Zocky 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
8. IRC has been an active, enjoyable, discussion zone for as long as I can remember, why must we change that? ST47 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Fire whoever started this, remove anyone who supported this. Why was this implemented? Certainly not because its a good idea. It was implemented for a simple reason: Powers that aren't used will be removed. Or in other words: Ops need to be able to constantly (ab)use their powers because otherwise someone will figure "Oh, we have too many ops, a bot's probably enough for most of the time" 84.75.118.150 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
10. You may all relax. I have changed the bit at the top of the guideline page to say they're only guildelines, and not a "binding policy". Since Sean and Mark both told me themselves that they only wished for them to be considered guidelines, there should be no problem with this 86.137.47.163 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

    But they're still guidelines - lines that are supposed to guide people. . . And if we're going to try to keep anything -en related in #-en, these guide lines are a joke. AfterDeath 70.253.36.123 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

    It still says you may be banned for violations. That's not a guideline. It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. -- Cyrius 23:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed. They need to be killed with fire. Becca 01:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

11. Looks like Cyrius has better and more concisely expressed my issues with the new "guidelines". I also concur with his statement. - Vague Rant 04:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
12. What the hell {{rejected}}. Any attempt to keep a channel "on topic" by kicking or banning people is both doomed to failure and doomed to ruining a channel. - FrancisTyers 10:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
13. As I've commented both in #wikipedia and #wikimedia-irc I disagree with the changes and new rules, for similar reasoning as posted here. They are counterproductive and ineffective. --212.1.143.66 17:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC) (IRC:Darksun)
14. This is an absolutely mad policy (no, this isn't a guideline), it's messing with the channel for the sake of messing with the channel, and it's wildly unpopular to anyone not hoping for re-op (one of the new critera is agreeing with the policy). - ElbridgeGerry.

Rejected

Anyone have any objections to tagging this as {{rejected}}? --Random832 00:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, probably the chanops who put it up in the first place? and they are ones who enforce it, so... --Iamunknown 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Seanw said community input is welcomed. Well, the community has spoken. In one voice, too, which is rare enough as it is. --Random832 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Iamunknown 03:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The people who like the policy have all the power. -- Cyrius 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This leads me to wonder if seanw should be removed as group contact - Don't get me wrong, I like seanw's character most of the time, but in this case, I think he's gone rather wildly out of line. I'd definitely be in for tagging this as rejected. I also think that we, as a wikimedia community, should speak up as to who we DO want our group contact to be (if the community decides they don't want seanw). -- AfterDeath 70.253.36.123 01:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AfterDeath. This should be tagged as rejected, and Seanw removed as our group conduct. This was completely inappropriate. Becca 01:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like somebody already tagged it as rejected. (→zelzany - he's still at it) 01:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The community has spoken, and that's how wikipedia works. That's the very basis of our system, that the power goes to the people, to the constituents. It's been said time and time again that IRC is not wikipedia, but a chanop without support of his channel has little power. The proposal's been tagged as rejected, but as a member of wikipedia, I strongly urge the operators and seanw to withdraw this proposal. The community is unanimous on this issue. This decision is not acceptable. w:User:ST47 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is wrongheaded from the start. It has been enforced before it was discussed, the call for discussion was posted on the bottom of a locked file cabinet in a bathroom in the basement of the plans office (bear in mind, having edited Wikipedia for years and using #wikipedia for almost as long, I wasn't aware foundation-l existed, and I'm probably not the only one), and there is no clear method to get this policy proposal (which currently calls for the banning of violators!) changed.

At the moment that I post this, the page is protected. Seanw is unavailable. Dmcdevit says that he isn't the one to talk to about this. There's no response from anyone on this talk page taking on the responsibility of defending it. In various places, it has been claimed that this is a flexible guideline, but the current wording suggests "If a user does not comply with the standards of user conduct [including 'Stay on-topic'] outlined above, then they may be temporarily quietened in the channel (+q) by a channel operator."

Nobody on this discussion page wants these changes. No discussion explaining the reasoning behind these changes has been presented. Why do we need new rules, and why do we need new rules enforced by +q and kickbans? A Man In Black 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see there are some very good reasons for being unhappy with the changes and they are to do with the way it was implemented and expressed, not at heart with what it is trying to say. This makes perfect sense, and I have been working to re-word the guidelines to try and make them reflect what the four of us really meant. Also, in my own defence, I would like to point to that it was not just me that initiated these changes, but that feedback was gained from multiple sources and that the group contacts did work together along with the new channel contacts. If you take a look at my recent blog post on it all, I've tried to explain where need was established. (sorry I'm not on IRC to chat, I'm at school at lunch writing these replies) —Sean Whitton / 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sean, the problem is not with the vague notion of having guidelines to regulate what goes on in #wikipedia. The problem is that, for no apparent reason, you unilaterally fired the people who have overseen the channel for the last five years, did absolutely no consultation with anyone, and then imposed your version of those guidelines as a feit accompli. I'm really upset about this; at the absolute bare minimum, the ops need to be reinstated, and the guideline page needs to be unprotected so that we can have an actual discussion about how the channel should operate. Short of that, your actions remain nothing short of a coup. Becca 16:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not insinuate that there hasn't been any consultation with anyone or that he has acted unilaterally if you just don't know it. Thank you. --Mbimmler 16:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There simply hasn't been. Who was asked? It is very clear at this point that no one in the actual channel was. Becca 23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, now a serious editprotected request

{{editprotected}} Anyone who knows (dmcdevit, this means you), please replace the phrase "those who do "unofficially officially" run the channels" with its referent. The current wording is provocative and unhelpful --Random832 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a concern, and that it might make sense to simply list the contacts. However, the idea of this phrase was to try and express the position that the group contacts are in. If you can think of some better wording that still makes this clear I'd be glad for your help. —Sean Whitton / 11:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he can think of a better wording, which is why he just said it. List the channel owners. Your name appears nowhere on the page right now and, to be honest, I think it would be better if people knew who to thank for this 86.137.47.163 17:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As it is, it doesn't really express much and it's certainly not clear. Any wording that doesn't contradict itself would be better. 89.142.193.104 00:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

New IRC Rules

I don't see the reason as to why people oppose the new rules because I find it very interesting and believe it will be the right thing to do. For many weeks since I joined Wikipedia IRC, I have seen off-topic chatting which I thought was actually causing #wikipedia channel to become just an ordinary channel. Those who might oppose the new rules are the ones who are usually off-topic but if they think the new rules are a bit too much..then they can actually join other channels such as #wikipedia-social, #wikimedia-social, #wikipedia-en-casual or #unwikipedia..no one is stopping them.--Comet 04:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been there for years. #wikipedia is pretty much "just an ordinary channel," but it also helps users who need guidance. I'm sorry it didn't meet up to your expectations, but at the same time, I think it's rather unreasonable to expect people to change their chatting habits who have been here years longer than you have. Mike Halterman 72.187.198.187 07:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cometstyles. #wikipedia was a place for people who are interested in discussing topics related to the encyclopedia and not so much, from all over the world. The channel is one of the most popular channels on freenode, under #ubuntu. These rules will just hamper the flow of regular discussion chatter, which you contribute to as well. Miranda 09:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a factual correction, it isn't in fact as popular as this: it's far behind the top four channels which are ##linux, #ubuntu, #gentoo and #perl (according to an IRC statistics site). These are in the 800-1000+ user counts, we're in the 200s with #wikipedia. —Sean Whitton / 11:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia is also more popular than your incompetent attempts to force unwanted changes into the said IRC channel. Bumm13 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Attacked by spammers just now

#wikipedia was attacked by spammers just now for almost ten minutes and, guess what? Absolutely no ops were available at the time to boot them or ban them. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the irony of these rules. Miranda 09:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I might also point out that there were at least four pre-coup ops sitting in-channel at that very moment who, until three days ago, could have stopped this nonsense instantly. Becca 09:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We now have yet another three spammers, and five pre-coup ops sitting in-channel. Thanks guys. Real helpful. Becca 09:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, a freenode staffer op came after thirty minutes to ban the users in question. Miranda 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome  :) --denny

Thanks from me. :) Martinp23 10:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, from me. Miranda 10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This indicates that we need more ops - not that the rules are misguided. I encourage people to apply, especially the previous ops. For my part - sorry that my CGI-IRC wouldn't work properly -hopefully it won't happen again. As an aside, saying "!ops" in the channel will get he attention of all those awake - I don't know if this did happen (not being in the channel with my active nick at the time), but it is something to bear in mind. Thanks, Martinp23 10:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We did say !op numerous amounts of times, and no one responded. Miranda 10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it indicates that we need more ops. Considering that no one is alleging that the people who have run the channel for the last five years did anything wrong, it might be an idea to start with their reinstatement - not making them "reapply" based on whether they will accede to criteria which neither they nor anyone else were asked about, and which would make the channel substantially useless. Becca 10:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Martin, it's simply the case that my plans for getting most of the old ops back onboard haven't been as effective as I'd hoped. I am trying to speed the process up and I believe we will get a decent team up in time. But what is important here is that this is not a reflection on the guidelines, but simply the way they were implemented which could in this way at least have been improved. —Sean Whitton / 11:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"my plans for getting most of the old ops back onboard haven't been as effective as I'd hoped" + "old ops aren't joining because they think the guidelines are bad" does not equal "this is not a reflection on the guidelines". Zocky 12:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was an old op. I hate your guidelines. -- Cyrius 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the newly watered-down wishy-washy guidelines I don't hate. But you never did try to get me onboard at any point in the game. -- Cyrius 00:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How about reinstating all the former ops NOW. There was no legitimate reason to remove them, how would you feel if you were desysoped because you "might" disagree with some controversial proposal Jimbo planned to make? --Random832 12:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Random. (→zelzany - he's still at it) 15:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I also concur. This was completely unjustifiable, and it needs to be overturned. I really can't express how upset I am about all of this. Becca 16:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Restore the old ops. Get rid of this bullshit of a policy. End the oligarchic control of #wikipedia. I had to watch idiots spam the place with "where are your ops now" and I could not stop it. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure when all this is occurring. I'm usually in, or at least close to, the channel between 14:00-04:00 UTC, and myself and typically a few other ops are too. Unless these attacks are occurring outside these hours, this shouldn't be a problem. AntiSpamBot should be setting +b in such situations, and it sounds like that's not the case. Nevermind, it doesn't have ops right now. But anyway, ops are slowly being added, hopefully we can get it so that there will be one available continuously. For now, patience. E-mail Mark Ryan (Dmcdevit for now) for ops. Pilotguy radar contact 14:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter

Revert my edits all you like. Protect the page and dismiss my changes as "IPs adding inappropriate tags" if you like. It won't make any difference.

Sean, right now the only person who cares to follow these guidelines is you, and whoever you've enlisted to police the channel for you this week. The rest of us, as the above clearly illustrates, disagree strongly with this "binding policy" and have no intention of doing anything we don't agree with. Badmouth us all you like, but most of us follow common sense rules and don't talk about nothing but penises as you like to think. There's no need to try to impose anything upon us. You're an op; if you see something in-channel with which you disagree, do whatever you feel is necessary to deal with it, on a case-by-case basis. You can't actually force us to do anything, short of kickbanning everyone who has commented here, and I can't believe you're that foolish.

So it doesn't matter if these guidelines are here. The worst they will do is confuse new users. Once you've stopped stalling and given ops back to those people you took it away from, so the crapflooding attacks (which, incidentally are a hundred times worse for the 'environment' of the channel than any off-topic chat may be) can be averted, the channel can resume something approximating normality. We'd like to feel we have a good relationship with the channel owners, and a series of guidelines drawn up by the regulars, for the regulars would have achieved that. Sadly, you made it clear from the outset that that was never the intention, and this protection has only confirmed that.

Luckily you haven't done any permanent damage, and you're now merely in charge of an active channel whose regulars are fed up with your rules, rather than an empty, useless channel 86.137.47.163 16:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You see, what strikes me as most odd of all this text is the constant talk about 'regulars'. Like it or not, outside people will see #wikipedia as some kind of official-Wikipedia-channel, even if it is not. Now, if there are some persons who spend all their free time hanging around on #wikipedia and talking about the weather and whatever, and, after some weeks, start to call themselves regulars, this still doesn't mean that it's up to them to decide the properties of the channel. It's not the loudest ones or the most active ones who carry the vote. For a fact, there are also many "regulars" (i.e. former ops) who welcomed the guidelines, subscribed to them and were thus reinstated. Please stop confusing "persons who happen to be around much at #wikipedia lately" with "regulars & oldbies who know everything about Wikim/pedia who need to be (and have been) consulted". NB: I know that there are people who fit in both categories and I don't want to attack them, I think, people will know in which of those categories they belong. --Mbimmler 16:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, outside people will see #wikipedia as some kind of official Wikipedia channel, even if it is not. And which do you think they'd rather find, when they join it? A channel where hundreds of active contributors idle to socialize and discuss both on- and off-topic issues, answering those questions that they can promptly and directing those they can't to the appropriate place (e.g. #mediawiki), or a channel where saying "hi" gets you told to stop speaking off-topic, nobody who frequents Wikipedia is around, virtually nothing is said, any questions, if answered at all, will simply be met with a blunt "you can't talk about that in here", and even attempts to bring up something about Wikipedia get much the same response (remember many newcomers think of the English Wikipedia as simply "Wikipedia", one reason why the no-specific-project-discussion rule is particularly stupid) 86.137.47.163 17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the talk about "regulars"? The channel, aside from all the penis talk, is a vehicle for at least two wikipedia-related chores, i.e. admins helping users, and everybody helping newbies. It's the regulars that do this chores. It's as if you walked into AFD changed all the rules over the head of the AFD regulars, and desysopped all the admins who regularly close AFD. When they screamed bloody murder, would you ask "why all the talk about regulars"?

And as for former regulars - If the channels weren't excessively splintered as it was, those people would still be in the #wikipedia and we would have a larger number, and a larger share of regulars who are also genuine wikipedia editors. If anything the solution was to abolish some of the other channels so that those people would come back and help the few persevering veterans, rather than try to go behind their backs. What totally confuses me is why the powerplay at all? Why not just talk to people normally? Zocky 23:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was a regular/oldbie who knows all kinds of stuff about Wikim/pedia, and nobody consulted me about squat. Stop pretending this was some kind of consensus action when it was a big surprise to most of us. -- Cyrius 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I just reread what Mbimmler said and noticed the "few weeks" thing that I missed before. Few weeks indeed. At least half of the people who signed up there have been more or less continuously in the channel for more than 2 years, some for more than 4. Zocky 03:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Community input

Why aren't we allowed to give input or edit this guideline/policy? --Dcabrilo 13:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We're free to give input here, but it will be ignored. I think possibly you're under the illusion that this is a "policy" or "guideline" in the normal Wikimedia sense. It isn't. There is absolutely no consensus among... well, anyone that these changes are a good idea, but because the IRC channels aren't a Wikimedia project, that apparently doesn't matter. The changes were decided upon and brought into force by the channel owners without any consultation with anyone. They were also changed from "guidelines" to a "binding policy" at the same time. And now, there is nothing any of us can do about it 86.133.139.208 13:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaand... they banned me.

Yep. For talking about somthing they didn't approve of. What was my crime, I hear you ask? Crapflooding? Talking about attack sites? No. Just for complaining about the new guidelines 86.133.139.208 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The long answer

For the last few days, many people have been shouting at each other about #wikipedia. It turns out we've all been mostly shouting past each other. Our ideas and opinions on the matter are different, more than that, we see two different realities. So, I set out to write a meaningful explanation of at least one side of the story, or one of the two realities, all in the interest of reducing the need to read and misunderstand future misguided comments by people who misunderstood your last comment.

Unfortunately, it turns out there was a lot to say, so the explanation is rather long. I hope you can bear with me till the end. (There may or may not be a test later.)

The channel

The initial creation of #wikipedia back in the mists of time is beyond the memory of all but the best of us. However, it's safe to say that it is the mother of all Wikimedia channels, and as such has served us in many ways over the years. These have included:

• Discussion of "the PHP script" and its descendents. This was moved to #mediawiki in early 2004.
• Discussion of the server farm status. Moved to #mediawiki and then to #wikimedia-tech in 2005.
• Inter-project coordination and foundation business. Moved to #wikimedia in 2004.
• Editor coordination on en. Moved to #wikipedia-en in 2005.
• Admin coordination on en. Moved to invite-only #wikipedia-en-admins in 2006, causing conflicts on en for a time.
• Editor and admin coordination on Wikipaedie in other languages. Moved out gradually to other channels over the years.
• Editor and admin coordination on other Wikimedia projects. Ditto.
• Detailed discussion of gender issues and personal lives of the LGBT community. Moved to other channels around 2004/2005.
• Coordination of anti-vandal activities, violations of WP:BEANS, newby biting and general incitiment to siege mentality. Moved gradually to other channels over the years.
• Process-wonk bashing, RFA pile-ons, slander against editors, coordination of on-wiki attacks and causing all sorts of trouble on en. Shouted down and moved to other channels during 2005.
• Trollbashing, warfare against critics and "enemies", coordination of counter-trolling on "enemy sites". Shouted down and moved to other channels during 2006.
• Juggling channel modes, micromanagement of the ban list, kickbanning people for a laugh, flaunting op powers. Actively discouraged, but recurrent in occasional waves, related to new crops of ops.
• Sulking, assuming worst about human nature, righteousness and general misanthropy. Somewhat reduced in 2006, but still persistent.
• Trolling and crapflood attacks. Killed with fire at least since 2005.
• Running jokes about autofellatio and furries. Died out on their own as jokes grew old over the years.
• Discussion of theoretical and practical approaches to the English Wikipedia, other Wikipeadiae and encyclopedias in general.
• Discussion and analysis of articles in en and other Wikipediae, as well as other Wikimedia projects.
• Learning and teaching of encyclopedic and people skills by new users, new admins and old hands.
• Helping new users, new admins, as well as old hands, find their way down the ever changing corridors of Wikipediae and other projects.
• Handling requests for admin action on en and other projects.
• Being the lobby to wikipedia for people who are technically savvy enough to use IRC. Not that IRC beginners aren't given help when they show up.

In addition to all the on-topic talk, #wikipedia communicates in several off-topic registers:

• Discussion of encyclopedic subjects, which tends to take a relaxed, but largely academic tone.
• Socializing and friendly banter.
• Monologues at quiet hours, which sometimes go ignored, sometimes spark of a new round of discussion, and sometimes just make somebody smile.
• Humour, which is often grotesque, dark, over-the-top. I'll come back to this later.

It is my informed belief that off-topic discussions play a crucual part in attracting the right kind of people to the channel and ensuring antendance, which enables the channel to perform its on-topic functions. They're often the most flamboyant, most memorable, and certainly longest, but to get some perspective, according to the channel statistics, the most common real word in the channel is "article", not "penis".

The people

People in #wikipedia come from many countries, all age groups, all kinds of backgrounds, and have widely differing world views and opinions on everything. What brings them together is the fact that they're editors of one or more Wikipediae or other Wikimedia project, and that they enjoy the immediate medium that IRC provides. As a fortunate consequence, they tend to have a common interest in a wide range of encyclopedic subjects, which facilitates enjoyable discussions and bonding. The channel has exposed many Wikipedians to a widely differing POVs on a great number of issues, which has maed them better encyclopedia editors and admins. These fun sides of the channel, combined with the common purpose of improving Wikipediae, and with the collaboration on chores that the channel is responsible for, are what makes the channel interesting enough to keep people coming for months, in many cases for years.

These are the "regulars". They're the ones who carried out the chores. They're the ones kept the channel running 24 hours a day and made sure that questions don't go unanswered. They're the ones who killed crapflooders with fire while making sure that the channel could still be used by normal people. They're the ones who shouted down the schemers and the backslappers. They're the ones who told the young admins to think twice before ganging up on the editor that irks them, in many cases because they learned it the hard way in the channel. And crucially, they're the ones who have seen every trolling trick in the book, every type of confused newbie, and every way that a misunderstanding can be turned into a conflict.

But all is not that rosy, of course. The splintering of channels has hurt the mother-of-them-all badly. The gains that we made by getting rid of the people that caused on-wiki onflicts were to a large extent offset by the brain drain to other channels. Over time, the powers that be first came more rarely and than completely stopped coming to the channel. Some regulars followed them either because they needed to work with them, or they liked to associate with them. Others naturally drifted to more specific channels which suited them better, or were driven away by the atmosphere. Regulars who had no such ambitions or interests remained and continued to run and improve the channel and the atmosphere.

This brought us to the current situation, or rather the situation before the "reform". The people who know and care about #wikipedia are no longer the same people who hang out with the powers that be. Thus we became completely divorced groups - the regulars became the left-behinds, and the former regulars became their own grandparents who visited Spain in 1969 and think it's still a fascist dictatorship in 2007.

The reform

Disclaimer: The following sections includes many references to "reformers" and "regulars". The names may not be precise nor 100% serious, and the membership of both groups is fuzzy and non-exclusive, but I trust everybody will know what is meant. In any case, we're discussing two concepts of how the channel should be run. Actual personalities are secondary.

It's useless to talk about the "reform" as a single issue. On the whole, the regulars obviously think it's a bad thing, and the perpertarors obviously think they're doing something good. So I'll try to separate it into issues and see if we can come to an agreement on at least some of them.

The channel structure

The newly proposed channel structure isn't illogical or wrong. It makes sense, philosophically speaking. Yet, there are several important drawbacks which seem to have been overlooked:

1. Success of any channel scheme depends largely on incoming links, in our case those posted on Wikipediae and related sites. Even if we changed them all (btw, has anybody investigated how many there are, where they are, etc.?), it's still a fact of life that, unlike on other Wikipediae, readers of en are often oblivious to the existence of other language editions. Those who are IRC-adept will still simply type /join #wikipedia and ask questions about en. And of course, there are countless links to #wikipedia around the net which are beyond our control. It is questionable whether the final results will be worth the effort.
2. It is questionable whether a symmetrical channel scheme is really beneficial to a largely assimetrical project.
3. It is highly questionable whether further splintering of the channels is beneficial. See above.
4. #wikipedia has been used this way for years, and without strong indications that it is harmful, it's simply reckless to change it for the sake of symmetry. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

In any case, this is something that could have been discussed reasonably and calmly in advance. Changing the channel scheme succesfully is quite a tedious operation and certainly isn't urgent.

The guideline

Especially after the recent edits, the guideline isn't a bad start for a reasonable discussion, content wise. In details and especially in tone, it's harmful. On one hand, it's full of weaseling like the contradictory (mystical?) description of the channel owners, and the hilarious talk about "catalysts". It's in urgent need of some straigh talking. On the other hand, it's primarily concerned with discipline, which shows that it's not based on traditional Wikimedian values, like openness, participation, consensus and above all, assumption of good faith. Instead, the reformers decided that the channel needs discipline in the form of kicks, bans, devoicing. This for the channel that kept its topic unprotected until it became wholly impracticable.

Oh, and please, everybody, stay on topic. Some subjects, like television shows, movies, music or other popular culture, even clearly encyclopedic subjects like politics, government and religion are explicitly declared off-topic and nudged towards a dead-end channel. Things like non-wikimedia related open-source software and computer games aren't, and in the past few days, the reformers have indeed discussed such subjects freely and at length in the channel. Could it be that pet subjects are tedious only when they're other people's pet subjects?

And of course, no humour please. At least not your kind of humour. Think of the children! But I'll come back to that later.

The powerplay

Now, the really tedious part: It all started one day, when the curious decision was made that all it takes to achieve consensus is have a proposal ignored for 5 days. Actually, as was made apparent later, it all started at an undefined time before that, with a conversation between uncertain participants who were concerned about the channels for unclear reasons. I can't tell you what and how happened (not for lack of trying to find out), and I wouldn't mind at least a short non-contradictory resume of that, if nobody can be bothered to provide actual details.

In any case, the new owners enacted the new mission statement, authorization codes wer exchanged, all the employees were fired (and offered their jobs back provided that they pledge alleigance), and some of the patrons were booted. This understandibly met with protests and enquiries, which for some reason were repeatedly met by FUD.

The questions were: Who was it that decided this? Who gave them the authrotity to decide this? Is it Freenode or Wikimedia? Is it up to a single person? Is that person the guy that says he was authorized, the one that says it wasn't him, or the one who's on vacation and doesn't say anything? Can the foundation do anything? It all boils down to "who had the authority to do this and who has the authority to undo it"?

We got a whole caleidoscope of tidbits and hints, but no straight answers. We were told to "go to the meta page". When the meta page was edited, it got protected, and reformers said "go to the meta talk page". When the meta talk page was filled with concerns and objections, they were brushed off or ignored, and the reformers said "go to foundation-l". (As an aside, this was not brought up on the Communication Committe's mailing list, though it clearly concerns internal communications.)

As if the clearence of the op list weren't socially inadept enough, the reformers' choice of co-captains raised more eyebrows. What was the criterion?

Obviously not experience and attendance. Very few of the new ops are in the top 55 participants on the channel, according to the channel statistics, and most of the people who op themselves in #wikipedia last few days are certainly not long-time veterans. Some are former regulars, some seem to be freenode staffers, some are virtually unknown on the channel. That doesn't mean that they're bad people, or bad ops, or that they shouldn't be ops. But they are clearly not in the channel all the time. They obviously have other things to do and they're not familiar with the terrain.

It also wasn't the willingness to follow the new guideline, at least not the non-fun parts of it. Channel modes were juggled alright, people were quieted, but the discussion continued much as before. Only it was different people and a narrower choice of pet subjects.

So, it appears that the criterion was knowing the right people or being in the right position. It's downright funny that Raul was made an op in this scheme of things. He's known for occasionally crashing the channel with a flurry of gross jokes and other scary off-topic talk (bless him), and then disappearing. Could it be because he supports or cares for the new guidelines? Or is it just because he's Raul? (Don't get me wrong, I want Raul as an op in #wikipedia. He's not a bad op at all.)

As well-intentioned and well-mannered as most of them are, they simply can't do the job effectively. We had a crapflood attack lasting half an hour. Channel remained accessible only to registered freenode users for who knows how long. A very friendly lobby indeed.

Other new ops seemed more confrontational and curiously better informed than the regulars about what was going on. We were told "bluntly" that the idea is to get rid of the people in order to change the atomsphere, we were called "so-called regulars", and told that the ex-regulars who have since left the channel were the "real oldbies". In reality, the people who oppose the guideline have been in the channel for years, some for 3 or 4. In all that time they were also productive editors of Wikipedia the encyclopedia, some for 4 or 5 years.

As could be expected, such a turn of events led to a kind of a turf war, and we all started shouting past each other, which is where we're now.

Possible causes

So, finally, back to the dark, surreal, vile humour of #wikipedia. Which seems to be the only point where both sides of the story meet at the same point.

On one hand there is the perception that wikipedia is nothing but penis talk. There are people who drop into #wikipedia occasionally and walk straight into a bout of gross-out bantering. There are those that haven't been in the channel for years and are like the aforementioned grandaparent tourists, with snapshots of the most memorable moments and hardly any more knowledge of the channel. A similar phenomenon can be observed with AFD and DRV, for instance.

On the other hand, it's not like the regulars don't know this or don't act on it. Even without this attempt at reform, the realization has been growing in the channel that being the lobby of Wikipedia and Wikimedia requires a somewhat cleaner image, simply to avoid shocking the random passers-by. In fact, the humour and gross-out bantering has been greatly reduced over the years, and certainly regulars are prepared to take it further.

The only other relevant issue that I have seen brought up is the supposed op abuse, but that was never backed with any but most vague references to anecdotal evidence, at least to my knowledge. While I don't always agree with op decisions in the channel (I myself never desired to be an op), the idea that op abuse is ripe in #wikipedia is simply wrong.

So, it seems to me that this was all based on a partly faulty perception of one of the many components of #wikipedia, and on the desire for a direction on which we all agree anyway. It boggles the mind that the "reformers" thought that they need to adopt such a confrontational stance and go behind the backs of the "regulars". An explanation of that would also be helpful.

What now?

Mid-term solutions will require considerations such as who gets to appoint Wikimedia's contact with FreeNode, does the foundation have any influence on the appointment of both its own and freenode's contact persons, should such contact persons between real-life organizations be adults, and even should Wikimedia look for another network to avoid such situations in the future.

But that's mid-term. In the meantime, we can get the channel back to normal pretty easily. Just reinstate the old ops and unprotect the guideline page so that it can be edited into something more sensible in tone and detail. The "regulars" agree with the general direction of the guideline and will be happy to improve it. I don't expect any opposition to cleaning up the act further. As long as it does not mean banning all discussion of certain "unclean" subjects, like sex, death, or politics, of course.

But that won't save the channel by itself. We're still dependent on incoming links, and we're still being hurt by the braindrain. We all found the conversations more interesting when they included nicks like jwales, anthere, eloquence, raul654, submarine, disprosia, etc etc etc. And since you last saw us, we aged for a few years, some reached middle age, others grew up. So, if you're an ex-regular and are concerned for the welfare of #wikipedia, your help will be greatly appreciated. You don't need to be a "catalyst" or any other buzzword. Just don't be a stranger.

Zocky 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

From the guidelines:

The purposes of #wikipedia are outlined above under “purpose of the channel”. Extensive discussion which does not satisfy one of these purposes is regarded as “off-topic” and is discouraged.

social banter is part of the normal operation of the channel and this remains a useful community-building feature

Off topic discussion is not banned. not even close. #wikipedia is the face of wikipedia, and with every comment in there, you are a representative of wikipedia. The most referenced URL [1] is Goatse. Wikipedia is not Goatse. You list a bunch of topics that have had their own channels. Wikipedia is a big project. We have 1.8 million articles in english alone. That's why there are channels for the software, for the hardware, for the foundation. Noone is trying to stamp out the channel. It seems to me that most users don't even know that there is a problem. Well, when we have users like 'TikleMyBallsElmo' (A 'crat) and comments such as "TRANS SEXUALS, OH MY GOD THE IMMORALITY", and problems such as one about a week ago, where a user joined, asked a question, and left almost 10 minutes later without any response. Any one of your regulars knows that #wikipedia was not welcoming. ST47 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that the reason the goatse urls was mentioned so many times would be troll attacks? Also, "It seems to me that most users don't even know that there is a problem" sounds very unlikely, considering that "the problem" constitutes the majority of the conversation in the channel. And anyway, none of this addresses the main question - why was this done against the people who have invested the most time, energy and good will into the channel, instead of with them? Zocky 19:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind that longtime editor Andre Engels was ignored in similar fashion just before I rearrived at my IRC console. Don't throw rocks in glass houses. Bumm13 22:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that Wikipedia isn't linked as much as it normally would be because a number of users use scripts that turn [[This]] into a link to this. Nobody is linking goatse before or after this "reform" without getting banned. 12.119.116.138 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I for one agree with Zocky. It would be most appropriate to both get an explanation for what happened, but also to remove the entire powerplay game. There is no reason not to include us all in writing this guideline. --Dcabrilo 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)