Hello, On 6/20/07, Dejan Čabrilo <dcabrilo(a)gmail.com> wrote: Because Sean is one of our two IRC group contacts for Wikimedia (with James_F), member of Freenode staff (you know, this network you are using and whose rules you have accepted a long time ago). Admin on which project ? #wikipedia is supposed to be about the global Wikipedia project, if you wish to find admins of a dedicated project, you had better join the dedicated channel (I guess your sentence was English-language-Wikipedia-centric, so in that case the dedicated channel is #wikipedia-en, just like there is #wikipedia-fr or #wikipedia-de). Finally, let me repeat this: While I applaud your effort to take Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it. Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so that people really understand why your action was needed. -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." Henry David Thoreau

Hi, I have to say, that I like the channel as it is constructed now much more. Some pepole will want to move to the social channel now, I can only encourage that if that is the chat they are searching. Please consider a few points: *All Wikimediaprojects which are on IRC have their channel as in #projectname-langcode , for example #wikibooks-nl . Why would en.wikipedia be an example? The channel was often flooding with off topic talk, when I came there for help (yes, even a steward needs help sometimes) no-one was responding often, due to the heavy offtopic conversations about star trek and indeed politics, generally americal politics. If there was a respond, it was not possible to find it in the flood when are not using a irc client with highlighting (such as javachat). There is a need for interwiki-communication is something I hear often. people are not able to get together and think about general solutions together. The only channel being used for that kind of stuff is #wikimedia , but to be honest, that is more foundation/organization-related, not project-based. Freenode is a big network, and contains a lot of channels. I think it is not so very weird to move from channel, if you want a social talk, just go to the appropriate channel. If the social talk is a short spin-off of a Wikipedia-related issue, I guess there is nobody banging on your head. Yes, you are allowed (of course) to change from network. If you really feel that you cannot operate anymore in Freenode, you are free to choose another network, and go there. Consider however, that it is not as much Freenode you are having problems with here, you just disagree on a few rules for *one channel*. I guess it is easier then to set up another channel, such as ##Wikipedia . And *please* remember that not everybody is from en.wikipedia . The mistake of admin is one often made. If someone searches for an enwiki admin, he should actually search in #wikipedia-en . It is just setting the links in the helppages straight, and most of the people will go the right way. Best Regards, Lodewijk 2007/6/20, Dejan Čabrilo <dcabrilo(a)gmail.com>om>:

Sean Whitton wrote: Which is, when you think about it, the reason why this discussion should have taken place on wikipedia-l rather than foundation-l. I forgive the error, but #wikipedia is not a Foundation discussion really, it is a Wikipedia discussion. Ant

On 6/20/07, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hmm, I guess I, and all the other enwikipedians on this list aren't normal, then. It's a bit late to move to wikipedia-l (and less Wikipedians read that than foundation-l, to be honest), though, so I think we should stay here for the remainder of this discussion and move there for future discussions. Rory

I'd like to make it very clear this was an action as group contact not as freenode staff. freenode staff have given advice as my peers, nothing more. Also, Mark_Ryan was widely recognised as the 'leader' of the channel as he was the most active manager of the ops team. He fully supported our proposals and contributed to them, suggesting to me that we do have authorisation, if you see what I mean. Guillom, thanks for highlighting this. The problems were that a lot of on-wiki users had abandoned #wikipedia in favour of other channels or of leaving IRC altogether. It had been called a blasted wasteland. However, IRC was still recognised as a useful tool, just that our original channel (as in, been around in one form or another for the longest time) was not. I didn't see that as a good situation. Also, I was of the opinion that our ops were a little harsh at times and were not willing to act as catalysts. This is not to say they did not agree with the philosophy, but just that they were in old habits. Here I agree with the concern that it is not for me to say "you will op as I wish you to) but there was plenty of popular support for the spirit of the idea. So, the idea of removing ops was primarily to create the opportunity for ratification of the guidelines. It was realised that the last attempt at guidelines had failed because those who were to enforce them were confused: if we had created a peaceful channel with them and then an inactive op came back and shattered things (in good faith and unintentionally) it would have been all for naught. By asking ops to reapply we can reaffirm we're all on the same wavelength. Sean On 20/06/07, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > On 6/20/07, Dejan Čabrilo <dcabrilo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 08:59 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > Firstly, the guidelines were drafted and left in the topic of > > > #wikipedia for several days. No real feedback or edits were received > > > and so we thought it would be okay to go ahead. Perhaps if the > > > community had got involved in discussion there, we probably would have > > > allowed more time, but it didn't seem to be happening. So, there was > > > no community input despite the opportunity for it. > > > > Did this not lead you to believe that the guideline was not advertised > > properly? After we heard about it, many people got very upset. So, I > > suggest you give us another chance to give you input on the topic. The > > guideline page is protected, and when I asked an op (rather harshly, I > > must admit) in #wikipedia to change the /topic, to reflect that most of > > us don't agree with it, he didn't do anything about it. > > > > My question still stands: why do you get to make decisions for all of > > us? > > > > > Secondly, I agree that the off-topic guidelines were originally worded > > > far too strictly. I've since toned down the guidelines (I didn't write > > > them originally) to try and give the impression that was intended, > > > that extensive off-topic talk is discouraged, not that we are saying > > > "talk about anything but Wikipedia and you get banned". Please take a > > > look at them now and see what you think. > > > > Like I said before: I hang out in that channel because I like the wit of > > the people in it. If we are not allowed to dwell into out conversations > > to a point in which we discuss the political philosophy behind the > > religious dynamics among the royalty of Swaziland or the latest episode > > of Dr House, the channel will lose its charm of an encyclopedia channel > > - and it will be void of people who otherwise helped newcomers. It will > > also be void of admins, and in many cases, my only way to quickly > > contact an admin was through that channel. > > > Admin on which project ? #wikipedia is supposed to be about the global > Wikipedia project, if you wish to find admins of a dedicated project, you > had better join the dedicated channel (I guess your sentence was > English-language-Wikipedia-centric, so in that case the dedicated channel is > #wikipedia-en, just like there is #wikipedia-fr or #wikipedia-de). > > Finally, let me repeat this: While I applaud your effort to take > > initiative, why do you think you have legitimacy to deop people, make a > > guideline without community input (whether the lack of community input > > was your fault or not doesn't matter, there still wasn't any), and then > > give ops to people who will follow it? > > > > -- > Guillaume Paumier > [[m:User:guillom]] > "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have > imagined." Henry David Thoreau > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- —Sean Whitton (seanw) <sean(a)silentflame.com> http://seanwhitton.com/

On 6/20/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit(a)cox.net> wrote: coaxing =rming most of the ops thus making the channel to vulnerable to attack to be useable -- geni

I understand the move to kill offtopic talk but the decision to de-op people was pretty rude and poorly handled, from my outside perspective. Gotta love the power BOFHs can wield! On 6/20/07, Sean Whitton <sean(a)silentflame.com> wrote:

Hoi, It has been said that there was some notice on the /topic. That is great.. realistically who reads it? You mention that there were complaints about this channel .. well, there are always people that complain but how relevant is that. There are even people that complain that the Foundation is a mess. There too, you have to consider what the board is trying to do, that it does not have the means to implement what it aims to do, that the size of the projects are growing rapidly and that some rabidly are opposed to anything because it does not coincide with their own typically not well articulated view of how "things should be or else". Now, let me be clear, our culture allows you to be bold. Even when half cocked. You have been bold and things have improved from what you proposed. It is however not clear that you have the people frequent #wikipedia agree with your premises. There is room for either more back pedalling or for more changes to what you proposed and implemented but was not seen and considered by most. Thanks, Gerard On 6/20/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit(a)cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 13:08 +0100, James Forrester wrote: Oh, come on. Y'all were saying how you got community input through /topic and this mailing list. There was NONE. And? We are complaining about the guideline and how it was created and how it is enforced. What are we going to do about that. Still no excuse for not including the community into the decision making process. My questions still remain: 1) Were there any complaints that #wikipedia wasn't helpful to people with questions? Or this come just because some people don't like what we talked about? 2) Whom can we ask for help? Most of the people in #wikipedia dislike both the new rules and how they were implemented and we don't want seanw in charge. As demonstrated in the channel and on the talk page of the Guideline. 3) Who are seanw and other people who authorized them to come up with rules? Can I make a gudeline on wikimedia and say that I'm in charge of the feud I choose? Please :P 4) Why was there no community input? You can say all you want, but I first heard about the issues on this mailing list from /topic, and first saw the guideline after it was enforced. 5) Is this how we are going to go about other issues on Wikipedia, too? Dejan Čabrilo

Ok, gathered from what several of you said, is it fair that I draw the following conclusions: 1) Seanw is a group contact of Wikimedia, appointed by Wikimedia, on FreeNode. 2) Wikimedia granted him absolute right to do what he pleases with the channels. 3) Community has the input, unless we propose that off topic discussion should be allowed and that old ops are brought back. 4) Many of you don't think that coming into the channel and saying: tone it down a bit, would be beneficial. It had to be done in a way which separates the community. 5) You all think that enacting the policy without ANY (justified or not) community input was a good way to go. I am asking all of this because I don't like separating #wikipedia and #wikipedia-social one bit, and we have determined years ago that #wikipedia serves best as both #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en channel (we'd get tired of directing people to #wikipedia-en). This was because en.wikipedia is a flagship project, and because the most commonly used language on #wikipedia is English. If there is nothing we can do, then somebody please tell me: "Shut up, we already decided how we want that channel, trying to discuss it will get you nowhere." Thank you, Dejan Čabrilo

On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 18:11 +0200, Michael Bimmler wrote: I was told by Rory that "Seanw was a group contact of Wikimedia, appointed by the foundation to be a liaison between WMF and Freenode, and also to be in charge of the channels." I don't know. You tell me. It wasn't sought properly. It was given though, but ignored. Dejan Čabrilo

On 6/20/07, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096(a)gmail.com> wrote: As I just got confirmation, the Wikimedia Foundation is not accredited with Freenode for IRC purposes, so there is no group administered by the Foundation. There is, however, a group called "wikimedia" which is basically built and managed by the Wikimedia community. The board did *not* at any time appoint IRC Group Contacts. Michael

My goodness, this email is the very definition of "spin", isn't it? Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: DejanCabrilo To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] #wikipedia Ok, gathered from what several of you said, is it fair that I draw the following conclusions: 1) Seanw is a group contact of Wikimedia, appointed by Wikimedia, on FreeNode. 2) Wikimedia granted him absolute right to do what he pleases with the channels. 3) Community has the input, unless we propose that off topic discussion should be allowed and that old ops are brought back. 4) Many of you don't think that coming into the channel and saying: tone it down a bit, would be beneficial. It had to be done in a way which separates the community. 5) You all think that enacting the policy without ANY (justified or not) community input was a good way to go. I am asking all of this because I don't like separating #wikipedia and #wikipedia-social one bit, and we have determined years ago that #wikipedia serves best as both #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en channel (we'd get tired of directing people to #wikipedia-en). This was because en.wikipedia is a flagship project, and because the most commonly used language on #wikipedia is English. If there is nothing we can do, then somebody please tell me: "Shut up, we already decided how we want that channel, trying to discuss it will get you nowhere." Thank you, Dejan ÄOabrilo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Can you not monitor two channels at the same time? I think seanw has indicated some flexibility in the rules and it seems to have settled a bit today. I know you are frustrated but aside from that is it really that big of a deal to you? JodyB Dejan Čabrilo wrote:

On 6/20/07, Philippe Beaudette <philippebeaudette(a)gmail.com> wrote: Indeed. I'm not even going to bother to reply if all he's going to do is put words in my mouth and completely ignore what I actually said. Rory

On 6/20/07, Philippe Beaudette <philippebeaudette(a)gmail.com> wrote: Considering that Dejan was clearly making a good-faith attempt to understand something that happened without clear explanation and understandably upset him, your comment is particularly rude, so far as I can tell. Or maybe there was a constructive point you were trying to make, and I'm too obtuse to see it.