WikiEN-l February 2008

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

139 participants
268 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] en.wiki admin IRC
by Chris Howie 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:58 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote: > In a message dated 2/27/2008 10:51:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, > cdhowie(a)gmail.com writes: > > << Any "Rule Z" here is irrelevant, because there is nothing stopping > administrators from making a channel somewhere else, on some other IRC > server, or some other chat server entirely. >> > ------------------- > Yes, if we had a rule Z in-wiki which said "don't do this", then we'd impose > it just like any other rule. If an admin is caught doing it, they face the > requirements of that rule. Same as the rest of Wiki. And this would be a pointless rule, just more CREEP. If I can justify an action off-wiki then I can justify it on-wiki. If I cannot justify an action on-wiki then I cannot justify it off-wiki. If you ask an admin why they did something and they say "I dunno, we agreed that it was the best thing" then you have every right to demand an explanation, which may be in the form of a chat log and it may just be a paraphrase, but either way you then have something to dispute. If they say "someone told me to do it" and cannot provide more than that then take it to RfC, MedCom, ArbCom, whatever. I still don't see what the point is and I'd be interested to know how you would draft this "rule Z." -- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] en.wiki admin IRC
by Avi 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Hear hear. I would much prefer all-admin-talk talk place on-Wiki where we can all see > what is and was said. > To me that transparency is very important for the project. I am very > pro-transparency. > > Will Johnson > -- en:User:Avraham ---- pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki(a)gmail.com> Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229

5 4

Re: [WikiEN-l] en.wiki admin IRC
by Chris Howie 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:48 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote: > In a message dated 2/27/2008 10:23:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, > cdhowie(a)gmail.com writes: > > << Let us know when you figure out a mechanism to prevent Wikipedia > administrators from talking about Wikipedia stuff except on-wiki. >> > ------------- > > Same way as always. Admins must follows rules x y and z. Rule Z says Admin > IRC must only be used for special and rare cases where user-identification > is > being discussed. Please stop replying to only me. This is a wider discussion; keep it on-list. Any "Rule Z" here is irrelevant, because there is nothing stopping administrators from making a channel somewhere else, on some other IRC server, or some other chat server entirely. (Jabber, AIM...) -- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] en.wiki admin IRC
by Avi 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Yes, and expecially as regards OTRS, that is why there is a separate mailing list and wiki for it. However, I would posit that the times discretion is necessary, an e-mail list, with its corresponding archive, is sufficient as opposed to the inherent transient nature of IRC. Also, a list allows everyone who receives the e-mail the ability to comment, as opposed to those who happen to be on-line at the time. Lastly, for the argument that IRC has more immediacy than a list, MOST of the time, these kinds of decisions that require the privacy and discretion an admin-only or OTRS list requires are better served through at the least SOME deliberation as opposed to immediate reaction. --Avi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Majorly <axel9891(a)googlemail.com> > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:33:37 +0000 > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] en.wiki admin IRC > On 27/02/2008, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Transparency is a great thing, but not everything should be (or needs to > be). The reason the admin channel was set up was to have a private channel > for trusted users when dealing with sensitive issues such as BLPs and OTRS > tickets. I agree also that IRC is a pretty backward forum, but it's > bearable. Frankly though, people who complain loudly about how awful IRC > is > don't get any sympathy from me, ever. > -- en:User:Avraham ---- pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki(a)gmail.com> Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] en.wiki admin IRC
by WJhonson＠aol.com 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

In a message dated 2/27/2008 9:30:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, johnjreaves(a)gmail.com writes: Special:Emailuser?>> ----------------------------- Yes I would be in favor of dismantling all off-wiki talk :) **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du… 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

5 5

Re: [WikiEN-l] en.wiki admin IRC
by WJhonson＠aol.com 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

In a message dated 2/27/2008 9:34:16 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, axel9891(a)googlemail.com writes: The reason the admin channel was set up was to have a private channel for trusted users when dealing with sensitive issues such as BLPs and OTRS tickets.>> ---------------- And we all know that it isn't being used for just this. There are other ways to deal with this, other than more "super-secret" ways. Non-admins deal with sensitive BLP issues all the time. Speaking of which, I still haven't added Jimbo's wife's previous surname... that's on my to-do list. **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du… 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] en.wiki admin IRC
by WJhonson＠aol.com 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

IRC was this very early (and evil) way for people to communicate "Internet Relay Chat". It still lives (and should die) and admins have their own channel to talk to each other. It's not considered an "official" part of Wikipedia but might as well be. I would much prefer all-admin-talk talk place on-Wiki where we can all see what is and was said. To me that transparency is very important for the project. I am very pro-transparency. Will Johnson **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du… 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Violent threats and Armed Blowfish
by Sheldon Rampton 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Thomas Dalton wrote: > All of those things, as stated earlier, reflect poorly. Convicting > someone of a crime should be on the basis of an accusation by a named, > identifiable accuser who can be confronted by the accused (subject to > observation in the courtroom, of course, and intimidation and the like > should be strictly disallowed), not something else. One should never > be convicted or imprisoned on a basis like this: "Well who said I did > something wrong?" "Well we can't tell you that, but here's a scrambled > videotape of their accusation." "Well that's not true, I want to > cross-examine them! And I want to know who they are, what if it's > someone who has a grudge against me?" "Sorry, won't be possible." I never said anything about a "scrambled videotape" or suggested that people on trial should not be allowed to know the identities of their accusers. I said that in some cases measures are taken to protect vulnerable victims (such as children who have been molested) from having to testify in front of the person who is accused of their abuse. This does NOT involve "scrambled" videotape, and the identity of the victim is not withheld from the accused. Sometimes the victim is kept from having to testify through negotiations; for example, a perpetrator may know that conviction is inevitable and may choose to forego the opportunity to cross-examine the victim in exchange for some sort of plea-bargaining consideration. Other times the prosecution may protect the victim from testifying by using other evidence to build its case; for example, a forensics expert could testify about bruises found on the victim, or about semen that matched the DNA of the accused individual (and of course the defense has the opportunity to cross-examine the forensics expert). My main point, though, which Thomas Dalton seems to have completely forgotten in the course of his revery, is that there is no requirement for disclosing the identity of the victim OUTSIDE THE COURT, especially in cases of sensitive crimes. I agree with Thomas that accused individuals should have the right to confront their accusers (with the clarification that "victim" and "accuser" are not necessarily the same individual). However, it would also be bad if we had a court system which automatically published the identities of all victims of crimes. -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate --------------------------------

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] en.wiki admin IRC
by WJhonson＠aol.com 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Can I just pipe in here to say "Good". Admin IRC is and always was a completely horrible idea, imho. All IRC should die die die ! Time for coffee. Will Johnson **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du… 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Violent threats and Armed Blowfish
by WJhonson＠aol.com 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

In a message dated 2/27/2008 8:19:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, sheldon(a)prwatch.org writes: is that there is no requirement for disclosing the identity of the victim OUTSIDE THE COURT, especially in cases of sensitive crimes>> --------------------- Which is used VERY rarely. And certainly would not imply in a case like this one which is simply intimidation and casual threats. **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du… 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
27
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l February 2008