Needed? Yeah... like hell they are. By "pretty quickly" they literally meant in the space of a few minutes, with precisely zero consultation with anyone who actually uses the channel. Yes, there was a page of guidelines on Meta, but those guidelines have magically morphed into an unbreakable policy that doesn't actually match what's written on that page at all. Sean has casually neglected to mention that "off-topic" discussion is no longer permitted in the channel. And by that I literally mean that entering the channel and sending one-line greetings to a couple of users will get you told, in-channel and via a bombardment of PMs, to stop talking off-topic. Off-topic chat prohibited I could perhaps understand. But it doesn't stop there. Discussion of the individual projects is no longer permitted either; all discussion of the English Wikipedia has to go to #wikipedia-en. You can't even discuss the channel itself - no, that has to go to #wikimedia-irc. So that everyone's complaints can be conveniently ignored. Mark seemed to want to turn it into a help channel for new users. Ignoring the fact that we already have (or had) two of those, what good is a help channel with nobody in it? In the past, users seeking help have usually recieved a reply - or several - within seconds. I have responded to hundreds of such queries - but it's not the reason I used the channel. I never did get round to asking what I *could* discuss; I gave up when I realized the instructions barked at me in-channel and through PMs were in complete contradiction with everything Mark said when I spoke to him earlier, which in turn contradicted what Sean said when I spoke to him earlier, which in turn contradicted what I was told in-channel earlier. A new set of guidlines is fine, but this situation is not. Guidelines should be just that - for guidance purposes - and more importantly, there should not be any pretence that contributors' wishes are being accommodated when they are not. The English Wikipedia project mailing list long ago became unbearable as a method of communication and discussion. If the new-found rulers of the IRC channels want to kill them off as well, in the name of keeping all conversation on the wiki where it can be watched, then that's fine. But don't try to claim that it is an improvement. -Gurch FloNight wrote:

Definately. That's why we have setup #wikipedia-social (and there is also #wikimedia-social, which is run by some other Wikimedians and they said they didn't want us pointing people there, so we setup #wikipedia-social). I totally agree that it's very important. My point is that the majority of talk in #wikipedia should be on Wikipedia, not the other way round. Otherwise, why call it #wikipedia? :-) Sean On 16/06/07, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: -- —Sean Whitton (seanw) <sean(a)silentflame.com> http://seanwhitton.com/

I'm glad you've brought this up so clearly because, from my position, it isn't as obvious. I can see exactly what you mean about the issue with continuity between us. On one hand, I would simply say that this kind of thing will iron itself out with time, and that wounds will heal etc. However, on the other hand, users like yourself have no idea which rules to follow, and so things start to go downhill again. So, I'll try to give the position that we were aiming at in e-mail discussions here. I think Mark and I were trying to present it fairly, and I think that the reason it was confusing was because we were going for something /comparatively/ stricter as compared with what we had before, but guidelines in the sense of we are not going to stick to the letter and that a lot of it falls down to common sense. The position is that we are requesting that the channel remains reasonably on-topic, has a clean/presentable public face, and that if this is not being achieved users will be willing to listen to the operators to perhaps change things. The guidelines/rules/whatever are not the key thing: being a catalyst it. If this is horribly unclear, please let me know! Sean On 16/06/07, Gurch <matthew.britton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: -- —Sean Whitton (seanw) <sean(a)silentflame.com> http://seanwhitton.com/

In the situation you describe I would hope no-one shoots you down in flames. That would not be helpful to *anyone*. However, if for example a big debate on a new resolution was being discussed, you'd probably be asked to nudge over to -en. On 16/06/07, Gurch <matthew.britton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: -- —Sean Whitton (seanw) <sean(a)silentflame.com> http://seanwhitton.com/

Firstly, thanks for speaking about this in a civilised and constructive way. Obviously, nothing like this is ever set in stone. I would like to point out that the guidelines were open for comment in the topic of #wikipedia for a number of days and as I know that you are a regular in the channel, you did have chance to make your views heard there. We assumed there were no immeadiately pressing issues from those who use the channel every day as there were no real comments on the guidelines's talkpage, and so went ahead. It's good that we can continue to adapt things here. I can understand how this was confusing. I temporarily asked all chat about the changes to be moved there so the channel could get back to normal. This isn't anything permenant; I merely aimed to cool things a bit. Thanks, Sean On 16/06/07, Gurch &lt;matthew.britton(a)btinternet.com&gt; wrote: > Needed? Yeah... like hell they are. > > By "pretty quickly" they literally meant in the space of a few minutes, > with precisely zero consultation with anyone who actually uses the > channel. Yes, there was a page of guidelines on Meta, but those > guidelines have magically morphed into an unbreakable policy that > doesn't actually match what's written on that page at all. > > Sean has casually neglected to mention that "off-topic" discussion is no > longer permitted in the channel. And by that I literally mean that > entering the channel and sending one-line greetings to a couple of users > will get you told, in-channel and via a bombardment of PMs, to stop > talking off-topic. > > > Mark seemed to want to turn it into a help channel for new users. > Ignoring the fact that we already have (or had) two of those, what good > is a help channel with nobody in it? In the past, users seeking help > have usually recieved a reply - or several - within seconds. I have > responded to hundreds of such queries - but it's not the reason I used > the channel. > > I never did get round to asking what I *could* discuss; I gave up when I > realized the instructions barked at me in-channel and through PMs were > in complete contradiction with everything Mark said when I spoke to him > earlier, which in turn contradicted what Sean said when I spoke to him > earlier, which in turn contradicted what I was told in-channel earlier. > > A new set of guidlines is fine, but this situation is not. Guidelines > should be just that - for guidance purposes - and more importantly, > there should not be any pretence that contributors' wishes are being > accommodated when they are not. > > The English Wikipedia project mailing list long ago became unbearable as > a method of communication and discussion. If the new-found rulers of the > IRC channels want to kill them off as well, in the name of keeping all > conversation on the wiki where it can be watched, then that's fine. But > don't try to claim that it is an improvement. > > -Gurch > > FloNight wrote: > > Thank you Sean, Mark, and Dmcdevit for shepherding these changes. I > > definitely think they are needed. > > > > Sydney aka FloNight > > > > On 6/16/07, Sean Whitton &lt;sean(a)silentflame.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hello all, > >> > >> I am writing to introduce a number of changes to #wikipedia. The aim > >> of this is to improve the channel's image and to make it more useful > >> for everyone. The changes are being initiated this afternoon (GMT) and > >> I hope to have them done pretty quickly. > >> > >> 1: New contacts > >> The channel will now be managed by Mark_Ryan and Dmcdevit (their IRC > >> nicks, as most of us probably know them). At the moment it's pretty ad > >> hoc and so we (the [[m:IRC Group Contacts]]) that it might be a good > >> idea to put someone and a deputy very clearly with the responsibility > >> so that we don't get "who do I go to for this...?" with the response > >> "not me" from everyone, a common online scenario, or so I've observed. > >> > >> 2: New guidelines/rules > >> Together with some community input (although of course more is > >> welcomed - it's a wiki, so let's take advantage of that) we have > >> written some new guidelines for user and operator conduct at > >> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_guidelines/wikipedia>. These are a > >> lot more enforcable than the old ones. The key thing is that operators > >> will try and resolve issues with words rather than powers whenever > >> possible. > >> > >> 3: New operators > >> We realised that the op list was becoming a bit messy. Additionally, > >> we're not sure that all operators are in agreement on the above > >> guidelines. We decided that it would be a bit pointless to ask them to > >> enforce guidelines they didn't support and do so using methods they > >> preferred not to use and so we have opted to clear out the access list > >> and start afresh. We welcome new applications from our experienced > >> operators to rejoin the team. On this note we are going to be a little > >> more formal on application for this, as only the contacts named above > >> will have the authority to manage the ops team. The key thing with all > >> these changes is to make #wikimedia-ops more useful, and to ensure > >> that operators use words rather than technological 'force' wherever > >> possible (as a rule of thumb, in the majority of cases where their > >> intervention is required). We aim to keep a list on meta of these ops > >> too to make it easier for people to get in touch with them. > >> > >> You may be wondering if this applies to places other than #wikipedia: > >> not now, but we are considering rolling it out elsewhere if it proves > >> a success. Stay tuned! > >> > >> Thank you for your support. > >> > >> Yours, > >> > >> Sean Whitton > >> Wikimedia IRC Group Contact > >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sean_Whitton > >> > >> -- > >> —Sean Whitton (seanw) > >> &lt;sean(a)silentflame.com&gt; > >> http://seanwhitton.com/ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> foundation-l mailing list > >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- —Sean Whitton (seanw) &lt;sean(a)silentflame.com&gt; http://seanwhitton.com/