Sean and Dmcdevit,

Two basic questions for you:

1): We have a problem with lack of ops right now. This is known and being worked on. I know Freenode discourages leaving auto-op on, but given the amount of vandalism that #wikipedia gets compared to other channels, (for instance, on my other network, the 4 or 5 50-60 person channels I co-own get spammed maybe once or twice every month), why don't we just leave auto-ops on? It will prevent questions of "Where are the ops", discourage spamming, and give the channel users a little more peace of mind that ops are actually there. I've never agreed with the "no auto-ops"philosophy: I know it's supposed to prevent it from becoming a status symbol, but people were still saying "give me ops!" before the rules change anyway, and personally I think people consider on-project admin status a bigger "status symbol". Summary: Why don't we just turn auto-op on?

2): There's obviously a LOT of criticism for these changes. Yes they were posted in topic. It's noted that for a lot of people, they don't check the topic. Or in my case, their client doesn't display the topic or chanserv messages. Since there are a lot of people dissatisfied with the change, have you considered backpedalling (even more than the relaxation of the off topic rules)? Or if you're not considering a complete reversal, some greater steps? Possibly.....turning auto-op on ;) ?

-Dan Rosenthal

On Jun 20, 2007, at 7:46 AM, foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:

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.