Dear all,
I have just subscribed to this list in the light of IRC problems we've been having. Namely, a couple of users, primeraly seanw (I never heard of him before) decided to create and enforce rules on #wikipedia.
The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel. This is problematic for two reasons:
1) A lot of people have been in that channel for years. We like to socialize and to help and seek help regarding Wikipedia. Wikipedia being such an open project, most of us thought of the channel as great, because people who otherwise wouldn't spend their time waiting for a question, hung in there and were helpful. Both admins helped regular users, and everybody helped newcomers. We think of off topic conversation as a good thing. There is nothing worse than getting into a silent channel, asking a question, and getting the answer half an hour later, when you lost all the interest
2) We percieve this as somebody trying to hijack the channel we've been frequenting for a long time. There is a sort of a _power play_ going on. A couple of people came in and said "we are in charge now", and they decided that they are the ones who "officially, unofficially" run the channel.
So, I have some question:
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?
Thank you, Dejan Čabrilo
Hello,
I would like to address two of your points here. I have done this elsewhere but hopefully by doing it here others will see it and won't ask again!
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.
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.
Thanks,
Sean
On 20/06/07, Dejan Čabrilo dcabrilo@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I have just subscribed to this list in the light of IRC problems we've been having. Namely, a couple of users, primeraly seanw (I never heard of him before) decided to create and enforce rules on #wikipedia.
The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel. This is problematic for two reasons:
- A lot of people have been in that channel for years. We like to
socialize and to help and seek help regarding Wikipedia. Wikipedia being such an open project, most of us thought of the channel as great, because people who otherwise wouldn't spend their time waiting for a question, hung in there and were helpful. Both admins helped regular users, and everybody helped newcomers. We think of off topic conversation as a good thing. There is nothing worse than getting into a silent channel, asking a question, and getting the answer half an hour later, when you lost all the interest
- We percieve this as somebody trying to hijack the channel we've been
frequenting for a long time. There is a sort of a _power play_ going on. A couple of people came in and said "we are in charge now", and they decided that they are the ones who "officially, unofficially" run the channel.
So, I have some question:
- 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?
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- Is this how we are going to go about other issues on Wikipedia, too?
Thank you, Dejan Čabrilo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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.
As it is worded now, the guideline is more permissive of off-topic. However, you say: "It remains up to the channel operators to decide their implementation." We all know that in this power play you reinstated only the ops that agree with your take on what #wikipedia should be.
The only thing that this guideline has so far accomplished was to bring *hostility* to the channel.
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?
Dejan Čabrilo
Hello,
On 6/20/07, Dejan Čabrilo dcabrilo@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?
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).
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?
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.
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:28 +0200, Guillaume Paumier 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).
Can we consider changing the network then, if our community and FreeNode can't get along?
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).
Usually admins on en.wikipedia. Several people used #wikipedia to contact me for help, as I'm an admin on sh.wikipedia, and our channel is mostly empty. It's easier to have a centralized place where people can both direct you and help you.
Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.
I am bold enough to go and reconstruct AfD on en.wikipedia. But I don't think changing the rules and desysoping all the admins that took part in it would be a way to go.
Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so that people really understand why your action was needed.
So, Sean should tell us why the channel we were in had problems?
Dejan Čabrilo
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@gmail.com:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:28 +0200, Guillaume Paumier 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).
Can we consider changing the network then, if our community and FreeNode can't get along?
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).
Usually admins on en.wikipedia. Several people used #wikipedia to contact me for help, as I'm an admin on sh.wikipedia, and our channel is mostly empty. It's easier to have a centralized place where people can both direct you and help you.
Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.
I am bold enough to go and reconstruct AfD on en.wikipedia. But I don't think changing the rules and desysoping all the admins that took part in it would be a way to go.
Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so that people really understand why your action was needed.
So, Sean should tell us why the channel we were in had problems?
Dejan Čabrilo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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.
Precisely. If we could raise issues in the channel that really are affecting multiple places, it's great. As you say, #wikimedia is definately more geared towards WMF, and #wikipedia is appropriate for project-related matters.
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.
While I agree with you in principle, I personally do not believe that talk about a specific project is harmful until it stops another project being discussed. We do advertise that #wikipedia is for projects that don't have a sufficiently active channel of their own.
All the same, it is important to remember that not everyone is enwiki, as you say.
Sean
On 20/06/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
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@gmail.com:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:28 +0200, Guillaume Paumier 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).
Can we consider changing the network then, if our community and FreeNode can't get along?
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).
Usually admins on en.wikipedia. Several people used #wikipedia to contact me for help, as I'm an admin on sh.wikipedia, and our channel is mostly empty. It's easier to have a centralized place where people can both direct you and help you.
Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.
I am bold enough to go and reconstruct AfD on en.wikipedia. But I don't think changing the rules and desysoping all the admins that took part in it would be a way to go.
Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so that people really understand why your action was needed.
So, Sean should tell us why the channel we were in had problems?
Dejan Čabrilo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sean Whitton wrote:
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.
Precisely. If we could raise issues in the channel that really are affecting multiple places, it's great. As you say, #wikimedia is definately more geared towards WMF, and #wikipedia is appropriate for project-related matters.
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
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.
While I agree with you in principle, I personally do not believe that talk about a specific project is harmful until it stops another project being discussed. We do advertise that #wikipedia is for projects that don't have a sufficiently active channel of their own.
All the same, it is important to remember that not everyone is enwiki, as you say.
Sean
On 20/06/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
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@gmail.com:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:28 +0200, Guillaume Paumier 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).
Can we consider changing the network then, if our community and FreeNode can't get along?
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).
Usually admins on en.wikipedia. Several people used #wikipedia to contact me for help, as I'm an admin on sh.wikipedia, and our channel is mostly empty. It's easier to have a centralized place where people can both direct you and help you.
Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.
I am bold enough to go and reconstruct AfD on en.wikipedia. But I don't think changing the rules and desysoping all the admins that took part in it would be a way to go.
Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so that people really understand why your action was needed.
So, Sean should tell us why the channel we were in had problems?
Dejan Čabrilo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6/20/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Sean Whitton wrote:
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.
Precisely. If we could raise issues in the channel that really are affecting multiple places, it's great. As you say, #wikimedia is definately more geared towards WMF, and #wikipedia is appropriate for project-related matters.
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.
Agreed. Could you maybe move this discussion to the appropriate list (which is #wikipedia)? BTW: Remember, the IRC channels are not official Wikimedia Foundation channels, so they shouldn't really be discussed on the foundation list. On the other hand, some IRC users complained that they couldn't make input because it is discussed on foundation-l, "a list that no normal wikipedian reads" (quote). So, maybe, it's really not the best list for this discussion!? Michael
Ant
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.
While I agree with you in principle, I personally do not believe that talk about a specific project is harmful until it stops another project being discussed. We do advertise that #wikipedia is for projects that don't have a sufficiently active channel of their own.
All the same, it is important to remember that not everyone is enwiki, as you say.
Sean
On 20/06/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
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@gmail.com:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:28 +0200, Guillaume Paumier 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).
Can we consider changing the network then, if our community and FreeNode can't get along?
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).
Usually admins on en.wikipedia. Several people used #wikipedia to contact me for help, as I'm an admin on sh.wikipedia, and our channel is mostly empty. It's easier to have a centralized place where people can both direct you and help you.
Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.
I am bold enough to go and reconstruct AfD on en.wikipedia. But I don't think changing the rules and desysoping all the admins that took part in it would be a way to go.
Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so that people really understand why your action was needed.
So, Sean should tell us why the channel we were in had problems?
Dejan Čabrilo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6/20/07, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Sean Whitton wrote:
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.
Precisely. If we could raise issues in the channel that really are affecting multiple places, it's great. As you say, #wikimedia is definately more geared towards WMF, and #wikipedia is appropriate for project-related matters.
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.
Agreed. Could you maybe move this discussion to the appropriate list (which is #wikipedia)? BTW: Remember, the IRC channels are not official Wikimedia Foundation channels, so they shouldn't really be discussed on the foundation list. On the other hand, some IRC users complained that they couldn't make input because it is discussed on foundation-l, "a list that no normal wikipedian reads" (quote). So, maybe, it's really not the best list for this discussion!? Michael
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
Thanks for the correction ant.
I suggest discussion is moved to #wikimedia-irc or the talk page of the guidelines, but probably not here. I only posted it here originally because while #wikipedia is supposed to be for Wikipedia, it ends up covering pretty much everything at times :)
Sean
On 20/06/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Sean Whitton wrote:
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.
Precisely. If we could raise issues in the channel that really are affecting multiple places, it's great. As you say, #wikimedia is definately more geared towards WMF, and #wikipedia is appropriate for project-related matters.
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
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.
While I agree with you in principle, I personally do not believe that talk about a specific project is harmful until it stops another project being discussed. We do advertise that #wikipedia is for projects that don't have a sufficiently active channel of their own.
All the same, it is important to remember that not everyone is enwiki, as you say.
Sean
On 20/06/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
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@gmail.com:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:28 +0200, Guillaume Paumier 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).
Can we consider changing the network then, if our community and FreeNode can't get along?
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).
Usually admins on en.wikipedia. Several people used #wikipedia to contact me for help, as I'm an admin on sh.wikipedia, and our channel is mostly empty. It's easier to have a centralized place where people can both direct you and help you.
Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.
I am bold enough to go and reconstruct AfD on en.wikipedia. But I don't think changing the rules and desysoping all the admins that took part in it would be a way to go.
Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so that people really understand why your action was needed.
So, Sean should tell us why the channel we were in had problems?
Dejan Čabrilo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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).
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.
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.
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@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On 6/20/07, Dejan Čabrilo dcabrilo@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?
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).
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?
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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dejan Čabrilo wrote:
The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel.
Off-topic chat is not *banned,* but it is being coaxed into other channels where it is more appropriate. Consider visiting #wikipedia-social. This doesn't mean that tangents and banter are disallowed, but that completely off-topic discussion should be avoided to begin with.
We think of off topic conversation as a good thing. There is nothing worse than getting into a silent channel, asking a question, and getting the answer half an hour later, when you lost all the interest
Yes, getting no answer while US politics or furry fandom drown out the question is worse than that. I think your concern is exaggerated. Most channels do not have 250 regular users, and they do fine. I think #wiktionary is a good example of a channel that consistently has less than 30 occupants, and is always more active than #wikipedia-en with many more on-topic conversations, and tangents as well.
- Were there any complaints that #wikipedia wasn't helpful to people
with questions?
Yes, very much so.
Dominic
On 6/20/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Dejan Čabrilo wrote:
The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel.
Off-topic chat is not *banned,* but it is being coaxed into other channels where it is more appropriate. Consider visiting #wikipedia-social.
coaxing =rming most of the ops thus making the channel to vulnerable to attack to be useable
I admit we are at fault here with how quickly ops are being reinstated.
Applications to me or Dmcdevit via e-mail or IRC are appreciated.
On 20/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Dejan Čabrilo wrote:
The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel.
Off-topic chat is not *banned,* but it is being coaxed into other channels where it is more appropriate. Consider visiting #wikipedia-social.
coaxing =rming most of the ops thus making the channel to vulnerable to attack to be useable
-- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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@silentflame.com wrote:
I admit we are at fault here with how quickly ops are being reinstated.
Applications to me or Dmcdevit via e-mail or IRC are appreciated.
On 20/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Dejan Čabrilo wrote:
The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel.
Off-topic chat is not *banned,* but it is being coaxed into other channels where it is more appropriate. Consider visiting #wikipedia-social.
coaxing =rming most of the ops thus making the channel to vulnerable to attack to be useable
-- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- —Sean Whitton (seanw) sean@silentflame.com http://seanwhitton.com/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 01:01 -0700, Dmcdevit wrote:
Yes, getting no answer while US politics or furry fandom drown out the question is worse than that. I think your concern is exaggerated. Most channels do not have 250 regular users, and they do fine. I think #wiktionary is a good example of a channel that consistently has less than 30 occupants, and is always more active than #wikipedia-en with many more on-topic conversations, and tangents as well.
I personally listened to off topic discussion in #wiktionary and I participated in several. This was while I was editing wiktionary, so I needed a lot of help on technical issues.
Wiktionary has a smaller regular users base, so what you are talking about is only natural.
- Were there any complaints that #wikipedia wasn't helpful to people
with questions?
Yes, very much so.
Please give us the specifics and let us decide how to solve the problems. Don't solve them for us.
Also, a question for you: why not consult the community (properly) first? Why not take our input now?
Dejan Čabrilo
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@cox.net wrote:
Dejan Čabrilo wrote:
The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel.
Off-topic chat is not *banned,* but it is being coaxed into other channels where it is more appropriate. Consider visiting #wikipedia-social. This doesn't mean that tangents and banter are disallowed, but that completely off-topic discussion should be avoided to begin with.
We think of off topic conversation as a good thing. There is nothing worse than getting into a
silent channel, asking a question, and getting the answer half an hour later, when you lost all the interest
Yes, getting no answer while US politics or furry fandom drown out the question is worse than that. I think your concern is exaggerated. Most channels do not have 250 regular users, and they do fine. I think #wiktionary is a good example of a channel that consistently has less than 30 occupants, and is always more active than #wikipedia-en with many more on-topic conversations, and tangents as well.
- Were there any complaints that #wikipedia wasn't helpful to people
with questions?
Yes, very much so.
Dominic
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 20/06/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
It has been said that there was some notice on the /topic. That is great.. realistically who reads it?
Well, if people fail to read it, that's their problem. Its sole purpose is to inform people about changes to the channel and that about which it is concerned.
You mention that there were complaints about this channel .. well, there are always people that complain but how relevant is that.
The complaints were not minor. #wikipedia was a stain on the reputation of Wikimedia. It was inevitable that it was going to be purged of the mess. Please don't brush the very real problems off as lacking relevance.
Those who have useful input (that means "why not allow xyz, because ...?", not "I don't like these rules, get rid of them!") are welcome so to do, but this thread doesn't seem to contain much in the way of the former, I'm afraid.
All IRC decisions are, in the end, my responsibility. Please do not lambast others who are "further down the chain". Ignorance of the long-standing power structure for the WMF IRC channels is a little disappointing, but then, we do try to run things with a very light hand on the tiller.
Yrs,
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 13:08 +0100, James Forrester wrote:
Well, if people fail to read it, that's their problem. Its sole purpose is to inform people about changes to the channel and that about which it is concerned.
Oh, come on. Y'all were saying how you got community input through /topic and this mailing list. There was NONE.
You mention that there were complaints about this channel .. well, there are always people that complain but how relevant is that.
The complaints were not minor. #wikipedia was a stain on the reputation of Wikimedia. It was inevitable that it was going to be purged of the mess. Please don't brush the very real problems off as lacking relevance.
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
On 6/20/07, Dejan Čabrilo dcabrilo@gmail.com wrote:
- 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.
Make specific proposals for changing the guideline on the talk page and here on the mailing list. Simply making a lot of noise about how much the guidelines suck and how seanw should lose his group contact privileges aren't going to get you anywhere. Participating in productive discussion will.
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
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. Mark_Ryan had the access level to appoint ops before the change, and was generally the most active of the people with the same access level. Dmcdevit, AFAICT, didn't actually do any of the organizing of the change, but (I think) he previously had the access to add/remove ops and so Mark and Sean made him Mark's deputy in enforcing the new guidelines and promoting new ops.
- 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.
There was no community input because nobody read the places where they called for it. I'll admit that I think that Sean and Mark could have been a bit more proactive in finding people to comment, but, because the guidelines being passed doesn't mean that people can't still discuss it and change it, it wasn't a huge mistake, people are just making it so because they're constantly whining about how much they hate the guidelines instead of working to revise them to make them better.
5) Is this how we are going to go about other issues on Wikipedia, too?
Dejan Čabrilo
Someone being bold and then everyone discussing their changes is how we've
made decisions on Wikipedia for a long time.
Rory
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 6/20/07, Dejan Čabrilo dcabrilo@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, gathered from what several of you said, is it fair that I draw the following conclusions:
- Seanw is a group contact of Wikimedia, appointed by Wikimedia, on
FreeNode.
define "appointed by Wikimedia", please. If you are referring to the foundation, this is wrong.
- Wikimedia granted him absolute right to do what he pleases
with the channels.
is "wikimedia" the foundation or the community?
- Community has the input, unless we propose that
off topic discussion should be allowed and that old ops are brought back.
- 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.
- You all think that enacting the policy without ANY (justified
or not) community input was a good way to go.
Input was sought and given.
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 18:11 +0200, Michael Bimmler wrote:
define "appointed by Wikimedia", please. If you are referring to the foundation, this is wrong.
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."
is "wikimedia" the foundation or the community?
I don't know. You tell me.
Input was sought and given.
It wasn't sought properly. It was given though, but ignored.
Dejan Čabrilo
On 6/20/07, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Dejan Čabrilo dcabrilo@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, gathered from what several of you said, is it fair that I draw the following conclusions:
- Seanw is a group contact of Wikimedia, appointed by Wikimedia, on
FreeNode.
define "appointed by Wikimedia", please. If you are referring to the foundation, this is wrong.
It is? My understanding of the system was that while the WMF never really claimed to own the IRC channels, because they're at # and not ##, the foundation actually does, and so it appointed the group contacts. [[m:IRC Group Contacts]] says "The IRC Group Contacts are the liaisons between Wikimedia and the staff of the freenode IRC networkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:freenode ."
Rory
On 6/20/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Dejan Čabrilo dcabrilo@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, gathered from what several of you said, is it fair that I draw the following conclusions:
- Seanw is a group contact of Wikimedia, appointed by Wikimedia, on
FreeNode.
define "appointed by Wikimedia", please. If you are referring to the foundation, this is wrong.
It is? My understanding of the system was that while the WMF never really claimed to own the IRC channels, because they're at # and not ##, the foundation actually does, and so it appointed the group contacts. [[m:IRC Group Contacts]] says "The IRC Group Contacts are the liaisons between Wikimedia and the staff of the freenode IRC networkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:freenode ."
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
Rory _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6/21/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Dejan Čabrilo dcabrilo@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, gathered from what several of you said, is it fair that I draw the following conclusions:
- Seanw is a group contact of Wikimedia, appointed by Wikimedia, on
FreeNode.
define "appointed by Wikimedia", please. If you are referring to the foundation, this is wrong.
It is? My understanding of the system was that while the WMF never really claimed to own the IRC channels, because they're at # and not ##, the foundation actually does, and so it appointed the group contacts. [[m:IRC Group Contacts]] says "The IRC Group Contacts are the liaisons between Wikimedia and the staff of the freenode IRC networkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:freenode
As Communications Committee member I daresay it is totally different from my understanding. It make me doubt how the recent discussion is based on the accurate fact and hence those complaints are based on facts and truths at least the Foundation recognizes as such.
Also I support the idea this discussion as entire except the inquiry how the Foundation is relevant to the management of the channel in question is off topic here to foundation-l mailing list. ."
Rory _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:40 -0500, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
My goodness, this email is the very definition of "spin", isn't it?
Philippe
I just want to know if there is anything we can do about the situation or not. Many of us don't like the new rules. It seems seanw is in charge. I'm not exactly sure how nor am I sure what gave him the authority to create the guideline, deop everybody and give ops only to people who agree with him.
The reason I'm so upset about the channel is that it was rather useful for me. I got help there, gave help, but we also instituted regional meetings of wikipedians of former Yugoslavia (which would be impossible if we didn't go off topic and realize that we share much more in common than Wikipedia. So now there is 5-6 of us who travel lengthy distances, for our travelling posibilities, to socialize), it kept our spirits up, gave us opportunity to vent off, etc.
Then, somebody comes, institutes new rules, and there seems nothing that we can do about.
All I want is that we keep #wikipedia and #wikipedia-social together. I'm not against new rules. I'm not against change. But if I am to embrace the change, I would just like to know whom to turn to give my input to.
Mailing list obviously doesn't work. Talking about this on #wikipedia doesn't work either. Our nearly unanimous decision to change the guideline on the wiki talk page was ignored.
So, once again: tell me how to contribute, and I will. Tell me, from some position of authority, that what I say makes no difference, and I'll shut up. Tell me to whom to turn for help.
Thank you, Dejan Čabrilo
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 Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:40 -0500, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
My goodness, this email is the very definition of "spin", isn't it?
Philippe
I just want to know if there is anything we can do about the situation or not. Many of us don't like the new rules. It seems seanw is in charge. I'm not exactly sure how nor am I sure what gave him the authority to create the guideline, deop everybody and give ops only to people who agree with him.
The reason I'm so upset about the channel is that it was rather useful for me. I got help there, gave help, but we also instituted regional meetings of wikipedians of former Yugoslavia (which would be impossible if we didn't go off topic and realize that we share much more in common than Wikipedia. So now there is 5-6 of us who travel lengthy distances, for our travelling posibilities, to socialize), it kept our spirits up, gave us opportunity to vent off, etc.
Then, somebody comes, institutes new rules, and there seems nothing that we can do about.
All I want is that we keep #wikipedia and #wikipedia-social together. I'm not against new rules. I'm not against change. But if I am to embrace the change, I would just like to know whom to turn to give my input to.
Mailing list obviously doesn't work. Talking about this on #wikipedia doesn't work either. Our nearly unanimous decision to change the guideline on the wiki talk page was ignored.
So, once again: tell me how to contribute, and I will. Tell me, from some position of authority, that what I say makes no difference, and I'll shut up. Tell me to whom to turn for help.
Thank you, Dejan Čabrilo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hey guys,
just a maybe silly proposal: Why dont we just try the rules out, and evaluate in, say, two weeks? I am confident that sean and James are very willing to listen to constructive suggestions by then. Let's just try it out for a while, and see what actually does hapen. Do people actually end up on the "wrong" channel? etc. Please, let's just try it out, nobody will get harmed while testing it out.
BR, Lodewijk
2007/6/20, JodyB jodybwiki@bellsouth.net:
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 Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:40 -0500, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
My goodness, this email is the very definition of "spin", isn't it?
Philippe
I just want to know if there is anything we can do about the situation or not. Many of us don't like the new rules. It seems seanw is in charge. I'm not exactly sure how nor am I sure what gave him the authority to create the guideline, deop everybody and give ops only to people who agree with him.
The reason I'm so upset about the channel is that it was rather useful for me. I got help there, gave help, but we also instituted regional meetings of wikipedians of former Yugoslavia (which would be impossible if we didn't go off topic and realize that we share much more in common than Wikipedia. So now there is 5-6 of us who travel lengthy distances, for our travelling posibilities, to socialize), it kept our spirits up, gave us opportunity to vent off, etc.
Then, somebody comes, institutes new rules, and there seems nothing that we can do about.
All I want is that we keep #wikipedia and #wikipedia-social together. I'm not against new rules. I'm not against change. But if I am to embrace the change, I would just like to know whom to turn to give my input to.
Mailing list obviously doesn't work. Talking about this on #wikipedia doesn't work either. Our nearly unanimous decision to change the guideline on the wiki talk page was ignored.
So, once again: tell me how to contribute, and I will. Tell me, from some position of authority, that what I say makes no difference, and I'll shut up. Tell me to whom to turn for help.
Thank you, Dejan Čabrilo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6/20/07, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
My goodness, this email is the very definition of "spin", isn't it?
Philippe
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 Wed, 2007-06-20 at 16:01 -0400, Rory Stolzenberg 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.
No need to address me in third person.
I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth. I just draw conclusions. If there were bad, tell me that and correct me.
I just want to know what and where can I take action to change the current situation in #wikipedia.
Nobody answered that (I tried this mailing list, the talk page, and #wikipedia itself).
Dejan Čabrilo
On 6/20/07, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
My goodness, this email is the very definition of "spin", isn't it?
Philippe
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.
On 6/20/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
Someone being bold and then everyone discussing their changes is how we've
made decisions on Wikipedia for a long time.
Heh. This is funny for so many reasons.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org