#wikipedia-en-admins

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

#wikipedia-en-admins

Tim Starling
The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins has now been created, with mode +is, i.e. secret and
invite-only. It currently has an access list of 64 people. I am opposed to its existence. To call a
forum which admits 800 people "almost public" is bizarre. You admit 800 but you exclude thousands of
active contributors. Wikipedia has always attempted to encourage newcomers and to assume good faith,
but it's a clear violation of that principle to assume that the rest of the world, those 6 billion
non-administrators, have nothing useful to contribute to the discussions we wish to undertake.

Imagine if you joined Wikipedia today. How would you feel about the formidable barriers against your
potential contribution to Wikipedia's decision-making process? How would you feel about having tens
of admins declaring new policy, stating their rationale but refusing to enter into discussion with
you on equal terms, on the basis that it had already been decided in private?

-- Tim Starling

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Jay Converse
I disagree with this assessment entirely.  I highly doubt the community
would support secret decision making.  A consensus would be immensely hard
to reach simply because you and 15 people go "Well we discussed this and we
have our reasons".  I highly doubt the community would stand for that at
all.

I see the channel as a way to quickly get help for administrative duties
that non-admins can't provide help on.  As a relatively new admin, I run
into new problems that I can't figure out myself on a semi-frequent basis.
It'd be nice to have the availability of a dedicated admin group to respond
in a much more immediate way than talk pages.  I personally happen to prefer
IRC correspondence to talk page correspondence for quick issues.

The one thing that'd immediately turn me off of the idea of this channel is
if it becomes clear that the person in charge of the inviting won't invite
you simply for being an admin.  There's a difference between a chat room and
a clique room.

On 1/22/06, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins has now been created, with mode +is,
> i.e. secret and
> invite-only. It currently has an access list of 64 people. I am opposed to
> its existence. To call a
> forum which admits 800 people "almost public" is bizarre. You admit 800
> but you exclude thousands of
> active contributors. Wikipedia has always attempted to encourage newcomers
> and to assume good faith,
> but it's a clear violation of that principle to assume that the rest of
> the world, those 6 billion
> non-administrators, have nothing useful to contribute to the discussions
> we wish to undertake.
>
> Imagine if you joined Wikipedia today. How would you feel about the
> formidable barriers against your
> potential contribution to Wikipedia's decision-making process? How would
> you feel about having tens
> of admins declaring new policy, stating their rationale but refusing to
> enter into discussion with
> you on equal terms, on the basis that it had already been decided in
> private?
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Tim Starling
Jay Converse wrote:
> I disagree with this assessment entirely.  I highly doubt the community
> would support secret decision making.  A consensus would be immensely hard
> to reach simply because you and 15 people go "Well we discussed this and we
> have our reasons".  I highly doubt the community would stand for that at
> all.

Here is the channel topic as it was for about 10 hours before I started writing my post:

"English Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard, on IRC. Discussions are private and sometimes
privileged. Do not repost without permission. If decisions are made as the result of discussions,
the reasoning should be provided on-wiki."

Clearly they do intend to make decisions. Decisions are an unavoidable outcome of on-topic
discussion. We've seen decisions made on #wikipedia and introduced on to the wiki in this way, but I
don't mind that because IRC conversation is faster and more productive than wiki-based chat, and the
forum is non-exclusive.

> I see the channel as a way to quickly get help for administrative duties
> that non-admins can't provide help on.  As a relatively new admin, I run
> into new problems that I can't figure out myself on a semi-frequent basis.
> It'd be nice to have the availability of a dedicated admin group to respond
> in a much more immediate way than talk pages.  I personally happen to prefer
> IRC correspondence to talk page correspondence for quick issues.

Try #wikipedia.

-- Tim Starling

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Nathan Russell-2
On 1/22/06, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Try #wikipedia.

My personal experience of #wikipedia is that it tends to have a lot of
off-topic socialization, and on-topic discussion tends to be lost in
the scrolling.

#wikimedia and #wikipedia-en tend to be better.

Nathan aka Pakaran
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Jay Converse
In reply to this post by Tim Starling
On 1/22/06, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Jay Converse wrote:
> > I disagree with this assessment entirely.  I highly doubt the community
> > would support secret decision making.  A consensus would be immensely
> hard
> > to reach simply because you and 15 people go "Well we discussed this and
> we
> > have our reasons".  I highly doubt the community would stand for that at
> > all.
>
> Here is the channel topic as it was for about 10 hours before I started
> writing my post:
>
> "English Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard, on IRC. Discussions are
> private and sometimes
> privileged. Do not repost without permission. If decisions are made as the
> result of discussions,
> the reasoning should be provided on-wiki."
>
> Clearly they do intend to make decisions. Decisions are an unavoidable
> outcome of on-topic
> discussion. We've seen decisions made on #wikipedia and introduced on to
> the wiki in this way, but I
> don't mind that because IRC conversation is faster and more productive
> than wiki-based chat, and the
> forum is non-exclusive.


 "If decisions are made as the result of discussions,
the reasoning should be provided on-wiki."  My point was not that decisions
will not be made in there.  My point is that without support from those who
are not there and actively participating in the discussion, an arbitrary
decision-making like that will go nowhere.  One chat session does not a
consensus make.

> I see the channel as a way to quickly get help for administrative duties
> > that non-admins can't provide help on.  As a relatively new admin, I run
> > into new problems that I can't figure out myself on a semi-frequent
> basis.
> > It'd be nice to have the availability of a dedicated admin group to
> respond
> > in a much more immediate way than talk pages.  I personally happen to
> prefer
> > IRC correspondence to talk page correspondence for quick issues.
>
> Try #wikipedia.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
>
I've given up on #wikipedia.  There's either off-topic chat or some heated
policy discussion going on, but every time I try to ask a question, out of
all 150+ people in there, I don't get a reply.  Maybe you have a different
experience, but I never seem to be listened to in there, and in fact, that
channel was a significant reason behind my wikibreak last year.  Nothing
like getting ignored to shoot your self-esteem in the face.

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Ryan Delaney
In reply to this post by Tim Starling
As for the "decisions" thing, I assume they are talking about decisions re:
admin actions, like blocking and page protection. Personally, I'm not as
interested in opinions from non-admins about administrative actions.  There
are two reasons for this: First off, people who are not admins don't have
the kind of experience with these problems -- from the perspective of
someone trying to solve it -- to be able to talk about it with some kind of
awareness. Second, I assume (perhaps naively) that if someone were able to
understand admin-related situations, think them through, and come to a
decision, they would be admins themselves already.

Ryan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Peter Mackay
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ryan Delaney
 

> As for the "decisions" thing, I assume they are talking about
> decisions re:
> admin actions, like blocking and page protection. Personally,
> I'm not as interested in opinions from non-admins about
> administrative actions.  There are two reasons for this:
> First off, people who are not admins don't have the kind of
> experience with these problems -- from the perspective of
> someone trying to solve it -- to be able to talk about it
> with some kind of awareness. Second, I assume (perhaps
> naively) that if someone were able to understand
> admin-related situations, think them through, and come to a
> decision, they would be admins themselves already.

I don't think anyone is disputing the desirability of having an admin
discussion list where non-admins can't post. Non-admins shouldn't be able to
participate in such a list, and the reasons given above go a long way
towards justifying this.

The question is more about how open the archives of such a list should be,
and there are two main arguments for this. The first is tramsparency of
process, and the second is that with 800 participants the thing will leak
anyway.

Peter (Skyring)


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Phil Boswell
In reply to this post by Tim Starling
"Tim Starling"
<[hidden email]> wrote in
message news:dr1el4$pda$[hidden email]...

> The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins has now been created, with mode +is,
> i.e. secret and
> invite-only. It currently has an access list of 64 people. I am opposed to
> its existence. To call a
> forum which admits 800 people "almost public" is bizarre. You admit 800
> but you exclude thousands of
> active contributors. Wikipedia has always attempted to encourage newcomers
> and to assume good faith,
> but it's a clear violation of that principle to assume that the rest of
> the world, those 6 billion
> non-administrators, have nothing useful to contribute to the discussions
> we wish to undertake.
>
> Imagine if you joined Wikipedia today. How would you feel about the
> formidable barriers against your
> potential contribution to Wikipedia's decision-making process? How would
> you feel about having tens
> of admins declaring new policy, stating their rationale but refusing to
> enter into discussion with
> you on equal terms, on the basis that it had already been decided in
> private?

I'm not happy for one basic reason: I can't get to IRC from behind this
firewall. So I have no way, even though I am an admin, of joining in with
this discussion. So if I were to do something which might be regarded as
controversial (unlikely but bear with me) I might find my activities
discussed and condemned in a forum to which I have no access.

Quite apart from that, I suspect that most of the conversation carries on in
a quite different time-zone, so I likely wouldn't actually be awake even I
had access.

There's no way of guaranteeing that logs of any pertinent conversations
would ever be made available to anyone, never mind the affected parties.

This channel might be useful in the event of a massive vandalism attack, for
coordinating efforts to repel boarders when the regular Wikipedia-based
channels of communication are clogged up, but for the normal course of
events, discussions should take place on Wikipedia where the appropriate
people can watch and take part.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Jay Converse
Jay Converse wrote:
> On 1/22/06, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
<snip>

>>
>>Try #wikipedia.
>>
>>
>
> I've given up on #wikipedia.  There's either off-topic chat or some heated
> policy discussion going on, but every time I try to ask a question, out of
> all 150+ people in there, I don't get a reply.  Maybe you have a different
> experience, but I never seem to be listened to in there, and in fact, that
> channel was a significant reason behind my wikibreak last year.  Nothing
> like getting ignored to shoot your self-esteem in the face.
>
Some times of the day are pretty hopeless, at other times you get people
on-topic.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (568 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Fred Bauder
In reply to this post by Tim Starling
I would hope that the avenue to becoming an administrator remains  
open and welcoming. Let's do what we can to ensure that happens.

Fred

On Jan 22, 2006, at 7:22 PM, Tim Starling wrote:

> The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins has now been created, with  
> mode +is, i.e. secret and
> invite-only. It currently has an access list of 64 people. I am  
> opposed to its existence. To call a
> forum which admits 800 people "almost public" is bizarre. You admit  
> 800 but you exclude thousands of
> active contributors. Wikipedia has always attempted to encourage  
> newcomers and to assume good faith,
> but it's a clear violation of that principle to assume that the  
> rest of the world, those 6 billion
> non-administrators, have nothing useful to contribute to the  
> discussions we wish to undertake.
>
> Imagine if you joined Wikipedia today. How would you feel about the  
> formidable barriers against your
> potential contribution to Wikipedia's decision-making process? How  
> would you feel about having tens
> of admins declaring new policy, stating their rationale but  
> refusing to enter into discussion with
> you on equal terms, on the basis that it had already been decided  
> in private?
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Nathan Russell-2
Nathan Russell wrote:

> On 1/22/06, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>>Try #wikipedia.
>
>
> My personal experience of #wikipedia is that it tends to have a lot of
> off-topic socialization, and on-topic discussion tends to be lost in
> the scrolling.
>
> #wikimedia and #wikipedia-en tend to be better.
>
> Nathan aka Pakaran
> _______________________________________________

As a note.... #wikimedia is a channel dedicated to Foundation issues.
Recently, we noticed more and more editors leaking from the #wikipedia
channel and discussing english wikipedia issues on the Foundation channel.

Please, try to avoid doing that generally. And keep discussions in the
channel specifically dedicated. It will be very helpful for all.

Thanks

Ant

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

NSLE (Wikipedia)
"It seems sensible to me. Why not?--Jimbo
Wales<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales>19:26, 23 January
2006 (UTC)" from Jimbo's talk page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:JIMBO#IRC_channel_setup_for_admins ... so
Jimbo has approved it. How much one reads into that, though....
_______________________________________________

> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Jay Converse
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
On 1/23/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Nathan Russell wrote:
> > On 1/22/06, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Try #wikipedia.
> >
> >
> > My personal experience of #wikipedia is that it tends to have a lot of
> > off-topic socialization, and on-topic discussion tends to be lost in
> > the scrolling.
> >
> > #wikimedia and #wikipedia-en tend to be better.
> >
> > Nathan aka Pakaran
> > _______________________________________________
>
> As a note.... #wikimedia is a channel dedicated to Foundation issues.
> Recently, we noticed more and more editors leaking from the #wikipedia
> channel and discussing english wikipedia issues on the Foundation channel.
>
> Please, try to avoid doing that generally. And keep discussions in the
> channel specifically dedicated. It will be very helpful for all.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ant


I think that may be a symptom of the problem that is #wikipedia's general
unwillingness to be on topic.  People are going to go where they can have a
serious discussion, whether or not that's the right place for it.


--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Tim Starling
Jay Converse wrote:

>I think that may be a symptom of the problem that is #wikipedia's general
>unwillingness to be on topic.  People are going to go where they can have a
>serious discussion, whether or not that's the right place for it.


Or follow me from channel to channel wanting to argue Deletion 101 ...
a "discussion" I could probably conduct entirely in macros by now.

I'm still not convinced #wikipedia-en-admins is a great idea as it
stands, but it *does* tend to be on-topic more often.

#wikipedia is officially not an official Wikimedia channel for all
sorts of good reasons ;-)


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Luigi30
And this isn't a cabal... how?

-Luigi
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Tim Starling
Luigi30 wrote:

>And this isn't a cabal... how?


I <3 the Cabal!


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Ryan Delaney
In reply to this post by Luigi30
On 1/24/06, Luigi30 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> And this isn't a cabal... how?
>
>
There is no cabal.

Ryan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David Gerard wrote:

> Jay Converse wrote:
>
>
>>I think that may be a symptom of the problem that is #wikipedia's general
>>unwillingness to be on topic.  People are going to go where they can have a
>>serious discussion, whether or not that's the right place for it.
>
>
>
> Or follow me from channel to channel wanting to argue Deletion 101 ...
> a "discussion" I could probably conduct entirely in macros by now.
>
> I'm still not convinced #wikipedia-en-admins is a great idea as it
> stands, but it *does* tend to be on-topic more often.
>
> #wikipedia is officially not an official Wikimedia channel for all
> sorts of good reasons ;-)
>
>
> - d.

By why are you so little using the #wikipedia-en ?

ant

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Tim Starling
Anthere wrote:

>By why are you so little using the #wikipedia-en ?


#wikipedia is on-topic enough for me, and I find it amusing (or I
wouldn't bother). I suppose I should log into #wikipedia-en as well.

More generally, I expect no-one's there because no-one's there yet -
it's yet to take off.


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

John Lee-5
David Gerard wrote:

>Anthere wrote:
>
>  
>
>>By why are you so little using the #wikipedia-en ?
>>    
>>
>
>
>#wikipedia is on-topic enough for me, and I find it amusing (or I
>wouldn't bother). I suppose I should log into #wikipedia-en as well.
>
>More generally, I expect no-one's there because no-one's there yet -
>it's yet to take off.
>
>
>- d.
>  
>
Back on topic, I'm having trouble getting into #wikipedia-en-admins, as
there is absolutely nobody online whenever I logon to IRC who can invite
me to the channel. JamesF is the exception, but more often than not,
he's away. :-(

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
123