Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:IRC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seahawk01 (talk | contribs) at 03:13, 17 December 2018 (→‎alternative). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

plan to update page

Moved from Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help
 – --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on updating this page and also:

also, I am planning on updating how information is displayed about IRC on:

I have two primary concerns that I wish to put forward:

  1. more general information for users, and especially new users, about how to approach IRC
  2. outline policy on how IRC users should edit Wikipedia (example: posting IRC logs on talk pages)

I plan to do this over the next month a little at a time and am very open to discussions, reaching consensus, etc.

Thanks!

Seahawk01 (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you plan to update it to? Especially considering you've not discussed it with relevant parties, @Seahawk01:?Praxidicae (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: hey, I am discussing with relevant parties. That's what the Talk page is for, right? Seahawk01 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No you're not discussing it with relevant parties, you're discussing it with people you have a grudge against. Praxidicae (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Praxidicae on this. The proposal seems to be in bad faith, simply based on a dispute they had on IRC and also a blatant disregard for #wikipedia-en-help's IRC policy by publicly posting logs. --Az1568 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Az1568 I was not aware of the policy at the time, but since then I and another member have made sure all those links have been removed. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: and @Az1568: please see below. Also, don't I have a right, as a member of the Wikipedia community, to make a proposal as to how a topic is to be dealt with? I would appreciate it if you both refrain from attacks and stick to the issues. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove IRC chat from WP:Questions page

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Questions
 – --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am proposing to remove the information on IRC chat from this page. The freenode IRC chat channels are not in any way affiliated with Wikipedia, so I think providing information here is very misleading and makes new users think it is an official part of the Wikipedia project.

There are some additional things to note:

  • no oversight by Wikipedia of the IRC channels
  • outside Wikipedia's formal channels and procedures
  • no IRC public logs
  • no records of discussions that lead to edits
  • no voting for IRC mods on Wikipedia
  • Wikipedia can easily host an IRC server if the project needs it
  • no tags on edits due to IRC conversations, so no tracking

all in all, I find it very much the opposite of the procedures found on Wikipedia.

I will make the change and remove the information, but wanted to give a bit of notice first.

Seahawk01 (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

alternative

An alternative to removing the IRC chat information is to make more explicit the fact that IRC is not associated with Wikipedia, but run independently by volunteers and then link to more "new user" information. More information for new users can be added either at either Wikipedia:IRC or Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help.

Seahawk01 (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be doing this on a whim, solely based on a dispute you had on IRC with another editor. Simply for that fact, I'd say any removal would be rather biased, so imo you really shouldn't be removing anything at all. --Az1568 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Az1568: true, I was initially motivated by a dispute. But, I'm pretty much over that dispute. On the other hand, I feel I was mislead as a new user into believing that the IRC chat was official because of mention on this page. So, I've decided to help out and redo policy on Wikipedia:IRC or Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help plus rework what is on this article. Seahawk01 (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you took the time to read the page, you'd see there is a governance structure to how Wikimedia's IRC channels are run. So I'm not certain as to why you've proposed to unilaterally remove links to IRC and taking that resource away from everyone without first speaking to any of the folks that help run the IRC channels? --Az1568 (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes "official"? The IRC channels are run by volunteers, as with basically everything. Vermont (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Are you purposely being disruptive? Praxidicae (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae not at all. Please see my answer above. Also, please note I am talking on the Talk page about proposed changes, not rashly changing anything yet. Seahawk01 (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Seahawk01: Can you please stop with the forum shopping? It gets confusing and is detrimental to consensus to have a conversation spread out across multiple talk pages. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron11598: I am not forum shopping. I am trying to notify interested members. Why don't you centralize the discussion and we can precede proceed from there. Thanks. Seahawk01 (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seahawk01 Do you mean proceed? Praxidicae (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae corrected Seahawk01 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this hang on a second before continuing the discussion --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Done --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron11598 this is great, thank you. Also, I want to discuss this over a period of a week or two. I wasn't planning on discussing it all tonight. Seahawk01 (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Az1568 and Praxidicae: I've centralized the discussion here just a quick fyi ping. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different than your complaint about IRC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Suggest_Wikipedia_does_not_mention_IRC_as_a_source_for_help? Natureium (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

well, Natureium, I posted that before thinking. Then I thought about it and realized the proper course of action was to propose the changes on the appropriate article Talk pages, notify interested parties, and make the changes. So, I do regret posting to idea lab...that was rash. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some major misconception here that there is any sort of "official" Wikipedia help. All help, whether on the IRC help channel, or at the Teahouse, is provided by volunteer experienced editors. The IRC help channel is no more or less official than the Teahouse or other help forums on Wikipedia, except in that public logging is not allowed due to a variety of privacy concerns (especially for helpees, who may not understand the import of what they are disclosing). Removing the IRC help channel from the help pages would be detrimental as it allows new editors who do not understand how to post to talk pages or have other difficulties that preclude them making use of the Teahouse to ask questions, and to ask questions that are too sensitive to ask publicly. It is also blatantly contentious to post across a wide variety of forums about the same thing. Waggie (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarized the changes I would like to make at User:Seahawk01/IRC. I suggest we reach a consensus and then do a Wikipedia:Edit requests. Thanks Seahawk01 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, time to explain why your changes are off-base:
  1. IRC users, on their own initiative, may keep private logs of conversations, which can be helpful when dealing with users who need help spanning multiple days. What aren't allowed are public logs - i.e. a publicly-viewable log. This is in part for those users' own protection; most IRC clients' logs expose the IPs of users who don't have a hostmask in /join messages, and newcomers have been known to leave personal contact information in public channels such as -en-help.
  2. All users should not "have equal say". Some channels have very specific requirements to be voiced in them (-en-revdel only allows admins to be voiced, and -en-help has specific requirements for a +v flag, for instance). It is ludicrous to say that someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works has any right to help users who likewise have no idea how Wikipedia works, or that a non-administrator has any right to be an inquisitor for -en-unblock.
  3. Channel operators can, and SHOULD, be able to take unilateral action against trolls in the channels, and indeed they frequently do. What they don't do is take unilateral action against someone who has a legitimate question or gripe, or remove someone who isn't doing anything wrong (like evading a channel ban or harassing people via PM). Most of the time if an op isn't called for blatant trolling they're called in because a helpee is getting belligerent and/or rejecting any answers given them.
  4. If an issue is controversial enough that it needs to be discussed on-Wiki, any helper worth their salt can and will point them to the talk page of the article in controversy.
  5. "Remind user must also compromise" is useless. This is solely aimed at -en-help, and almost every user who doesn't compromise is either high conflict-of-interest or is more interested in venting their frustrations at someone, not legitimate help. Not to mention that at -en-revdel, wikimedia-tech, and -en-unblock, a user is in absolutely no position to be able to compromise by design.
  6. "Avoid[ing] powertripping" is redundant. Powertripping channel operators get their flags revoked.
  7. If the situation is such that it's patently obvious the user needs blocked on-wiki and someone is raising the alarm on IRC an admin can and should block on Wikipedia based on an IRC reply. That's part of why the !admin stalkword exists.
  8. While it looks good on paper, in practice most of the people we talk with in -en-help (again, this particular bullet is a gripe with -en-help) are so ignorant of how Wikipedia works that (a) they don't know talk pages exist and (b) assume we're employees, not volunteers. This is as much a cultural thing than anything - most of our helpees come from the Subcontinent, and no amount of education we can provide in the course of 30m-3h can change this that rapidly.
  9. There is no need to document changes made to an article via IRC. One shouldn't even be making controversial changes based off of an IRC chat anyways, and on the instances where I have edited on behalf of a helpee I have made it clear I'm doing it on behalf of that user, usually explaining why as I do so.
  10. Usually when I explain why I am tagging a helpee's article for speedy deletion they point out other articles and claim we're being hypocrites or biased. Most of the time, I helpfully tag these other articles as well as explain that Wikipedia is chronically short on admins.
  11. The last bullet is redundant. This is a gripe with -en-help specifically, and we already do this (since a fair chunk of people who come in are demanding to know why their page was deleted).
Hope this helps explain everything, including your angry crusade to make -en-help bend to your will because the result you got was not the result you wanted. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 02:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jéské Couriano, I really don't think you are trying to find a consensus here. I, on the other hand, am making an honest effort to correct what I see is wrong in IRC.
In terms of this thread, let me remind you that:
  • you guys came in here and attacked me like a swarm of bees (see WP:IRC "When the channels are used to attack Wikipedians, or when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships.")
  • half you guys attacked me right here to begin with and should just be banned from discussion
  • you guys all definitely have a bias, so should not be editing on this topic anyway
  • I am perfectly willing to seek other channels of complaint to correct what I think needs correcting on these pages
So, I suggest you tone it down a little and seek to find common ground at least with the spirit, if not the letter, of my proposed edits. Thanks Seahawk01 (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I complerely concur with everything Jéské Couriano has said above. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron11598 see above Seahawk01 (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Seahawk01: I think you need to retract some of your statements above, as they border on personal attacks, in particular your assumption of bad faith, "I really don't think you are trying to find a consensus here." Casting aspersions is a violation of our policy on civility.
Half you guys attacked me right here. Please provide diffs for this assertion or retract this statement.
you guys all definitely have a bias, so should not be editing on this topic anyway, you have a bias as well, although contrary to the others that have expressed themselves here.
you guys came in here and attacked me like a swarm of bees again please provide diffs or retract your statement. Failing to do so is considered a personal attack. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron11598 you will need to give me some time to respond to what you said above...as in I will fully respond to you over the next week. But, on the other hand, we can just both agree to move beyond this and that would probably be better. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano, regarding what you say is an "angry crusade", I've had a perfectly wonderful time on Wikipedia until I went into the IRC chat rooms. This is what happened:
  • user puts page into draft space
  • user disappears saying "doesn't really have the experience"
  • two other users gang up on me
this is what I think should of happened:
  • user says disagrees with tone of article, offers to help fix
    • puts post on Talk page outlining what needs to be fixed
    • gives me a few days to make changes
  • article is much better because of experience
Think about it Seahawk01 (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:IRC&oldid=874097116"