Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help

Chzz's comments

you suck moved here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A sincere, and I believe important, complaint from Chzz. Please read; I'll try and keep it short.

Many Wikipedians offer help, especially to new users, via Internet Relay Chat. We use Freenode, and a channel called #wikipedia-en-help. You can visit it via http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help

That channel is linked from templates including {{helpme}}, and AFC templates. That's great.

However, the channel is not controlled via the community, or consensus.

The people "in charge" of the channel are called "Founders". As of right now, there are two; Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs) and Deskana (talk · contribs).

They were not chosen through cosnensus; they weren't "elected". It's hard (impossible?) to know where to challenge any decisions they may make, or where to apply for the position.

There are 'group contacts' between Wiki?edia and Freenode; meta:Group_Contacts. They haven't been chosen by the community that use the thing, either. They're chosen by the previous GC's...who were chosen by the previous...who were people who 'happened to be around' in the early days.

It's an oligarchy. It's "non-wiki". People who have ultimate control over the way things are run, for helping new users.

This affects AFC - why? Because, I find it hard to give advice about how important 'consensus' is here, on a medium which does not abide by consensus.

I apologize - I've grumbled about this in the past. For years. I've tried to address the issue. For example, in Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help founder proposal - which resulted in a change of "F", but unfortunately, those new "F" were unable to fulfil the role.

I want our help to improve. I want it to be excellent. But, this issue continues to frustrate me greatly.

Why is this important aspect of helping new users under control of an oligarchy? And why can't I seem to do anything about it? I've tried - I've asked everyone I can think of, for years.

I've "indefinitely stopped editing" several times, out of frustration about this. I'm close to doing that again. It's simply "wrong" that a process for helping new users is outside the control of people who help new users.

Some - lots - think it's a non-problem; that "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". Well, it's broke. Without wishing to be alarmist, if it can't be fixed, I'm outta here.

Some say, it's not part of Wikipedia - it's separate. Well, the clue is in the name - #wikipedia-en-help. And the links from our many templates. Either it is, or is not, part of our help service. If it is...hey, great; let's decide how best to use it (through discussion/consensus). If it's not - hey, great, I'll set up my own channel on another network, and change links.

I believe deeply in the core values of this project, and I want us to help new users appropriately. The people who can decide how we can best help them, are those that help them - not people selected by their friends, off-wiki, with no onus.

I don't know if this message will help, or not. I don't know if it's the right place. I'm posting it here, because I think/hope some readers here will recognize that it needs action. What can we do? How can we challenge it? I really don't know. I've tried. Tried 'moving' the help service elsewhere - to have an admin threaten me with a block. Tried asking WMF - who say it's not them. Tried asking Freenode, who say it's WMF. Tried asking GC's, who say it's not a problem. Tried asking F's, who either say it's not a problem, or pass F to someone else who does, or give up.

I'm frustrated by it; enough to quit the project until it's resolved.

</rant> - thanks to anyone who listened.  Chzz  ►  20:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What can a poor peon like me do exactly, Chzz?  I've worked help a bit when I needed a break, it was fun. :- ) DCS 20:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the best course of action might be to start a Request for Comment. This is a problem, and it is long past the time since we should have addressed it. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also somewhat active on en-help and various other wikipedia IRC channels. I agree with Chzz – it's about time that things changed so that the systems for running the IRC channels fit with those for running Wikipedia. We say that IRC is a separate beast, but when we link to it from help pages, etc., it becomes part of Wikipedia's responsibility. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm extremely new (both to AfC and to -en-help), so I really can't make any contributions to this discussion, but I have a couple questions. After reading this, I see multiple references to "IRC rules", including what seems to be a "IRC is censored" thing. Can I get some elaboration on that? In my little time there, I haven't any major bowdlerizing; I once helped a person with an article about a transvestite whose claim to fame was "taking it 10 inches", if I recall right. Also, what is the role of the Founder/channel contact, and do they have any relation to the founders in other channels (-en, other languages, etc)? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In brief - I can't say too much, without it getting long - but, in the past, I've had disagreements over the way the channel is run, between myself and F and/or GC. I don't want to be elusive, so I'll be clear as I can - example - at one time, an F who had not edited >10 times on enwiki and had said almost nothing in the channel for >year, challenged me when I a) told a friend to 'remove that crap' and b) posted 6 lines (he said it was 'spamming'. As you may imagine, I was indignant, and wanted to appeal; however, due to the aforesaid, there's no way to appeal. Hope that helps clarify; I'd show diffs and stuff, but that's hard 'coz of IRC not logged, and so forth.  Chzz  ►  21:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood...but that leads to another question. Why aren't the channels (at least the main ones) publicly logged? I can understand the reasoning for smaller groups, but for heaven's sake this is Wikipedia. Everything done on IRC immediately becomes shadowy because, as you point out above, no one can provide real "diffs". I'm sure there's a very obvious reason I've missed...? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Great question - because it illustrates this whole issue. Should they be logged? Or not? I don't know...but that decision belongs in the hands of the community. Ie, we should discuss it; weigh up pro/con, and decide what WE - the users of the channel - think is best. Whether most of us want it logged (good for new users), or most don't (it's informal; we want to give help without being too accountable for every word we type without necessarily thinking) - well, that's up for discussion through that magical consensus - or, it SHOULD be.

But right now, it is not; it's an arbitrary decision, taken by a person who has never been chosen, in an important role which the community cannot challenge. And that's just shit. Oh - can I say 'shit' here? who decides? see?  Chzz  ►  21:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain a list of exactly what you have seen go wrong in the past month in-channel, that you would like to have changed, and what you would change it to? 208.180.95.99 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

With respect, specifics do not matter. Example, is it OK to say "fuck" - well, clearly, depends on context. Hard to help improve WP:FUCK without. This is mostly covered by things like WP:NOTCENSORED but, we could adapt things for 'live'. That's not the major concern right now; we could discuss that; however,

The community should decide - not some arbitrarily appointed oligarchy. I'll accept the choice of the community, no worries; if consensus is that I cannot say "shit" in the channel, I won't - and if I do, ban me; that's fine. But I will not accept the decision of someone who is not answerable to the community, and can make decisions that I cannnot appeal.

Indeed, I feel so strongly about that principle, that if it cannot be done, I will retire. Not threat, not DIVA, not blackmail; I cannot in good faith support a project where the community may be over-ridden by a person who the community has not chosen.  Chzz  ►  21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think specifics do matter. "If it works, don't fix it" is very applicable here. Are there specific problems that arise out of the way it is run, or are you just unhappy about the way it is run, without regard to the fact that the end result is perfectly acceptable? 208.180.95.99 (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This seems to be a fairly ongoing issue and I would like to make a few things clear.

All Wikimedia channels are under the jurisdiction of the Wikimedia IRC group contacts, but each channel effectively runs themselves, with its own team of operators. #wikipedia-en-help has active channel management, with trusted Wikimedia users and admins serving as operators.

freenode channels run separately to Wikimedia. Operators are selected for their knowledge of IRC, not solely for their Wikimedia experience. I absolutely welcome offers to improve the channel, but there are no current plans to change the management system. The current system works. Requests are dealt with fairly and properly, and in a timely manner. The management of the channel does not and should not distract anybody from the help offered to new users.

We are always open to suggestions for improving the current channel management. However, the above post does not adequately explain what needs to change; if there are genuine suggestions for improvement, we are happy to hear them.

It has always been common practice to resolve issues related to IRC on IRC, and off Wikipedia. The management is very different, and as such, discussing it on-wiki does not always work out. However, in my role as a Wikimedia group contact, I have discussed this issue with the #wikipedia-en-help management team, and they would not like to pursue a different approach to how the channel is managed. The IRC group contacts will support their decision. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll bet the -en-help management team doesn't want to change the management. </dry> Could/should that be rephrased, or do you mean it like how it sounds? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the irc help channel plays a vital role in the Wikipedia ecosystem and we should use it (or another integrated live chat module) more and not less. In order to do that, I agree with Chzz that governance needs to be transparent and responsive to the community. I have no idea what actual problems Chzz thinks we need to fix once that change happens, but I guess I'd support it on principle alone. It would be particularly important as AfC and links to live-help are expanded, which I anticipate and support. Chzz, I think you should draft an RfC, figure out the best place for it, and see what happens. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Hello. I don't really understand why this has been posted on a totally unrelated page instead of the discussion page for the channel, which is at Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help.

In any case, let's try to address the issues that have been raised here.

First, I see complaints about the channel contacts. The current channel contacts are an Arbitrator Emeritus and respected user of great experience, Deskana, and Thehelpfulone, a very experienced irc operator and administrator. Both are, in my opinion and based on my experience, doing a fine job, and I don't see why you're here complaining about them.

If there is an issue with the behaviour of the current contacts, please contact the rest of the ops thru the appropriate channels and we'll gladly help mediate the dispute :) As far as I know, please correct me if I am mistaken, you have never raised issues regarding the current contacts with the rest of the ops regarding the contacts' decisions, inactivity, behavior or the like.

If you have a specific problem with how the channel is run, please do come forward and tell us, and I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about it between all of the moderation team.

So far, no issues have been raised, you only brought up some old story that is completely irrelevant and really pointless, for you know very well that if you got an issue with the founder you can discuss it with the rest of the ops and come to a solution.

I've been in this channel since its founding back in 2007, and have been an op in it for almost two years now. My interactions with the channel contacts, from werdan7 times to the current set of contacts have always been positive and professional, and I've never had an issue with how the channel was run. In any case, as with all wikimedia channels, the main decision body, if you want to call it that way, regarding channel rules are not the contacts, but the consensus of ops. In any case, I find this point moot as really the current founders are both excellent and clearly well suited for the job.

Regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2)

Who chooses GC?

Who chooses the people who run channels (F)?

How can a wikipedian appeal a decision by them, or choose who they are?

If it's separate from Wiki?edia, why is it called "#wiki?edia..." - and linked from our common templates for helping? That seems to confer authority. Can we redirect them?

"Operators are selected for their knowledge of IRC" - by who? Who decides if they know about IRC? I know of selections of ops who have little/no knowledge of IRC, and have demonstrated incompetence with its commands - how do I appeal those?

"The current system works" - no, it does not. Often, new users are ignored or abused. Logs available from me - except, I can't publish them here...due to rules set by yourself?

"Requests are dealt with fairly and properly, and in a timely manner." - refs, please. I know that, many times, new users are ignored. That could be improved. It should be improved. The community could/should improve it. But, how can we, when the decisions over control are outside their remit?

"The management of the channel does not and should not distract anybody from the help offered to new users." - yes, it absolutely DOES. It distracts ME. That's why I've stopped using it for several protracted periods. If this cannot be solved, I won't be able to use it - for reasons stated.

"We are always open to suggestions for improving the current channel management." - great; so; where/how can I suggest who should be in charge of it, or challenge this oligarchy?

"However, the above post does not adequately explain what needs to change; if there are genuine suggestions for improvement, we are happy to hear them." - Sure. OK. So; the #wikipedia-en-help channel "F" are TheHelpfulOne and Deskana; I do not believe that adequately reflects the users of the channel, and I ask that the control be put to the community'; ditto GC.

"We are always open to suggestions for improving the current channel management. However, the above post does not adequately explain what needs to change; if there are genuine suggestions for improvement, we are happy to hear them." - who is that then? who chose it?

"they would not like to pursue a different approach to how the channel is managed. The IRC group contacts will support their decision" - according to whom?

SURELY, helping new users is vital, and the community should decide how it is best approached - not just "you"?  Chzz  ►  21:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to help new people add to the "sum of all human knowledge". And I do my best - see my talk.

I want to tell them "you can get live help, here".

But, that place is not in control of the community. In the past, I've been 'admonished' there for such things as saying "crap" and posting 6 lines ('flooding'). I can't accept that, when the people who 'tell me off' are not chosen through consensus.

When the people who 'tell me off' don't actually participate in helping the new users.

When the community has no say in what is, and is not, acceptable.

IFF the community of helpers told me I couldn't say "crap", I wouldn't say "crap". If I then did, and they admonished me, or banned me, I'd actually accept it. And I could appeal.

But, I will NOT tolerate a wikipedian service where I have no right to appeal; where decisions are made by an oligarchy. And if that is the only "live help", I will give up; I can't in good faith tell new users how wonderfully fair we are, in an environment where the rules do not apply.  Chzz  ►  21:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@208.180.95.99 - I could give specifics, if absolutely necessary - but I hate to do so; I don't want to shout at people who mostly do good stuff. I could show logs, of "user XXX used their ops inappropriately HERE <logs>", or "op YYY didn't catalyse] there. However, it's hard to do so; a) because it's not permitted to post logs, and b) I really don't want to draw undue attention to the actions of people who are 'mostly good'. If I must, I can. In lieu of that, I'm just trying to say it should be "fair".  Chzz  ►  22:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, while I disagree with your overall air of undue hostility towards the ops, I do understand your concern with regards to the GCs. GCs are supposed to legally be representatives of the company that they serve as GC for, and if the system is simply that GCs choose new GCs, that needs to be changed - from a legal standpoint, the Wikimedia Foundation needs to be the one choosing who GCs are. I expect that if they were to get involved, they would chose the current GCs, but nonetheless, that official validation needs to be there simply due to the ways that Freenode regulates who the GCs are. #wiki* officially represents the Wikimedia Foundation, and so they need to be the ones deciding the GCs. If they are not, then this misrepresentation and abuse of trademark needs to be brought to the attention of both Freenode staff and WMF. 208.180.95.99 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"representatives of the company" - news to me. Please, someone clarify. Do WMF control our freenode channels? Who decides?  Chzz  ►  22:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per Freenode policy, WMF has legal ownership of all #wiki* channels. 208.180.95.99 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not #wikia! But also, "legal ownership" possibly overstates it. The owner of trademarks will, where their group is on topic on freenode, have "first dibs" on channels in most cases (though freenode staff obviously reserves the right to refuse any group registration...). Martinp23 01:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I give up; bye. I wish you all the best.  Chzz  ►  23:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just chipping in here; I don't use en-help. I deliberately don't use en-help. Reason? I don;t believe that any help service which is "advertised" in WP should be run so radically differently to WP itself. I don't believe that an area which new users will see, understandably, as being a "Wiki?edia area" should be run by a dictatorship, no matter how benevolent that dictatorship may be. I don't approve of any area where a small group of people can make overreaching decisions with no route of appeal. Especially if that group of people is not elected or approved by the community - either where it is, or the over-all WP community. I disapprove strongly of Nepotism and systems like it. I think the idea of having a separate dynasty where the next generation is "chosen" by the preceding generation runs wholly counter to the consensus spirit of Wiki?edia. I don't like the idea of the channel-equivalent of adminship being inherited. Would we approve of a system, in WP, where fresh admins were chosen only by existing admins, with no community input? Hardly. In fact, RfA candidates often get oppose !votes on the (mis?)understanding that they're being pushed in by off-wiki cabalism. We disapprove, as a community, of cabalism deciding who gets to be promoted. Some people disapprove in the strongest possible terms. And the idea of an admin candidate with less than ten edits in Wikipedia having the ability to dish out a unilateral or cabal-backed admonishment to an editor with over 100,000 edits would be laughed out of court. And yet, apparently, some people see "no problem" with that exact system being how the en-help kingdom operates. It's a matter of principle. Principles are important. If a heritable kingship system were to be introduced in Wikipedia, there would be outrage and uproar. If there were no community-run appeal system in WP, there would be outrage and uproar. Let's try at least to be consistent in what rulership systems we see to be "appropriate". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly believe there should be a widely-advertised RfC on this issue. But I personally found, on the one occasion where I started an RfC, that the process for opening an RfC is so horrendously complicated that I don;t want to attempt it myself. Also, I'm lacking in energy, motivation, spare time, and I have RL issues which interfere to the extent that I couldn't personally commit the attention to it which it needs. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can reasonably fail to see the problem here, if it is as outlined by Chzz – if anyone's unaware, Chzz has contributed what is, to me, quite unimaginable energy to helping others in WP. Involvement disclosure: Chzz has helped me, with great energy and friendliness, starting some time in 2008, to the extent that I have never used en-help directly – if you're thinking, "So, Nortonius doesn't even know what he's talking about," think again. I have learned to trust Chzz's judgement; I trust his judgement here, but I don't get the feeling that I need to, if the problem is as Chzz stated. On principle. I don't see how an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" argument can possibly stand here, and I don't feel any hostility in what Chzz has said, only frustration, which I think is entirely understandable in the circumstances. Nortonius (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

2nd Arbitrary break

I'll emphasize again that I know little-to-nothing about IRC. I've been a casual helper, but that's it. Let me try to make a small point though; I may be wrong, but there seems to be two distinct POV's regarding IRC. POV one is that -en-help is directly affiliated with en.wp, but this appears incorrect given various comments throughout this discussion ("freenode channels run separately to Wikimedia.", "...issues related to IRC on IRC, and off Wikipedia. The management is very different...", "...the consensus of ops...", etc). POV two is that the chat, leadership of the chat and actions there are entirely independent of WP and decisions there are not quite subject to the WP community, but instead the IRC community? Is that roughly correct? If so, can we say that -en-help is a contractor of sorts for WP? That WP has farmed out the help aspect to -en-help? I think it's reasonable to go with that. Very much simplified, yes, but the point remains: IRC is a different entity, even if the vast majority of the people are the same. Alright, then who gave them the contract? From a newbs perspective, it looks like the IRC crowd has given themselves the job of providing help. Isn't that the community's decision? I'd be interested in seeing any sort of discussion that first made -en-help the official help channel for IRC, if it really exists. If there are concerns about the role on -en-help, WP reserves the right to remove links to it from itself, and set up a new channel. This agreement goes two ways, so why not -- -en-help can do whatever it wants! They can have whatever leadership they choose, with whatever rules. That mean that this community has the power to change channels given consensus, and there are obviously some concerned individuals who would like the chance to try that route.

This is going to be butchered - I can already see a couple of rebuttals coming - but it's the clearest I could make it. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Could the concerns above be addressed by starting a channel #wikipedia-en-help2? (or #wikipedia-en-help-logged, etc.) I mean, if there's a problem with the current ops or policy and a new op or ops want to start up, I don't see any exclusivity issue. I don't see why a Wikipedia help page linking to the IRC channels wouldn't properly mention both, explaining the differences (if any) between them. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that absolutely captures the issue that users are trying to articulate. It says "wikipedia-en", but actually it's not under the control of the Wikipedia community. When the helpdesk and reference desks were set up, there was and continues to be community discussion as to what they are for, how they are run etc. With the channels, the situation appears to be that an individual (or two or three) off wiki are the ones who decide who gets to set it up, who gets to run it etc. It seems to me that though the legal set up is whatever it is, these facilities are 'advertised' on Wikipedia pages as if they are part of Wikipedia, and there is thus a legitimacy to discussing them on Wikipedia. Should the community have input into which channels can be 'advertised' on Wikipedia pages? If so, at what level? The purpose of an advertised channel? Who the channel sysops are (currently appointed by whoever creates the channel I believe)? Other aspects such as privacy or logging?

I would think an RfC is the way to go, so it can be fully discussed by all interested parties. This shouldn't be an onerous process - I find it worrying when editors say they are put off by templates. Perhaps a discussion on Village pump (policy) would be a good place to start. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If the community feels that it should have more control over the help channel, I don't see anything procedurally wrong with it. However, my impression is that most of the people I work with in the help channel are generally not very concerned with deciding how things are run, as long as the decisions don't have an impact on us. Mostly, we help new contributors—many of them people with COI who want to submit articles about their companies—by telling them about the community's rules and norms and wiki markup, linking to guidelines and help pages and answering questions. My point here is that the helpers are not an oligarchy deliberately trying to do things their own way or subvert community consensus, but a relatively drama-free group of people trying to help new editors. This is something I think should be kept in mind during discussions about the channel. wctaiwan (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with Wctaiwan. 99% of what we say is:

• "You need more refs."
• "The topic does not appear to be notable."
• "Have you read WP:COI?"

What's an op? What's +V? Anyone can help. We all watch, and ask each other if we're not sure about something. It works well. There's no hierarchy and no oligarchy from what I can see. It's mainly just non-controversial grunt work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any huge need to reform the system. It works, and helpers and helpees do not need to know (or care) who the GCs or +Fs are in the chan. IRC is not Wikipedia; I appreciate that that's a terrible argument, but along the same lines that I wouldn't give someone adminship who is a fantastic moderator or article writer on another website but has no clue how mediawiki works, I don't think that IRC ops being elected on-wiki would work without recognition that a very very different skillset is required.

Solving the problem that new users are not always dealt with in a timely manner need not involve the GCs at all; it simply means we need more helpers. Solving the problem that some users treat IRC as a place where they can dump all the non-civil stuff they'd never dare to say to the same users on-wiki may involve ops and GCs more, and is a problem I do see, but in my opinion an on-wiki list of ops, and an expectation for them to enforce the first of the channel guidelines (don't be a dick) at least remotely consistently would suffice.

More importantly. At the end of the day, what am I here for? I'm here to help people contribute. And if -en-help is the best place for me to do so, then I'll be there, "dictatorship" or not. If there's a RfC, great, I'll participate; if not, fine, I'll still be there. sonia♫ 02:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Though I still support an RfC for this obviously heated topic I think it's worth saying that while some issues are worth fighting on principle, others have absolutely no bearing on the actual function of the project. And yes, that's a bit of a who-cares-if-we-have-dictators-as-long-as-we-get-our-bread-and-gladiators argument, but wikipedia is a practical community as much as it is an ideological one. I think the cries of nepotism! and tyranny! are out of place, simply because there's no indication that with the exception of Chzz the ops ever do ANYTHING that bothers anyone else. So while we look again at this governance issue, it's well worth remembering that what's at stake is the helping not the governing. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My short opinion: we have a lot of redundant support systems for Wikipedia as it is, both on- and off-wiki, and this can be a good or a bad thing. The good thing is that these systems can engage in a free market in which new entrants with superior features or structure disrupt and eventually displace established support systems. The bad thing is that having too many choices can confuse newbies, so we don't want to give them a bunch of links to competing systems. If you are upset about the way any support system is run, my advice is to set up your own competing support system, get some people to use it (via whatever alternative advertising channel you can come with), and then if it turns out well, run an RfC on-wiki regarding changing the on-wiki links to point at the new service. This way the RfC regards only on-wiki matters (which unlike the IRC channels are within an RfC's jurisdiction), and it could run in an informed manner, observing the successes and failures of both systems. Dcoetzee 03:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@Ocaasi and others, the problem with a "dictatorship" arises when one of tho most expert and prolific helpers cab be banned or quieted unilaterally (or even just on a whim, if someone has a bad day) for something as petty as referring to something as "unreferenced crap". I'm not meaning to be dramatic here, and nepotism was the closes real-life parallel I could think of other than monarchy. Problem is, that the current system is open to abuse in the event of something as simple as a personality clash, and decisions taken on the spur of the moment for something which would require consensus elsewhere, and (most importantly) with no means of appeal either for the immediate event, or for getting things changed. This is the problem. We wouldn't like a Wikipedia where such sanctions were in the hands of such a small few, with no way of changing it, and those small few were neither chosen by, nor monitored by, nor accountable to the wider community. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to Chzz's ban or whatever, he was warned multiple times to behave. His subsequent removal wasn't unilateral; there were several ops who agreed with it, and it has probably been lifted. They're by default set to lift after 24 hours. And yes, there are means of appeal. One can talk to the op in charge, another op, the founder of the channel, and ultimately the group contacts.

Quite honestly, I don't see a problem with how things are structured. And as such, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. The way IRC channels are structured has worked pretty harmoniously (overall) for the several years I've been using it. Killiondude (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm minded to suggest humbly that, to me, this looks to affirm Chzz's analysis of how en-help is run – or at least it isn't contradicted; I don't think it undermines any aspect of my own preceding comment, either…? Nortonius (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ops tend to be very hands-off in the help channel, in my experience. I avoid the channel, currently, and the reason for that is not that the ops are overbearing (full disclosure: I have ops in there, but generally use them only in emergencies) but because I've been harassed too often by Chzz demanding that I help who s/he wants to help, when s/he wants me to help them. I prefer a channel run by laissez-faire ops to one run by someone who demands I jump when they say "jump". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, odd. As I said, I don't hang out in en-help, but that would seem to be out-of-character for the Chzz that I know. Are you quite, absolutely definitely remembering the right person here? (pre-emptive hugz if I'm out of line; RL is very wearing atm.) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

…and you're quite sure that "demanding" is a fair description of Chzz's approach? I only ask because that would be out of character of Chzz to me too… Nortonius (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. I'd love to see log examples cited here, but apparently I can't, which seems circular, and a practical example of Chzz's analysis, i.e. of how en-help in particular needs fixing.

Well, I've definitely seen Chzz almost beg others to help him when he's alone in a project. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it's not mistaken identity, and yes, "demanding" is exactly the word I meant to use. He has, for example, mass-pinged helpers who were in the channel but not active when Chzz wanted there to be activity, and told us to start helping, now. At least once, he asked me to take an admin action, and when I declined and said it wasn't necessary, he lectured me about how I was obligated to take the action he wanted me to take. So yes, "demanding." Chzz has contacted me privately since last night to suggest that I may have been misunderstanding his normal brevity in these instances, but if stuff along the lines of "Ugh, why is no one helping? Fluffernutter [other person] [other person] [other person], help so-and-so!" isn't a demand, it's a remarkably well-disguised polite enquiry about whether I may have the time and energy to assist at some point if it pleases me.

Side note: Those of you who have been in private contact with Chzz regarding this thread and the direction he hopes it takes (I was forwarded a snippet of one such email exchange), it might be helpful if you would identify yourselves here so that we can have full transparency. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have, but more about the history of IRC and its relationship with WP then the contents of this discussion. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto – about both, i.e. this discussion, and the history of IRC. I already disclosed involvement with Chzz in this discussion, per this diff. I don't see myself as a "multiple editor" (per this edit summary), and would see that as an inappropriate characterisation of how Chzz has been in contact with me, though I can't speak for others, obviously: Chzz and I have had off-wiki contact for about four years, and he's welcome to contact me off-wiki at any time. Through this contact, he has assured me that the assessment I have already offered here is correct, and I have no reason to doubt him. However, I would suggest that privacy surely must be respected here: editors who would rather not disclose in this manner should feel under no pressure to do so, and clearly it would be unacceptable to disclose who wrote which email, IRL. Tell you what, though: how about disclosing the relevant logs, so we can all see for ourselves what went on – after all, isn't this what the discussion is about, the fact that en-help is presented as "WP help", when in fact, as I understand it, it has no connection with WP, other than through involved individuals? This can't be right. Nortonius (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Disclosing logs of what? That would require the permission of all users involved.

• Re Chzz's behaviour: I wouldn't characterize it as harassment, but he does have a rather strong personality and a specific way of doing things which does not always mesh well with the helping styles of others in the channel. Being that whenever he's present and active, he tends to be dominant, conflict often occurs as a result. Those who are saying this is not the Chzz you know, I daresay that it is in fact a Chzz you've seen; just that his frustration isn't directed at you, and that your previous interactions with him mean what you see is quite different to what others perceive as his intentions. I will also back up Fluff in saying he does ping and/or private message users when he wants them to do something in particular (or even to inform them of things that are apparently of pressing significance that said users have never expressed any interest in), and may get a little shirty if one doesn't respond positively. I know Chzz and understand where he's coming from, but he just gets along with some and not with others.
• On flags: from what I can see, IRC operates pretty much how WP used to back in the days when IAR actually meant something, and in a similar way to smaller projects where it still does. People who have the requisite skill and who the superops feel aren't controversial get bits; if they do something that a number of active people disagree with (or, given sufficient grounds, as easily as if one regular like me objects), shit hits the fan and they get bits removed. I don't see this as a problem; the instantaneous nature of the medium does lead to less thought-out words being exchanged or actions being made, but in my opinion that makes it even more crucial that judgements are made based on discretion since one gets rather more sense of a person as a whole than a user.

On IRC the informal nature of conversation means we deal with all facets of a person. This makes this entire discussion a bit difficult, since a lot of the "feel' one gets from someone's activity on IRC is hard to put down in words. This accounts I feel both for the contradicting accounts of Chzz's activity, and for the reason IRC would be hard to legalize. sonia♫ 10:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

About disclosing logs of en-help, if one is persuaded that en-help should be under en-WP oversight, for the reasons given, then this again exemplifies the problem: the community has no reasonable means of supervising what is going on. About requiring "the permission of all users involved", is this actually the case? I confess that I don't know the details, but would people involved in a "come and talk to us" forum not effectively be agreeing that this is in the public domain? Perhaps not, if this isn't explicitly flagged up before they join; as I say, I don't know the details. But my argument would again be as expressed in my first sentence here.

About "Chzz's behaviour", a need for discretion, and inter-personal "feel", I think that's fair comment, given that there will be alternative views; but again I would point to my first sentence. I think that's reasonable…? Nortonius (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've communicated with Chzz by email on and off for months'n'months; the recently in relation to this, but only huim really expressing (a) his frustration with the whole thing, and (b) he was slightly bewildered by Fluff's comment (I don't think he means to be "demanding", but I do know he gets frustrated when he feels he's carrying the whole can, or most of it; bearing in mind that he's often multi-tasking and dealing with AfC and edit requests at the same time. Like so many things in and around t'wikiland, sometimes I think we just lose sight of who each other are. That's "species-normal" for humans, but it does cause irritation and hurt feelings. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Goal setting

OK, here's how I see "the ideal en-help channel":

• it has a floating population of excellent, experienced, oustanding content-writers
• these people know WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS like the backs of their hands
• they should have a track record of helping newbies learn how to write good, well-sourced content in line with all WP's policies
• there should always be several of them available, to cover time zones
• they should feel happy and comfortable in en-help
• en-help needs to have an atmosphere where these people don't feel stilted or too restricted, because they will be our best helpers / teachers; it should be a chatty atmosphere, like a support group, not like a lecture hall or classroom. Informality should be the norm
• there should be no more language-gag in en-help than there is in WP itself
• power should be shared among as many people as it reasonably can be
• personal disagreements between helpers in en-help should be conducted in private messages to avoid clashes visible to helpees (horrible word, I know)
• Nobody should be banned or quieted for anything which would not get them an immediate emergency block in WP itself
• there should be a route of appeal against any sanctions
• there should be an area where discussion about any sanctions can take place, on IRC, to gauge consensus for / against any actions
• there should never be a "This is my channel, I can do what I like" mentality

So: how close to this can we get? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The time zone schedule there sounds like an opening for community power. If you can schedule volunteers to cover IRC here, then you can decide here which channels they cover. So you can set up a new channel with your own policies, and have each volunteer agree to cover it as well as the existing channel (as I understand, most IRC users have lots of channels open at any one time). In this way you can have a choice (or competition) between channel ops if you want it, with the volunteers agreeing to time commitments being the final and deserving arbiters. (Note: I almost never use IRC and have absolutely no idea whether this is worth doing) Wnt (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

An attempt to organize helper scheduling in the help channel could definitely be useful in theory, but I think a potential problem with that in practice is that helpers don't tend to do dedicated "shifts" in the channel so much as they each help when they have a couple minutes. So Helper X might be *in* the channel from 9-5, but actually only have time to help once an hour or so (say, when their break from work permits). Would X be asked to sign up to "staff" the channel from 9-5 with the understanding that their help is sporadic? Would they be expected to be on-call during the entire time they were "active" on the channel, even if they didn't have time to help right then? Would they need to sign up for a dedicated ten-minute period every hour when they *would* definitely be helping?

That said, though, if this idea can be made workable, I'm all for it - there are always lags where someone needs help and no one's available/awake, and it would be great to reduce those lags. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[Pesky hugz Fluff! Hey, Fluff!] I'm sure that the answer to that one will lie in getting many, many more helpers into the channel  – and if people who've never helped there before, even people who don't regularly (or even ever)use IRC at the moment could be tempted to join en masse as fresh blood and new helpers, that would solve it. I can thing of quite a few good people that I personally know who'd make excellent helpers as and when their time allowed, who just don't "do" IRC. But, in order to tempt them in, and keep them in, en-help will need an atmosphere that they'd all be happy to be part of. And it seems that, if one were to make gross generalisations, many of the excellent conent workers are those who are going to want the more relaxed, less "formal" atmosphere, where the odd cussword-acceptable-in-WP will be equally acceptable. That's going to be the way it goes, I'm sure. I'm not advocating for personal attacks to be OK, don't get me wrong - but saying that something's "fucking awful" or "crap" should be (not encouraged,but not punished) acceptable, within reason. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna sound like an old-timer saying this, but I reallyu don't think prompting lots of people to help out en-masse is a good idea at all. We have had, in the past, people who actively (almost aggressively) helped out because they felt it would help them toward adminship and/or other status symbols, and did more damage than good with terse or unhelpful replies. We need more good helpers. sonia♫ 08:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Eeek, no, that's not what I meant! I meant good helpers. Thing is, that good helpers are humans, too, and within reason humans have to be allowed to be mostly "who they are". And if they have the odd kick in their gallop (such as more informal language), then provided that it doesn't interfere with their ability to be darned good teachers, that should be OK. I find the idea that people would decide to jump through some hypothetical "helper in en-help" hoop to lever themselves up towards adminship is pretty disgusting, really .... but then I don't approve of people learning party tricks in order to gain power. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• (This question is directed mainly towards those who have advocated an RfC or say that there is a problem in general) What exactly would the aim of this hypothetical RfC be? Elen brought of many points that obviously could not all be solved in one place, so I'm wondering what the most fundamental concern is. Is it the use of -en-help at all - would an RfC decide whether we want to use that chat, or another one in which the community has a more active stance in formulating rules? A lot of the other concerns seem a bit secondary, but I'm having trouble with the primary one. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think one of the main points has to be any real or perceived "ownership" of en-help. And that the IRC-community (in en-help primarily, but to include anyone good that can be coaxed in there) should be more consulted as and when it comes to any disciplinary measures, etc., apart from obvious troll-only trolling. There should never be any possibility of an immediate quiet, ban, etc. for a regular helper on the basis that "I said so", or "I'm more powerful than you", or anything remotely similar. Unless it's a true emergency situation that would deserve an instant 24-hour (or more) block in WP, there's no way it should result in similar in en-help. There would have to be far more community-input (from people who are spending the majority of their time actually helping, and are WP-experienced) than it appears that there currently is. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• As I've said elsewhere, I'm not active in the help channel currently, but I am active among WMF channel ops in general, and I feel I can say with fairly good authority that if we had an op who was wandering around taking random "because I felt like it!" or "because I have ops and you don't!" actions against users of our channels, that op would not keep their ops very long if the behavior was seen by or reported to any other op. The ops are very aware that the Wikipedia IRC channels are a public face for Wikipedia, and our goals include not making that "face" look like a sneer. If people are aware of cases of op misuse, please please bring it to the attention of the other ops so we can deal with that person. If someone was quieted for saying a naughty word, with absolutely no other context (the user wasn't ranting, the user wasn't disrupting the channel, the user wasn't attacking other users, etc), then I'd like to review that situation. The flip side to that, however, is that given how contrarian most Wikipedians are, if a number of Wikipedian ops manage to agree that an action ought to have been taken, then odds are very good that the action was indeed in need of being taken - ops don't hesitate to fight amongst themselves for what they feel is proper or fair. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't want to be an op, either ;P I have quite a list of things I don't want to be! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. I am also not very active in the mentioned channel, for similar reasons as you. (And I have, or had +o there). It is a wikipedia help channel and it should be managed in a similar fashion as wikipedia is. I don't see any reason why the way how channels are supposed to be managed couldn't change. I agree specifically with last 5 points. Kicking the established contributor is similar as blocking an established wikipedian, I doubt that many admins on english wikipedia would instantly block some steward who post an irrelevant link to a wikipedia page for spamming, while they would likely do that in case of ip user who post a link in good faith but just didn't know they are not supposed to do that. Established contributors shouldn't be treated as trolls or spam bots in wikimedia channels, and the community should definitely be able to set the rules at some point. Petrb (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you have proposed. Those points would really enhance the live help and turn the IRC channel into a real Wiki IRC channel with similar rules and problem solving procedures as there are in the web wiki. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 22:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

seriously?

Err, I hadn't the time to read the whole page until now, so my late response: It's interesting how many people are here discussing which never help in this/these channel/s. I'm active to the different times and thus knowing pretty much who is online (sometimes also reading the logs, because I missed simply to turn off my pc) - As sonia (and some others) correctly mentions: the channel works (==don't fix it) and in really seldom cases we need an op... and that was never a problem with the great stalkword !op and the problematic user was "quiet", or banned. As wctaiwan correctly said: we have to deal with really easy questions every day and it is always the same and it is defacto a WP:AFC related channel (drafts, why declined?, whatever).

So, although I'm impressed how fast and multitasking Chzz is working (and with what a faith!) - I can't see the problem. Since the last year, I can't remember only one problematic user: Chzz. Yes, there were always smaller users who didn't want to hear/follow/read, but this was either solved by themselves (leaving the channel) or by !ops. I know from internal discussions in the -ops channels that many operators believe that there are too many of them. (And Chzz was cleaning up this list while he had the +F right - removing users of that accesslist which weren't online for ages - but also some which he shouldn't remove) mabdul 17:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh by the way: @Persky: "power should be shared among as many people as it reasonably can be" - do you know how many ops are there?' (or how many can be approved to "GC"/with the founderright +F?) mabdul 17:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"personal disagreements between helpers in en-help should be conducted in private messages to avoid clashes visible to helpees (horrible word, I know)" - is normally done in -helpers - and if not there is either "nothing to do", or somebody should redirect the helpers... mabdul 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya, srsly. ;o) I've tried a few times to help newbies on-wiki, with mixed results, and for personal reasons I would not want to involve myself with live en-help. It's good that anyone does, don't misunderstand me. But I think that there is an important point at issue here, which has nothing to do with Chzz: if en-help is not really 'en-WP-help', the community cannot decide how best that help should be organised and presented, or even who is or isn't a "problematic user", to use Mabdul's phrase. Surely this is precisely the sort of thing that needs to be discussed openly and on the record – i.e., on-wiki. This is a view that I've expressed several times now, and, as an on-wiki user, I don't mind expressing it again.

This issue isn't about any one person, or group of persons, trying to control en-help; it's about offering the best help to WP users, in a manner in keeping – and seen to be in keeping – with the consensus of the on-wiki WP community, like any other aspect of WP. I'm much less interested in how things were done in the past than I am in how things might be done in the future. I find it rather depressing to see newbie edits being marked down on-wiki as vandalism when often enough they might equally be naive experiments, or described to the editor in question in what I believe are frequently rather obfuscating and patronising terms. So, I would like to see en-help do more, not less; but since its impact is on-wiki, its management must also surely be on-wiki, IMHO. Thanks for reading. Nortonius (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's intersting that the en-0helpers channel has been mentioned here. Did you guys know it was actually Chzz who created that channel, and was therefore a Founder? And that (apparently) his access to the channel he created himself has also been removed? Despite his not having been in that channel since November or thereabouts? Now, why was that done? If he's not been in the channel, he can hardly have been disrupting it. He created the channel. That looks unpleasantly like either thoughtlessness, or plain spite, to an outsider. Admins here in WP have to explain their admin actions. I'd like that action explained, please? And where is it possible for Chzz to appeal against that decision? Where is it possible for anyone else to say the equivalent of "bad block"? Pesky (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've asked here, too. Thing is, though I understand that Chzz may have gone a bit over the top, he was the same as a high-content-contributor Admin in WP. And if an Admin in WP went off on a rant about something, there's no way they'd be desysopped immediately with no input from the community, and no way the community could even say "Hey, hang on a mo here!" This is what worries me: there's no equivalent of RfC/U. AN/I, anywhere at all that other people can chip in, and there just has to be a route of appeal available, and some accountability to the Wikiupedia community, somewhere, for a channel calling itself "Wikipedia-en-anythingatall". It's a principles thing. This doesn't smell, look, sound or feel right. That's just the way it is. I'm unhappy about this. Pesky (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A really big problem is that the WMF doesn't want to take over the responsibility of these channels and they were asked multiple times and thus resulting in unofficial channels with the name "wikipedia" in. Most channels (defacto all except the #wikimedia-social) are mainly dealing wiki*edia related stuff. (esp. the -help one) Again: I see not the problem! Nortonius you are discussing about something you don't even have a clue about! There is nothing which needs any management!

@Pesky: I think you are discussing a real problem with/about Chzz, but this might really a place for meta where the discussion already started! And just FYI (I really want to separate the "two problems"): Chzz was only banned for a day of -help with a reason! At meta the discussion is correct: a) he abused his rights; b) he kicked/restarted Helpmebot multiple times (so that he couldn't welcome new users); c) used the stalkwords although he already the attention of enough ops and other experienced users and was please to stop that (in multiple channels);

"And if an Admin in WP went off on a rant about something, there's no way they'd be desysopped immediately with no input from the community" - wrong! "Stewards generally do not perform actions on wikis where local users are available to perform them, except in emergency or cross-wiki cases." (Source: m:Stewards)

mabdul 19:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the disagreement, Mabdul, but I beg very, very deeply and politely to differ. Clearly you are not attacking me personally, but I have an opinion, which is based on more than just this discussion, and I shall express it. Nortonius (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you expressed your opinion instead of just making a note that you will do so :p

And yes, Mabdul's mostly right; it's not similar to an admin saying something angry. It's similar to an admin using the tools inappropriately. It's exactly because there is no strict hierarchy that, regardless how "senior" or "experienced" or whatever an admin/helper/op is, they can be summarily removed for abusing tools. It's not a travesty of justice that an op -- even a "sacred cow" type helper who people defer to -- can get removed easily: it's proof the system works. sonia♫ 20:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sonia in case you misunderstand...? I have expressed my opinion, look up – the whole page, not just this section. I was merely stating that I have as much right to express my opinion here as anyone else, so, I shall express it. Hope that's clear now. I also have "clue". Thanks. :p Nortonius (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I reread all your posts on this page and came again to the conclusion: Yes, there is an unresolved(?) problem with/about Chzz, but that has nothing to do with the "proposed" changes. Please don't mix two different, independent cases! There is Chzz on the one side and on the other there seems to be "a problem" I have never understood and until now nobody could explain me what it is! I read something about onwiki discussions and maintain, organizing something, but what is "something"? I have ever heard of anything that needs to be organized for a channel, hence there is a meta page with facts that can be easily accessed by everybody using well known commands (e.g. query chanserv).

I don't know what is that to understand (and is commonsense!): be polite, don't abuse stalkwords/rights, don't be ignorant --> if not you might be kicked/banned out of a channel. What to organize here? mabdul 03:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Re Nortonius: oh! I'm sorry, totally misread your comment and missed that Mabdul addressed you directly. My apologies, I didn't mean to sound at all condescending or snarky, just was bewildered by your statement (naturally, I see now, since I missed that you were making a direct reply!) sonia♫ 04:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sonia, no problem! :o) Mabdul, thanks to you too for re-reading all my posts – that's very kind! Forgive me do, but these "two cases" were already "mixed up"; I have actually tried to separate them myself, e.g. my observation above that there's "an important point at issue here, which has nothing to do with Chzz". I think it's very important that this issue isn't sidetracked by any problems people may have with Chzz – which, from what I've seen, aren't exactly baseless, but they're not entirely fair, either. About what does or doesn't need "fixing", I don't mean to get into a direct back-and-forth with anyone about this, so please don't be offended, or exasperated. I honestly think that I have been as clear as I can on this page, and I have seen that I'm not a "lone voice" here. In sum: en-help is not en-WP-help, and I believe that it should be. Thanks for reading. Nortonius (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Extension

I added a new headline. mabdul 18:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I corrected a typo ;-) wctaiwan (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I realize that I'm jumping into a discussion and that I haven't been in #wikipedia-en-help for probably a year now, but I have long considered IRC to be an ineffective and inefficient "live help" system. Channels get off-topic, channels can be unwatched (and newbies don't understand how to use the stalk words), helpers can be incompetent or provide misleading advice, multiple conversations can go on at once and confuse newbies, etc. mw:Extension:LiveHelp needs programmers to get off the ground. It would be nice if the WMF could sponsor someone to work on this. Live help, when implemented competently, is a much better way of helping people than the long jumble of on-wiki threads that comprise our current fragmented help system (help desks, village pumps, talk pages, project pages, help pages, etc.). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There are actually some works on a similar extensions. I think it would be best if we made an extension which allows users to easily connect to IRC using wikipedia interface. This would make it easier for newbies, and better for helpers, who can keep using their clients. However, both extensions require a consensus. I can assure you that without consensus, no developers would even think of implementing or finishing this. And releasing some money from budget to hire programmers who would make this, could result in anything just that effectively as pending changes did (I seriously hope PC will return soon) Petrb (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There's mw:extension:WebChat and mw:extension:Chat (the latter of which has some potential, I think). I'm not very much concerned with the consensus issue, as the main problem in my mind is developing and then staffing such a live help system. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As a regular wikipedia user it's logical that it looks more complicated to you to create the extension, while to me as developer it looks much harder to get a consensus :) Let's make a deal, if you get a consensus for this, I will finish the extension. Petrb (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, but I might not get around to proposing anything for a little bit, too busy in RL right now :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 06:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Surreal Trial Parallel

M'Lord, I stand here accused of stealing your car keys.

I did it, because I disagreed with you about whether or not I should be able to drive with my radio on.

In retaliation, you've taken *my* car keys.

You've also taken my van keys, and my train pass.

Unfortunately, as you are judge-and-executioner, I can only appeal to you. ---

JUDGEMENT: Tough shit.

This JUDGEMENT has been ratified by The King (who is M'Lord's brother), and is final.

Oh, and you're banned from asking in the palace, too.

You could ask United Nations, but they think it's nothing to do with them.

Anyway, you don't NEED your car, van or the train; other people can do the stuff you did, instead.

Now, if you'll shut up about it, we might let you use a bicycle, as long as you behave. Pesky (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This. The ad nauseam repetition of this particular point is getting a bit irritating, especially since this rather emotive analogy does not reflect the reality. sonia♫ 22:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ad nauseam? I must've missed something. How does the analogy not reflect the reality? I see any inherent description of a particular situation here as secondary to an illustration of the apparent lack of WP community oversight – which seems pretty real, and not emotive; actually for "lack of WP oversight", I think read "closed shop". Pesky? Nortonius (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. Comparison of the many independent IRC ops/GCs/whatever to a single high-and-mighty noble who is removed from the common people; comparison of using IRC to an utter necessity like transport; comparison of opship and other flags etc for the one who feels mistreated (who is, mind you, apparently not a similarly pompous noble despite having higher flags than many who are amassed into this nebulous noble!) to removing all such necessary means of transport; use of language like "judge-and-executioner". Yup, sounds to me like an ad nauseam repeat of the "this is ridiculously unfair" (which has been posted on meta as well!) which doesn't add anything of value, just inflames the situation.

I'll reiterate that IRC has a different 'culture' to Wikipedia. Wikipedia RfXYZs happen on Wikipedia; IRC discussions likewise happen on IRC. The Wikipedia community decides Wikipedia things, because they understand the way things work there; IRC regulars decide IRC things because they likewise understand the community. It's the same reason not all admins have ops and not all ops are admins. Some admins would make bloody terrible ops and some ops horrendous admins. They aren't directly interchangeable. This "lack of WP community oversight" seems to be a suggestion that IRC disputes and flag-conferment directly be done on-wiki, which I feel would be a terrible idea for this reason. Sure, maybe we need a "discussion" channel. Maybe it should be in the topic of a chan: "x has been given ops. thoughts can be expressed in #y." Definitely, larger disputes or egregious personal attacks warrant taking it on-wiki. But insisting that IRC—a dynamic medium—be shackled until on-wiki discussion on every matter is concluded would make it virtually unusable. The immediacy of the medium reflects the immediacy of the decision-making. The problem is thus less across-a-period-of-time like that, and more "I was practicing my archery on a school playground and you took my bow away without consensus!"

Let's all back away. This needs to be discussed objectively without a particular person or incident at the heart of it, when things are quieter. It's going to stay deadlocked if we do it this way. It's compromise we need—greater transparency, but without insisting on the wiki-way; an appreciation of the different natures of the modes of communication, and a bit of a break for coffee. sonia♫ 03:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

.. :o( I don't want an argument, particularly with you, Sonia. I'm obviously just not able to get across what it is that I'm feeling, or trying to say, here. I am very sad about this; I will probably have to just go away and be sad instead of attempting to communicate clearly, at which, it seems, I am failing dismally. Pesky (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I think it's out-of-balance to compare it with something like "practising archery in the school playground", and other real-emergency situations where life or limb or people's actual real-life safety might be at stake. It's almost more like a prefect taking away other prefects' badges in a last-ditch attempt to point out problems with the prefects system and / or the way in which prefects were appointed. Nobody was put at any risk of real-life harm. Pesky (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sonia, I think I should've understood what you meant by "emotive" – I truly didn't have it in mind to wind anyone up, or whatever, so apologies for that; I appreciate the recognition that emotions have been involved, though. One thing – I'm less interested in the bureaucracy (I also appreciate your reservations there, but wouldn't it be only a matter of time before that settled into business-as-usual too?) than in en-WP having the same culture as WP, even though the medium is live: it shouldn't be too hard, rapid back-and-forth happens on WP too, people misunderstand, tempers get frayed, but lots of good stuff also happens. But you're right – here's some biscuits to go with your coffee, I'm off to have some tea. :o) Nortonius (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Re Pesky, you're right that my analogy there was pretty bad as well; I meant to convey the aspect of immediacy, and didn't pick a very good example at all >.> My apologies, I do realize how loaded that was now. I guess, all in all, I think people just see this entirely differently, and that at the moment we're going around in unproductive circles. If we step back, observe, come back with objective suggestions in a little while, this might go a lot better than it's likely to if we invest much more energy in it at this point.

Re Nortonius, yay biscuits! Last post here for me in this discussion; I don't forsee being able to edit at a high level for the next little while and may as well put my little time into articlework instead. Cheers! sonia♫ 23:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for a new help channel

Continuing from my comment above: I believe that the fundamental differences between Chzz and the existing wikipedia-en-help staff regarding the governance and structure of the channel are insurmountable, and that the most appropriate short-term strategy is to define a new, competing help channel (call it anything you like, say #wikipedia-en-assistance). If it is effective, it will gradually supplant the existing channel, with more on-wiki links being changed to refer to it and more users visiting it over time, until the old channel becomes obsolete. If it isn't, it will still produce useful feedback about which of Chzz's ideas were advantageous in practice, encouraging their adoption by the current channel. Chzz along with other interested users could define a set of rules on-wiki for the new channel specifying how it will be run, how people become ops, how problems are handled, how the rules are to be amended, and so on. Dcoetzee 04:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I've been roughly following this discussion since the beginning, but have declined to comment as I've been undecided and was waiting for a proposal. While I don't really like the idea of two IRC channels competing for help because of the confusion it is likely to cause, I really don't see a way for this issue to be resolved otherwise. On-wiki help isn't sufficient in terms of speed for many new editors (currently lots of people leave IRC after waiting for a response for less than two minutes, so how are they going to cope when they have to wait an hour or so?) and other off-wiki solutions are unlikely to resolve the issue of control.

I would suggest that for the duration of the proposed trial all links other than those from AfC templates be changed to the new channel. This would be easier than changing some templates and less confusing to those requesting help. It would also prevent a huge number of people entering a channel while it is still being established. If it proves successful then the AfC templates could be changed (either all at once or gradually) and the current help channel closed. --Mrmatiko (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I think it's obvious that a trial run is needed for a "prototype en-WP-help" channel. However, I wonder if consensus could be achieved for switching all the suggested links? An alternative might be for new editors to also be pointed to this trial channel when "welcomed", along with anyone seen to be in need of help, at the discretion of whoever notices this need: this would be comparatively ad hoc, and could help to keep numbers manageable for a trial channel, but should still produce measurable results? A thought, anyway. And, while I think Chzz would likely be interested in this, it's probably best to be clear that, at this point, ideas have come from people besides Chzz: as Dcoetzee says, this would involve "other interested users" too. Chzz's involvement in the preceding discussion has been limited, I think wisely, and the point of this channel would be to initiate and test the viability of an "en-WP-help" – i.e. trying to improve WP help, not putting Chzz on trial by proxy. I think that makes sense? Nortonius (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: another channel? There is already #wikipedia-en-help, #wikipedia-en-classroom, #en-nnu-help (merged a few weeks ago), #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-ambassadors (for -classroom helpers) and really likely some more I either not aware or missed. Oh and there is MUMBLE also! How do you want to solve that cluttering? mabdul 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not to change the current one I think we should rather start a wikimedia wide rfc regarding irc at all, perhaps the whole system could be changed so that community can set up the rules for channels, and whole irc can be more "official part of wikimedia project" than it's now. Why it should be something what is being run by individuals? Why we want to create another channels which would replicate the same as we have, also run by individuals (Chzz in this case). I think we should let the community decide how the channels are managed and which rules apply in them. Just as the community should vote for new group contacts, rather than let them choose their successors. I mean if whole wikipedia is run using this philophy, why irc couldn't be? And why it isn't official part of wikimedia projects? If problem is that current channels do not conform the wikimedia standards, let's change them, rather than creating duplicate channels. Petrb (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also support that – I think this is a useful re-statement of the thinking behind the original discussion. I'd only clarify that, as I understand it, "run by individuals" in this context is precisely intended to mean "run by WP contributors, under community agreement": this seems clearly to be what you mean, too? I think the suggestion of a "trial channel" is intended to test the viability of the ideas behind it, with a view potentially to replacing other channels, but obviously this could be achieved by other means, as you suggest. So, in other words, I support what you say: if a "wikimedia wide rfc" becomes a preferred route, so be it; but at some point a trial run would presumably be needed, as with most things. Nortonius (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose that we change the way we manage the channels now, rather than changing the channels at all, this needs absolutely no trial. At this moment the irc rules and basically everything what happen on irc is set by individual operators, group contacts may think that the channels are under their control, but in fact, only a small subset of english speaking channels are. I doubt that any group contact has an idea what is going on in chinese wikipedia channels, if the local community follows the rules etc. I believe that current group contacts are doing a great work and are trusted by community, since most of them are stewards, so I see no reason to replace them, or to take away their powers. However what I am talking about is addressing the specific issues, which were mentioned by Chzz and others. I think there should be no one with really "unlimited" powers who can just decide whatever they want, and other have to follow that. Let's make the irc official part of wikimedia, create a page WP:IRC/Rules which is based on community consensus of what is desired by users of channels. The irc operators could be selected and recalled by community as well. The group contacts should act just as stewards on wikimedia projects. They should be only responsible for opening and closing new channels, having unlimited rights in all channels, but shouldn't act in any channels, where they do not have operator rights and which contains active operators, they should only maintain small channels as moderators. Just as they do not act as sysops on big wikis, where they are not sysops. The users should have possibility to appeal block from a channel either on wiki or in publicly logged channel, where the community can track what is happening on irc, and how other users are being treated by operators. I mean, there is no need to create new channels, we already have it, and if there is a problem with them, and there is clearly some problem, let's fix it. Petrb (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If forking the channel is the best solution we can come up with, we collectively fail Wikipedia 101 forever. I do have a suggestion for the authority flags problem on the channel though (in fact, I think it might be applicable for all wikipedia-en channels). 1. Give all admins who ask for it a founder flag. 2. Give all admins who ask for it superops. 3. Hand out ops to anyone who asks for it, and can be reasonably expected to be trusted with it (in roughly the same vein as rollback is granted). This shouldn't be a hard problem. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a failure of wikipedia since irc is de-facto not affiliated with wikipedia at all, the irc operators are actually part of wikimedia community, but they are not bound by any rules, set by community which are specified somewhere on wikimedia website. So you can't say that if we can't do this otherwise, wikipedia fail. Petrb (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I add that, as I see it, the proposal isn't to "fork" help channels, but ultimately to "improve" existing channel(s)...? Nortonius (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much that Wikipedia fails, it is that we are failing at being Wikipedians. I'm fine with improving existing channels, but lets not do it over the backs of the newbies who are using the current infrastructure by fragmenting venues and helpers over different channels. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if you read my comment you will find that I actually support this fully. Petrb (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Chipping in here from my IRC knowledge, there is a maximum number of 4 founders allowed in a channel, and to that end a maximum number of 4 Wikimedia Group Contacts allowed by freenode, this is a technical limitation. The Helpful One 18:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There goes that idea. How about 'Founders/Contacts are appointed by straw poll on this page, in the form user x will replace user y as founder' which can run for a week or so (and probably roughly 3 people will !vote on). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: This is a good proposal and I am confident it will really enhance the live help, however in order for it to really improve it needs to have clear rules available for everybody. Whether the change must be immediate, slow, step by step or starting with a duplicate channel is important, however it is more important to have a plan and roadmap of the changes. And of course this roadmap should be followed. Clear regulations should be developed before starting to build the roadmap and in the meantime. All the channel rules need to be agreed with consensus as it happens on here. I am sure it will work much much better, however a good plan need to be built. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 15:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. A couple things going on here, each of which feels like a different issue in my mind, but all of which on balance make me lean slightly to opposing:
  1. Strong oppose to Chzz being put in charge of an outreach channel. As described above, Chzz's engagement style can be problematic, and I would object to him being put in charge of a help channel or those who run it. In addition, I would object to anyone being charged with creating and running a new channel without an explicit set of community-created rules; given that the main objections to the current help channel seem to be governance, any replacement channel should be created based on a series of RfCs establishing what users want to see in their help channel, what rules they want to follow, and who they want to administer those rules. A channel that's started based on "so-and-so can create a new channel and administer it the way they want" is just retaining the status quo with a new set of unilateral "dictators".
  2. Weak support for forking the channel. This could work - it's not really the ideal solution, as far as splitting of manpower and all, but if someone thinks we can do help better by using Method X, then more power to them if they want to test that out. If it's a better solution for users or more palatable to helpers, people will start using it instead of the current form.
  3. Oppose at this time to replacing on-wiki links to the current help channel with links to a new test channel. We currently have a help channel that works. It could use improvement, and everyone has ideas for how that should happen, but it more or less works when it comes to helping users who need to be helped. It would be silly to start sending users to a start-up channel with possibly no staffing and certainly no record for functionality, good or bad. If a test channel is established, it needs to be, at the very least, provably functional to the same level our current help channel is before we consider replacing the old with the new. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Just to be clear here, I wasn't seeking consensus for this idea. Rather, I was proposing that those who are frustrated with the current channel and want to try something new... just try something new. It's not like they require the community's permission to start an IRC channel. On-wiki consensus comes into play only when it comes time to change on-wiki links, since those are actually part of the wiki. If the people starting the new channel want to use on-wiki consensus as a governing mechanism they are, of course, welcome to. Nor am I suggesting putting Chzz in charge of it, since presumably in Chzz's ideal channel he doesn't have all the power, but rather chooses to defer to on-wiki consensus. Dcoetzee 11:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can recall this idea was already tried by Chzz, and was swiftly rejected. -- œ^™ 11:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As of right now...

There are no less then three different help 'stations' being set up or proposed: this, the AFC help desk and the slightly more controversial some-think-it's-destined-to-fail WP:Teahouse. This is on top of the channels mentioned above by Mabdul (I've never even heard of Mumble...) and even things like adoption. To be blunt, I don't see this ending particularly well. We really need to define the purpose of each one each one a bit better, or everyone is gonna be on everyone else's toes. What, if any, is the difference between this chat and the Teahouse? User:Mrmatiko suggests that the proposed chat should not be linked from AfC; if the help desk works, does that mean that hypothetically links aren't needed at all? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"What, if any, is the difference between this chat and the Teahouse?" The Teahouse is on Wikipedia, not on IRC. It also has dedicated "hosts" rather than random people answering questions. I guess that about sums it up. Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, just in case I needed the blatantly obvious pointed out to me, thanks. :) Let me clarify then. When should an editor be directed to IRC, when should s/he be pointed to the Teahouse, or Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions, or Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, or the WP:Help desk, or...(two or three more I've missed) You see my point? The more of these we create, the less efficient we become overall. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Effectively, the vast majority of the "helpees" in #wikipedia-en-help got there through AfC. It is different from the other ones mentioned because the assistance occurs in real time, with all the good and bad implications. Both the channel and the AfC help desk are linked from the decline templates right now, and based on the number of people that make use of either, both serve their purpose. I think having help mechanisms with a focus on AfC is a decent idea—people who don't normally do AfC-related work may have less patience for SPAs writing articles with notability and sourcing issues. As for the other mechanisms you have mentioned, I'm fairly certain Mumble isn't currently a help channel, and I'm unfamiliar with the rest. wctaiwan (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change the current channels rather than creating new channels

Since it little bit conflict with the previous proposal, I decided to copy paste it here:

I propose that we change the way we manage the channels now, rather than changing the channels at all, this needs absolutely no trial. At this moment the irc rules and basically everything what happen on irc is set by individual operators, group contacts may think that the channels are under their control, but in fact, only a small subset of english speaking channels are. I doubt that any group contact has an idea what is going on in chinese wikipedia channels, if the local community follows the rules etc. I believe that current group contacts are doing a great work and are trusted by community, since most of them are stewards, so I see no reason to replace them, or to take away their powers. However what I am talking about is addressing the specific issues, which were mentioned by Chzz and others. I think there should be no one with really "unlimited" powers who can just decide whatever they want, and other have to follow that. Let's make the irc official part of wikimedia, create a page WP:IRC/Rules which is based on community consensus of what is desired by users of channels. The irc operators could be selected and recalled by community as well. The group contacts should act just as stewards on wikimedia projects. They should be only responsible for opening and closing new channels, having unlimited rights in all channels, but shouldn't act in any channels, where they do not have operator rights and which contains active operators, they should only maintain small channels as moderators. Just as they do not act as sysops on big wikis, where they are not sysops. The users should have possibility to appeal block from a channel either on wiki or in publicly logged channel, where the community can track what is happening on irc, and how other users are being treated by operators. I mean, there is no need to create new channels, we already have it, and if there is a problem with them, and there is clearly some problem, let's fix it.
— User:Petrb 14:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I created a proposed rules at User:Petrb/Rules - it's only a draft, you are encouraged to improve it. Petrb (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so the question now is, do you want to keep the channels as they are now, or do you want to switch to a new scheme covered by on wiki rules, based on community consensus? Please note that I want to stay neutral here, I am myself operator in several channels and I believe that current system works. However if community feels a need to change it, why not. Petrb (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• switch per my preceding comments across different sections on this page. Nortonius (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. A couple of points: naturally, we must have a limited number of WP helpers, presumably their offerings should ultimately be centralised under WP; and, strictly the medium is irrelevant here – aren't we really discussing "a live method of how to help people", rather than the workings of IRC, how many channels there are, etc.? Other channels are a separate issue, no...?

• Comment: I prefer this idea to forking the channel because it would result in minimal confusion for the "helpees" and it provides more detail about the sort of changes that could be made. Therefore I would switch my support; however the scope of this proposal is so large that it would require cross-wiki consensus, since all Wikimedia project IRC channels would be affected. I'm guessing discussion would have to take place at meta?--Mrmatiko (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose to switching schemes for help channel. The current system, as far as I know, works - or at least, I haven't noticed anyone pointing out concrete examples of where it hasn't - and I don't see a particular need to change. However, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if we did switch the help channel to a wiki model. I could live with it. Strong oppose, however, to switching schemes for IRC as a whole. Most of the irc channels are intended to be social venues, and locking them down with endless rules about appellant processes and RfCs any time someone sneezes will do more harm (by which I mean policy wonkery and people departing for greener, less regulated pastures) than good.

  As a side note, Mrmatiko has a very good point that any proposal to revamp anything other than en-specific channels needs to happen on Meta, not here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any changes - I haven't seen any evidence that the way #wikipedia-en-help is currently functioning needs improvement. And there have been various discussion on Wikipedia about IRC before, all of which have not really gone anywhere (rightfully so, in my opinion). Killiondude (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: As Fluffernutter. I'm only interested in this because of the -help aspect - the other channels are irrelevant I think, plus the reasoning for change would have to be very different. Honestly, I don't think there's really any chance of making wide, sweeping changes to the 'social' channels. If you don't like em, don't use em. -help, on the other hand, is one of the many semi-public faces of WP and should be subject to its rules and methods.
  • Comment made (and left unsigned) at 18:53, February 14, 2012‎. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• General support. If those in powah are selected by the community each and every time; if those in ultra-powah are also selected / elected by the community when a place becomes vacant; if there really is an appeals system which works well, this would all work. See what I'm posting above, too, for a surreal illustration of w hy a sound appeals system is needed. Pesky (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per a few sections above: I don't see the problem nor can somebody explain it to me... mabdul 13:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no route of appeal other than to the exact same (small, closed group of) people who were judge, jury and executioner in the first place. This leaves people thinking that there is no point in attempting to appeal, as any kind of appeal is likely to be viewed very dimly and / or seen as "being even more disruptive". Hope that's clear! Pesky (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, though, that even processes done the "wiki" way have an end point. If someone's sanctioned and disagrees with it, they can appeal it all the way up to arbcom - even if arbcom placed the sanction, you can appeal it to arbcom and they'll consider it. But if, at that point, arbcom declines to change or lift the sanction...well, that's pretty much it. Once you've exhausted arbcom's appeals process, you can't go any higher, and your choices are to either try to negotiate with arbcom, or just accept the sanction arbcom gave. Similarly, on-IRC sanctions can be appealed to ops, super ops, and then General Contacts. And then, similar to appealing to arbcom or even a court system in the real world, you reach a point where you've exhausted the highest appeal process. Now, you/we/someone can argue that there ought to be another layer added to the appeals process - say, community vetting for GCs. But we cannot add enough layers to the process to please the people who will inevitably eventually hit the end of the appeals line. Those people will always feel like they're trapped by poor decisions of the bodies of appeal, no matter how many layers they went through to hit the dead end. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@Persky: please name me the problem! "op" status, founder, etc. is only useful for throwing somebody out of the CHAT channel! You can't do anything with these right - not like onwiki's admin status where you can delete articles, restore them, etc. In a chat you can't do anything with it and I have never seen anybody wanting that right and didn't get it (except for being simply to unexperienced, not regular online, etc - SNOW cases onwiki) - except Chzz who abused his rights... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabdul (talk • contribs) 18:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Irrelevant support The IRC "Group Contacts," have stated that Wikipedia has no control over the Wikipedia channels, and while they might listen to a request from Wikipedia, they are under no obligations to do so, despite the fact that their channels violate the WMF's trademarks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

…QED, in other words? It seems that neither WMF nor Jimbo want to talk about it. Nortonius (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

update: Jimbo has responded to comments from me on his talk page: please have a look, his view is qualified, but strongly supportive of en-help on IRC being controlled from within WP: he expresses doubt that the present situation is broken, but is open to persuasion (I'll be trying to work on that, soonish, and obviously everyone's welcome to comment there, pro or anti); more importantly, he says, "I strongly support that all the IRC channels should be firmly under general community control, and I'm happy to take whatever action I can to ensure that this is the case. … I think it is within my remit to defend, strongly and using whatever influence I have up to and including contacting the Foundation and Freenode, to ensure that the community has an appropriate voice." Nortonius (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Chzz is right

I think Chzz is right when he says too many Wikipedians have become too controlling. Though I wrote at least one other Wikipedia article, I was not allowed to post an article on my mother, the cartoonist and artist B. Hall (Barbara Hall Fiske Calhoun). Part of this was that I had no third-party "proof" for such things as her date of birth-- I only have family papers for this, and so on. There are articles about her and she was mentioned in several books but the information did not satisfy some Wikipedia editors. I feel very frustrated too. Can there not be a process for quoting non-third party (non-published, but in private papers that could have a copy produced if need be) papers, to help get such articles published? Chzz helped me very profoundly and with a lot of sincerity. I feel he is right when he says too many people are trying to take control of Wikipedia these days. Songcat (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Songcat

I moved the comment to the bottom and a sectionheading.

So can you explain me, why this problem is related to the IRC (chat)? mabdul 18:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Because, like everything else on Wiki, it's broken. The people with the decision making ability, us, are those least qualified to make the decisions. We never allow our own ignorance to stop us from having an equal say on any issue. We go on thinking things like a Mob with flaming torches is the best way to deal with accusations of misbehavior, and allowing any faction whatsoever to set their own rules in any place on Wikipedia they like. Choose any issue, any debate, and ask, are the people who embody the mission of Wikipedia the ones who get to decide, or do they get the same vote as anyone who is trying to bring it down. Penyulap _talk 07:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you read that before you posted? It looks like lots of vague overgeneralizations. Killiondude (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No I overlooked that step. OMG you're right. Penyulap _talk 08:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)