Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FT2 (talk | contribs) at 12:49, 6 March 2008 (tweak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• /Archive 1 - covers all on-wiki discussion up to the point the newcomers guide and channel guidelines were adopted on March 4 2008.

Key points:

• Channel access list was set to "non private" - anyone can see who has access via /msg chanserv access #wikipedia-en-admins list (warning - 500 lines long!)
• Old levels 26 - 48 were actually identical in what they could do, so all such users have been moved to level 30 for "cleanness" and simplicity of understanding. The only two things that users with higher access levels cannot do in practice is: add or remove others at that level, and use the LEVEL command to set the level needed for various commands. The rationale is that really, neither of these things are ever likely to be needed doing in a rush anyway. James and his deputy Seanw can change these if needed.
• One modification was made by James - Jimbo Wales was set to level 30, not 10 (effectively "no change").
• The channel operates on a largely unspoken code of commonsense. The guidelines are not "rules"; rather they are roughly how the channel works and has been found to work well, and norms that are broadly in place by "peer pressure" on it. And guidelines on handling problems, so that those are handled fairly and not whimsically, on the very few cases needed. The guidelines were created and reviewed by many people in discussion.
• Higher level access is involved only in a handful of areas - namely those which might be historically more open to risk of serious dispute/problems/abuse. These are users who help catch obvious areas with a higher risk and more need of review - long term bans, neutral choice of channel ops, attacks that nobody else is stopping, and the like. (Note: in recent months, the channel only rarely has such problems, but for those with long memories they were disturbingly endemic in the past, and are endemic on many irc channels elsewhere.) In general, it's likely that channel ops - including them - will consider these things, but it needs their OK to enact, as an abuse precaution. Historically this was delegated by James to users of his choosing, and in principle still is. Generally otherwise they have no special role. Moderately rare exceptions as of 2008:

Details...

Promotion or demotion of channel operators, which is prone to perceived risk of cliques and favoritism in any group, forum, or community, channel ops might decide but a higher level op is needed to approve it's a good choice and effect the decision. (Technically this has always been the case, since a level 10 can't promote someone else to level 10, so this is unchanged.) Long term ban/removal review (and appeals against unfair chanop bans etc) - again, historically has potential for abuse/misuse, though as of 2007 this rarely is needed. If a ban/removal gets to be seriously long, it needs checking to ensure it's fair, appropriate and not just some clique doing it. Again a consensus measure, to reduce the chances of any future abuse of power. (A role that James has said should have been done but as it turns out, he didn't had time for, and historically was not set out clearly.) Invites of non-admins - a compromise ageed in discussion. Also, James has strongly indicated there should be review of such a decision beyond the usual channel operators, in this exceptional circumstance. Helping with in-channel conduct and disputes, especially if it's one that channel operators are finding it difficult to address or wishing to "stand back" from it and not get involved. Rarely occurs as of 2007, sporadic flare-ups aside. (Again, a historic role set by James) Effecting simple changes to channel configuration - for obvious reasons settings can't be modified by everyone. If a change is trivial or uncontroversial, such as modifying the ONJOIN message or channel modes, it can be convenient for the channel to have users accessible to effect it.

• A week long consultation took place, with full discussion up front, and a recap discussion at the end, involving 7 days of channel spam messages to make sure everyone was clued in and had a chance for feedback. Feedback was collated by an uninvolved admin (Daniel).
• Two debates are probably "On hold" - the idea of channel "official logging" via james or Arbcom, in case of dispute, and the question of access to the channel is on ice too. Basically the aim is that the channel works, and until a problem arises no need to anticipate one.

FT2  17:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(Moved from above):

• One modification was made by James - Jimbo Wales was set to level 30, not 10 (effectively "no change").

• Any reason for this? And what was the reason for the other changes that I proposed? keeping someone like Fennec an op is utterly pointless, because he's never even used the channel. What purpose does it serve? Majorly (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The former was a "James says", and as with adminship it seemed harmless on a basis of "unlikely to ever cause a problem", both of them. Fennec is still an ex-arb, still (apparently) trusted, still (I am told) on IRC or around elsewhere; in view of that seemed no harm in letting him stay as a 10 even though he's never in the channel. Again, very unlikely to abuse. FT2  23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify on the subject of admittance concerning non-admins and ex admins. I'm probably just stupid, but I see no mention of them, or the recent huge discussion on the subject. 86.143.138.74 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, yes they are allowed if ops agree to it. Ex-admins in good standing are always allowed entry anyway. Majorly (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a lot of heated discussion in the background on this, sometimes acrimonious. If it had been on wiki, the answer would probably have been "no consensus, keep as is". Some felt strongly that as long as non-admins could visit a channel called "admins" there would be risk of upset and a clear line needed to be drawn. Others felt that there were valuable users who are trusted by time or in other ways and have historically been there without problems, added a lot of benefit, and users who are there and have never been a problem should be removed for conduct reasons if needed only. There hasn't been a huge problem in this area for a fair while, so ... see how it goes was the finally agreed view. Realistically, comparatively few non-admins have been invited.

(The other benefit of this was that it transpired this was also acting as a "blocker" for other things. It got decided to agreed everything else - which was quite a bit to achieve - and if ever needed then come back to the rest when some actual problem arose. If it comes up again it'd be fairly likely to be "a specific user and their conduct" rather than "non-admins in general". The access list has now also been made 100% public - see above - so anyone can see who has access and of what kind at any time, and check for themselves.)

And as Majorly says, ex-admins in good standing yes (caveat: unless for example, a user persistently or grossly breaches channel expectations, which may not affect them on-wiki but might lead to exclusion there.) FT2  23:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Caveat 2: This should not be claimed to be saying "all non-admins have always been perfect users" or anything. Nobody is - critics are not, users are not. It is saying that the overwhelming norm in recent months is that most of these users - and even for the few difficult ones, most of the time - have actually acted well within a good standard of conduct, and have done so consistently. If there are problems again in future it is now more likely they can be easier dealt with in a more useful manner. FT2  23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)