Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help

Chzz's comments

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)

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)

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