Wikipedia:Not The Wikipedia Weekly/Episode 27

Episode 27 A 'special' from the world of IRC, so there's no audio! - just a 'log' to follow below. We're working on a 'reading' of the log by the NTWW crew, so your suggestions for casting are appreciated on the talk page! This is a conversation held with some regulars of the admins only channel of the english wikipedia - answering a few questions, and talking about all aspects of the channel. Running time was actually about 1hr, but you'll have to figure out for yourself any awkward pauses etc.! It is important to note that not every single response directly relates to the preceding post - this is part of the nature of real-time textual communication, but you kind of get used to reading it after a while! Update ! - A virtual 'meeting' is being planned to discuss the IRC group contacts.

Date and time

18th July 2008

Topics discussed in this episode

• The admins IRC channel
  • Historical reference: Arbitration Committee intervention (2007)

Participants

• User:Privatemusings

+ per log.

Log / Episode 27

<privatemusings> g'day folks...

<privatemusings> feels a bit odd to be saying 'welcome to a not the wikipedia weekly' in this form - but here we are!

<Ryanpostlethwait> g'day

<NotALampshade> g'night :-)

<privatemusings> we've got 16 folk here in this 'unofficial' IRC channel to discuss some aspects of the 'official' admins IRC channel....

<NotALampshade> (Not going, though.)

=-= Random833 is now known as Random832

<Random832> that gets me every time - stupid irc client

-->| ChetBLong (n=blongy@unaffiliated/chetblong) has joined #noten-admins

<privatemusings> thanks for coming one and all - I'm gonna try and sort of 'lead' this discussion, but feel free to pipe up etc. as you see fit....

<ChetBLong> O_o

<nihiltres> makes me wonder, anyone here who's *not* an admin?

<ChetBLong> * O_O

* ChetBLong is an admin ;)

<Seddon> me

<privatemusings> first things first - you guys all hang out in the admins channel quite a bit?

<ChetBLong> hey privatemusings

<ChetBLong> yes

<Rjd0060> yes

<Seddon> no

<Random832> eh - idle mostly recently

<Seddon> :P

<Ryanpostlethwait> Yeah, we do. when we're on-wiki, we all tend to be in there

<east718> Idle mostly.

* privatemusings knows that the rest of yous do too!

<nihiltres> yes, whenever I'm on IRC

<ChetBLong> Seddon: heh you can't

<Seddon> :(

<Ryanpostlethwait> We're not constantly discussing in the channel!

<ChetBLong> :P

<nihiltres> though I use IRC intermittently

<Prodego> yes

<MBisanz> yea, I use it

<nihiltres> and lurk :)

<privatemusings> and some of you will know that I've asked a couple of times about popping in with a 'guest pass'

<MBisanz> but it can be quiet a good deal

<Ryanpostlethwait> yup

<privatemusings> first lets cover why the channel folk thought that was not really gonna work....

<MBisanz> maybe the chanops could identify themselves?

<Random832> there always seem to be one or two voices saying you can't be trusted

<MBisanz> since they are the ones who technically make the decisions

<Prodego> I doubt that there even are any actually

<Rjd0060> there are only 2 here, I believe... Ryanpostlethwait and tawker

<Prodego> I did create a list a while back

<Prodego> oh, are there 2, that is more than I expected

<privatemusings> actually... maybe that's a bit of an unnecessarily hot potato to kick off!

<Prodego> (here that is)

<Ryanpostlethwait> It defeats the purpose of the channel. The reason why we have a closed channel is because we have to discuss sensitive things in there sometimes (such as deleted revs and BLP vio's). All the admins have access to this material - you could say they are trusted with it

<ChetBLong> by the community on wiki

<privatemusings> we'll come back to the 'who has access' thing in a bit...

<tawker> however, historically, the channel is very leaky

<tawker> it's not considered "secure"

<privatemusings> but p'raps we should talk a bit about why it's useful...

<privatemusings> is it?

<ChetBLong> yes it is leaky

<Ryanpostlethwait> Allowing users in who haven't got any proven community trust would mean we couldn't discuss these things

<ChetBLong> the last thing we need is more leaks

<Prodego> it isn't really useful, it is just a nice place to hang out with other admins

<Ryanpostlethwait> It's useful because it allows up to discuss emergency issues in real time

<Prodego> and perhaps you can discuss ongoing issues

<nihiltres> real-time is the big thing

<privatemusings> is it quite a social place?

<ChetBLong> I agree it is nice during emergencies

<nihiltres> oh yes

<Rjd0060> yes

<ChetBLong> privatemusings: yes

<east718> I find the signal-to-noise ratio quite higher than the other Wikimedia channels.

<Prodego> yes

<nihiltres> it's often off-topic :p

<privatemusings> I would think there's a fair bit of friendy banter along with 'work' stuff....

<Prodego> such as right now

* east718 is so late... :(

<Ryanpostlethwait> A few days ago, when RickK and Zoe's accounts were compromised, we had a quick discussion about what to do, and took it to the stewards channel to get the accounts desysopped

<ChetBLong> heh we vary in discussion

<Ryanpostlethwait> it would have been a farce to do it on-wiki

<Rjd0060> There are no edit conflicts on IRC, which is a big deal :)

<Random832> yeah

<ChetBLong> heh yeah

<nihiltres> yeah, that's certainly a big deal

<Random832> but we [well, you, i wasn't there] could have done that without this channel

<Rjd0060> (i.e.: the real-time thing)

<nihiltres> IRC beats wiki on pure speed

<Random832> could have been in a public channel in that instance

<privatemusings> we were chatting the other day, and someone compared it to a 'teachers lounge'

<nihiltres> *on-wiki, that is

<privatemusings> does that analogy ring true for you guys?

<Ryanpostlethwait> Random832: Of course we could, but it allows the people with a bit of clue to coordinate

<nihiltres> more or less

<ChetBLong> hmm kinda bot not totally

<Random832> i had a thought

<Ryanpostlethwait> they know the procedures about how to deal with emergency situations

<Random832> could we have an open channel and create private channels as-needed?

<Prodego> not really

<Prodego> it would be a mess

<Random832> there's no reason the socializing aspect has to be in a secret channel, and I think it drives a wedge between admins and the rest of the community

<Ryanpostlethwait> like #wikimedia-ops and #wikimedia-ops-internal ?

<nihiltres> it shouldn't be looked upon as a privilege. it's more "you're trusted, here we can openly discuss sensitive things"

<Random832> *private channel - everyone knows it exists after all - typo

<nihiltres> that's always been the way I've seen it

<nihiltres> exactly

<Prodego> Random832: isn't that #wikipedia-en you are talking about? :/

<privatemusings> east mentioned that the signal to noise is pretty good on the channel....

<Prodego> that is exactly how it is

<privatemusings> on a scale of one to ten - how much conversation is 'work' would you say?

<ChetBLong> Random832: a lot of the people in #en-admins are in -en as well

<nihiltres> it varies

<ChetBLong> and the people who don't want to be in -en shouldn't have to be in it

<Random832> well

<Ryanpostlethwait> privatemusings: Most dicussion is on-topic

<Random832> there's lots of talk about wikipedia

<Ryanpostlethwait> but most isn't work

<ChetBLong> creating another channel to mimic -en wouldn't help any it would just create a mess

<Ryanpostlethwait> Wikipedia-en is random, -en-admins is fairly focussed on WP

<Random832> how much of that is stuff that is sensitive - or admin business at all - I couldn't say

<Prodego> friendly discussion and debate of things sometimes

<nihiltres> there's a lot of stuff that could probably be public

<tawker> Ryanpostlethwait: I'd disagree

<privatemusings> so if we sort of identify the 'quick response' nature of IRC as a strength - it's a sort of 'once in a while' thing...

<tawker> it's off topic a lot too

<nihiltres> but it can shift quickly

<Ryanpostlethwait> tawker: Nowhere near as much a -en

<ChetBLong> yeah the admins channel is more on-topic than -en

<privatemusings> very useful when necessary - and that's once every few days or so?

<tawker> well, it's hard to say

<tawker> maybe once a day

<ChetBLong> privatemusings: actually closer than that sometimes

<ChetBLong> especially if you want to discuss a block or unblock

<ChetBLong> etc

<Pilotguy> privatemusings: Really the point is it's no longer served its original purpose

<privatemusings> what was that, would you say?

<nihiltres> Pilotguy: how so?

<ChetBLong> Pilotguy: hmm?

<ChetBLong> what was it's original purpose?

=-= Melos is now known as Melos-away

<Prodego> does it have a real purpose besides communication between admins? That is the purpose.

<nihiltres> that's precisely what I'd think

<Seddon> and to throw in a question should it have any other purpose

<privatemusings> actually.. chet's comments lead us quite nicely on the area of block discussion.....

<Pilotguy> The channel was originally created by Talrias for Danny to deal with urgent living biography issues.

<ChetBLong> it is called the admins channel for a reason and the admins are in it... seems like it fits its purpose

<Pilotguy> http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IRC_channels/wikipedia-en-admins&oldid=180085845

<nihiltres> hmm

<ChetBLong> Pilotguy: it has evolved of course

<privatemusings> pilot - we'll come back to that one, if we may - it's interesting - but we'll go to the block thing first?

<privatemusings> do blocks and bans get discussed pretty regularly?

<ChetBLong> but it does serve it's current purpose

<privatemusings> (this is the 'sanity check' thing, I guess.....)

<ChetBLong> privatemusings: I can think of quite a few times when I wanted advice on blocks/unblocks

<nihiltres> yeah, it's a good acid-test that's fast enough to use before doing the admin action

<ChetBLong> it is really helpful to have everyone there who knows about it

<nihiltres> "hey, I'm thinking of doing such and such. Am I insane?"

<ChetBLong> instead of a channel of people who might not entirely know about policy

<ChetBLong> nihiltres: exactly

<privatemusings> and does that happen pretty frequently too - like every day?

<privatemusings> it sounds like admins use the channel for a bit of support?

<ChetBLong> hmmm probably so I mean it wouldn't surprise me, but I am not certain

<Prodego> that happens every few minutes

<ChetBLong> ok then my instinct was right :)

<Rjd0060> every few minutes? umm...I dont think so

<tawker> the channel is also used for operational planning

<tawker> vandals etc

<tawker> for example, gawp is being discussed right now

<privatemusings> just on the block thing for one more bit....

<Prodego> Rjd0060: not 3, but perhaps 90

<Rjd0060> Prodego: alright :)

<privatemusings> someone was also explaining to me that you guys definitely have a taboo on asking another admin to take an action?

=-= east718 is now known as east718|away

<nihiltres> hmm

<ChetBLong> no

<nihiltres> I don't think so

<Prodego> no

<ChetBLong> I've never heard that or saw it expressed in any way that I know of

<Prodego> that happens

<privatemusings> well lets dip into areas of misuse in the past...

<ChetBLong> ok

<privatemusings> if admin a popped up and said something along the lines of 'geez, I can't stand x - could you block him'

<Prodego> e.g. I reverted this edit, it looks like it is wrong, but it was reverted, could someone else check and revert if wrong?

<nihiltres> privatemusings: that's a pretty extreme case

<privatemusings> so the emphasis is on asking colleagues to check decisions?

<ChetBLong> privatemusings: not totally

<MBisanz> privatemusings, lets say I see an account adding links to a random website

<Random832> privatemusings: I've never seen it happen

<MBisanz> and the website is not in english

<Ryanpostlethwait> privatemusings: Not really. If you asked someone outright in the channel to block another editor, you'd probably get a pm off an op asking you not to

<MBisanz> I might ask if anyone can read that website

<privatemusings> that would make sense, MB

<tawker> Ryanpostlethwait: or a downright kick

<ChetBLong> privatemusings: nothing against policy happens there really

<Ryanpostlethwait> yup

<privatemusings> could I ask about kicks in general....

<Prodego> perhaps not an op, someone, but I don't think an op

<Prodego> it doesn't matter

<nihiltres> ChetBLong: don't know about that

<privatemusings> do ops have to use functions like that often?

<tawker> no

<Prodego> no one is ever kicked

<Prodego> I have never seen it

<nihiltres> policies can be bent, not merely broken/not broken

<ChetBLong> I have seen it a few times

<tawker> it has happened once or twice in 3 years that I've seen

<privatemusings> one last thing about the aspet of the channel related to block discussions....

<privatemusings> there was an interesting question at Kirill's (an arb) RfC;

<privatemusings> http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kirill_Lokshin#Questions

<privatemusings> it's the last one - asked by Giano.. where he mentions "that wikipedia is policed from an external channel over which it claims to have no control"

<privatemusings> just wanted to hear any responses from the channel itself!

<Random832> I've never liked the fact that the group contacts don't seem to answer to anyone

<Ryanpostlethwait> There's no policing going on there

<Random832> and that goes beyond en-admins

<Prodego> that was not talking about -admins

<Prodego> and certainly doesn't describe -admins

<Ryanpostlethwait> If you want policing, that happens on AN/I

-->| kylu (n=kylu@wikimedia/Kylu) has joined #noten-admins

<Ryanpostlethwait> We have a lot of disucssion about content

<ChetBLong> that definitely is not what -admins is about

<privatemusings> I think the talking about block discussions could, in some legitimate perspectives, be described as 'policing'?

-->| WJBscribe (n=wjbscrib@wikipedia/WJBscribe) has joined #noten-admins

<Ryanpostlethwait> They don't happen in the channel

<Ryanpostlethwait> they really don't

* kylu waves to WJBscribe.

<privatemusings> ryan - I mean the discussions about checking decisions etc.

<Ryanpostlethwait> It's a tough one

<Ryanpostlethwait> Someone might be about to block a user as a VoA, and ask for a second opinion

<ChetBLong> the channel isn't really like some rumors might make it out to be...

<Ryanpostlethwait> but established user blocks don't get discussed

<privatemusings> well lets go to the heart of this particular issue...

<Ryanpostlethwait> and if they start being discussed, the ops step in

<privatemusings> do you guys think the admins channel should be under the authority of arbcom in any way?

|<-- tawker has left irc.freenode.net ("out")

<Random832> I think there's a canvassing problem.

<MBisanz> afaik, jimbo has said it is under arbcom

<Random832> No, you don't say "do something about this guy"

<MBisanz> and the lead group contact is an arbcom member

<Random832> but people post diffs

<MBisanz> several arbs are super-ops in the channel

<Random832> and it's not an unbiased sample

<privatemusings> MB - leaving the confusion in that matter aside for a sec... do you agree that it should be?

<Ryanpostlethwait> privatemusings: Well, it doesn't really matter, because there's no problems that arbcom would have to fix

<MBisanz> so I'd say the arbcom has a pretty firm grip if it felt the need to do something

<Ryanpostlethwait> I think like the idea that it should be

<Ryanpostlethwait> but I would hope it would never have to step in

<Rjd0060> MBisanz: Sean isn't the one in charge, technically

<Rjd0060> James is

<kylu> privatemusings: I think MBisanz is stating that it's not a "should be or not" as much as "It certainly is under arbcom control" now.

<Ryanpostlethwait> If arbcom wanted something done, they could easily get it done

<Random832> is it?

<Random832> if the majority of the committee wanted to do something

<MBisanz> rjd0060, james_f is an arb

<privatemusings> that's why I wanted to do a bit of a simple straw poll now....

<Random832> and James did not

<Pilotguy> No one is in charge

<Random832> would it get done?

<Ryanpostlethwait> James would follow the committee

<privatemusings> perhaps I'll ask a yes / no question, and try to get your responsed... :-)

<nihiltres> IRC is not a big deal unless it gets abused

<ChetBLong> ok..........

<MBisanz> also, pm, legally I suspect the WMF would have an excellent claim to the channels

<kylu> Random832: group contacts aren't "bosses" on freenode.

<MBisanz> and james_f is head of some committee for communication stuff

<privatemusings> "Should the admins channel, in some way, be under the authority of the arbcom"

<privatemusings> My answer : Yes.

<Ryanpostlethwait> yes

<Prodego> group contacts represent wikipedia, and are subject to it

<Prodego> that is important to note

<nihiltres> yes and no

* privatemusings spots a non 'yes / no' answer!

<kylu> Prodego: that 's not wikipedia policy, that's freenode policy

<ChetBLong> not really

<privatemusings> well lets slow down a bit....

<ChetBLong> so I say no

<Prodego> kylu: official channels # mean you have a legal claim to it

<privatemusings> kylu - I understand your points - but I think it might be useful to answer the question directly - from your perspective.....?

<kylu> please don't say "legal claim" okay?

<kylu> there's no "legal claim" ... it's network policy, not a law question

<nihiltres> ArbCom is for arbitration. If it comes to arbitration, IRC is probably a moot point. No-one's going to RFAR without onwiki stuff being a problem

<Random832> and the other thing is

<Random832> WMF doesn't want the liability

<privatemusings> thoughts, WJBScibe?

<Seddon> kylu, they have a claim to the name Wikipedia surely?

* privatemusings did notice you come in - should have said g'day.....

<Prodego> kylu: but that is the policy

<kylu> Seddon: try to get them to close the #wikipedia channel on dalnet.

<kylu> won't happen.

<Prodego> I don't mean that they legally control the channel

<Random832> WMF hardly ever steps in _on-wiki_, you think they're going to do anything on IRC?

-->| Pilotguy_ (n=CVNstaff@wikinews/pilotguy) has joined #noten-admins

<Random832> they only step in where they have to - and on IRC, when they're not responsible for it, they never have to

<Prodego> I mean it is theirs because freenode says # channels are official, and they legally control the term "wikipedia", perhaps I wasn't clear

<kylu> they have a trademark on the term, when not diluting that trademark, they have no control over the term, Prodego.

<privatemusings> ok.. scrolling up, I think we had only a couple of very clear answers....

<privatemusings> perhaps I could try and persuade a few more! :-)

<kylu> if you want to make a book on wikipedia, you can use the term without permission.

<Prodego> that is what I am trying to say, it is freenode's policy, not law

<kylu> otherwise, it'd be prior restraint.

<WJBscribe> privatemusings: what are you asking me for my thoughts on exactly?

<privatemusings> "Should the admins channel, in some way, be under the authority of the arbcom"

<Random832> can we drop the name control issue

<Prodego> yea, sure

<Seddon> dito

<kylu> anywho, enwiki arbcom has a baliwick of influence/control over any channel starting with wikipedia-en

<privatemusings> my feeling is that some of these issues demonstrate some pretty muddy waters surrounding the status of the channel...

<kylu> other channels (wikimedia-commons and wikimedia-stewards, for instance) have their own control structures which do not include arbcom but pertain to the specific project.

<nihiltres> as I said earlier: "ArbCom is for arbitration." Onwiki concerns will always accompany a request for arbitration related to IRC. ArbCom should stay onwiki

<WJBscribe> mmm, "in some way" is rather vague. I would say that it is at the moment. The group contact is a member of ArbCom as are several ops. I suspect the WMF can replace the group contact and would do so on ArbCom's recommendation (though that is speculation on my part)

<--| Rjd0060 has left #noten-admins

<WJBscribe> So I think instructions from ArbCom about conduct in this channel are likely to be enforced.

<Prodego> do the group contacts control all wikipedia channels? or just en

<privatemusings> do you think they should be authoritative?

<Random832> WJBscribe: but should "giving instructions about conduct in this channel" be a role arbcom has in the first place, I think is what he's asking

<WJBscribe> For example, I suspect that if ArbCom requested that someone's access to the #en-admins-channel be terminated, it would be.

<privatemusings> as in have no option but to be enforced (rather like a desysop on-wiki, for example)

<Seddon> Should en.wiki Arbcom have mandate over all projects IRC, in my opinion no?

<Ryanpostlethwait> The fact of the matter is, as a group of people, we go move onto another IRC network, and ArbCom would have no jurisdiction over us at all

<nihiltres> WJBscribe is right in that ArbCom has authority enough to effect changes on IRC

<kylu> Seddon: of course not, only the ones pertaining to en.wikipedia

<Ryanpostlethwait> We just choose to chat on freenode, where arbcom probably can

<WJBscribe> I think the connection between #en-admins and the English Wikipedia is such that ArbCom should have some authority yes.

<kylu> Ryanpostlethwait: only on enwiki channels. :)

<Ryanpostlethwait> yeah, sorry

<WJBscribe> In a way ArbCom's authority on enwiki only derives from the fact that users respect and follow their decisions.

<privatemusings> I guess the limits of the 'some' are very important there, WJB....

<WJBscribe> The same users who respect and follow their decisions are members of the channel.

<kylu> if arbcom came to my CVN channels and tried to tell me what to do, I'd start removing them from the channel, frankly.

<privatemusings> lets go onto the thorny 'access' questions...

<nihiltres> indeed

<privatemusings> (and I reckon we'll go about 10mins more...?)

<privatemusings> first up - any current admin can visit the channel at any time, correct?

<kylu> not technically, it requires that they be added to the access list first, of course

<kylu> not all admins even use irc.

<privatemusings> sure... so there's a technical hurdle..

<ChetBLong> hmmm as far as I know although there have been discussions about different peoples access

<privatemusings> but any admin wishing to gain access would certainly gain 'permission'....

<Ryanpostlethwait> yup

<nihiltres> but if an admin uses IRC then they're generally added

<ChetBLong> of course as kylu said they have to get access first though

<Ryanpostlethwait> basically

<kylu> unless they violated channel rules, of course.

<ChetBLong> which one of is no logging :|

<kylu> such as channel disruption ("vandalism" in wiki parlance)

<kylu> ChetBLong: that's not a well enforced provision.

<nihiltres> e.g. flooding

<Seddon> kylu, would excessive discussion regarding users be included as wel?

<ChetBLong> kylu: which is why I had a " :| " after the comment

<Seddon> in bad light

<Random832> I don't think it's ever happened

<Random832> so it's hard to say what would or wouldn't prompt it - I don't think anything's written down

<kylu> Seddon: incivility against others (including others not present) and plotting actions against them is strictly prohibited.

<Seddon> ok cool just wanted to clarify that :)

<kylu> Random832: there's a set of rules in cbrown's userspace soemwhere, see the irc guidelines tinyurl

<Prodego> anhttp://martinp23.com/ea-info.html

<Prodego> http://martinp23.com/ea-info.html

<nihiltres> yay, much better

* privatemusings is just on a phone call...

<kylu> has such happened in the past? sure. Do people gripe from time to time? yes, understandably, but if they expound, they are reminded of the rules first.

<kylu> continuing abuse results in a channel operator (like myself) removing them.

<Random832> kylu: yeah well there's not a specific list of what will or won't get someone's access removed

* ChetBLong hangs up privatemusings' phone call

<kylu> Random832: there's no CSD for blocks on-wiki either.

<kylu> no "Block reason J3: Repeated use of the word 'bitch' on WP:ANI"

<kylu> however it's understood that such behavior can have on-wiki consequences.

<Random832> There are clear reasons that are discussed in the blocking policy though

<kylu> and we constantly run into exceptions which are upheld

* privatemusings is back....

<Random832> there's no general understanding of what degree of consequence it is to have your access removed

<Random832> which is in part because it hardly ever happens

<Ryanpostlethwait> right guys, I'm going to have to go

<Ryanpostlethwait> I'll see you all soon

<Random832> bye

<Ryanpostlethwait> privatemusings: Thanks for sorting this out :-)

<privatemusings> thanks for coming, Ryan...

<kylu> which is fortunate, since lately we've not been terribly abusive on channel.

<nihiltres> see you later Ryan :)

|<-- Ryanpostlethwait has left irc.freenode.net ("ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0/2008052906]")

<privatemusings> (and for the record.. Ryan helped a lot in setting this up...... thanks!)

<kylu> repeated offenses may, as I said, be resolved by access removal.

<privatemusings> the tricky bit relates to ex-admins, I guess...

<MBisanz> privatemusings, since this is going to go on wiki

<MBisanz> i'd like to point out there is a public channel

<MBisanz> #wikipedia-en-admins-ops

<MBisanz> where any user may address issues with the channel

<MBisanz> behavioral or otherwise

<privatemusings> yeah... they've been very friendly and open with me....

<privatemusings> thanks, MB...

|<-- Pilotguy has left irc.freenode.net (Connection timed out)

<privatemusings> so could I ask if any ex-admins are currently regularly accessing the channel?

=-= Pilotguy_ is now known as Pilotguy

<MBisanz> privatemusings there is a list onwiki

<MBisanz> of which non-admins have access

<MBisanz> i'd suggest you contact them to ask them

<WJBscribe> Do you mean admins who were desysopped or ones who resigned but may have their tools restored on request?

<MBisanz> as I am not sure the privacy rules would permit it

<privatemusings> well either...

<WJBscribe> There are certainly a number of people who don't presently have admin rights but could ask for them back.

<kylu> WJBscribe: IMO, admins who voluntarily had tools removed are still admins in any meaningful sense of the word.

<privatemusings> I guess that's folk like Kim Bruning?

* privatemusings waves at Kim :-)

<WJBscribe> yes

<WJBscribe> kylu: I would agree, but I think the question needed qualifying

<privatemusings> and in the former group - admins desysopped?

<kylu> I suspect that is up to arbcom to decide.

<WJBscribe> no names spring to mind, but the channel list is at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines_%28user_info%29

<nihiltres> hmm

<WJBscribe> Does anyone know if that's up to date?

<privatemusings> actually.. I think I saw that any IRC user can actually check the 'live' list

<WJBscribe> Yes, that's right

<Random832> http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines_(user_info) - names in boldface are not admins. I assume you can see for yourself what the circumstances under which each one gave up their bit are.

<WJBscribe> Though the onwiki page has the advantage of linking nicks to usernames

<WJBscribe> They're not always obvious

<privatemusings> so there's certainly complete openness with who is 'allowed' in....

<privatemusings> I suppose the issue is procedural in some ways then...

<ChetBLong> yes

<privatemusings> do we think a user 'desysopped' by arbcom should have their channel access rescinded as a matter of course?

<Random832> I think there are special circumstances in some cases

<nihiltres> privatemusings: I imagine that privacy would be an issue, though in terms of that openness

<Random832> to some extent it depends on the reason

<nihiltres> indeed

<Random832> and, if someone's still an admin on meta or commons it may be a good idea to have them on

<ChetBLong> privatemusings: usually yes, because a lot of desysopped people could try and leak things to spite... of course that's just my opinion

<MBisanz> also it is not a very busy channel

<MBisanz> so in many cases, a user, admin or not, may not visit for weeks or months at a time

<privatemusings> just to wrap up now...

<privatemusings> I thought I'd say that my own perspective is that the levels of confusion about channel control, and acces etc. have really done its reputation no favours!

<Prodego> it isn't so much confusion, as it is that it is informal

<privatemusings> also - there's a worry that some of the conversation that goes on may slide in inappropriate directions...

<privatemusings> that said.. obviously in a 'private' area - there's going to have to be some trust that what goes on is for the good of the project....

<privatemusings> overall - do you guys think that the channel does help the project?

<Seddon> yes

<Seddon> :):P

<nihiltres> yes, most definitely

* privatemusings is really opening the floor to closing thoughts......

<nihiltres> real-time communication is invaluable to admin actions

<ChetBLong> yes the channel is definitely useful

<nihiltres> often ANI and similar fora are all too slow/crowded

<ChetBLong> in some cases I don't know what I would do without it

<nihiltres> not to mention more strictly serious

<nihiltres> ;)

<privatemusings> well thanks for coming, one and all.....

<ChetBLong> g'day privatemusings

<ChetBLong> say hey to Durova for me

* ChetBLong doesn't get on Skype much anymore

<privatemusings> we'lre going to stop the public logging now.. so we can go back to that conversation about who's going to block Jimbo for kicks....

<privatemusings> :-)