Wikipedia:Wikivoices/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.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/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> :-)