| Revision as of 17:31, 23 May 2007 editHipocrite (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,615 edits →Not private: not private← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:16, 17 July 2024 edit undoHex (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators25,358 edits {{Old XfD multi}}Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
| (413 intermediate revisions by 67 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talk page of redirect}} |
|
==Wording== |
|
|
Under "purpose", David Gerard prefers the wording, "You might be wrong!" Two other editors prefer, "You might be wrong about whether or not you really have a consensus, and you will be held responsible for anything you do, regardless of the IRC discussion that preceded it." Anyone else have an opinion? --]]] 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{old XfD multi |
|
:Under "purpose", one of the channel wizards worded it a given way, and zero channel wizards disputed this - ] 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| date = 23 May 2007 |
|
|
| page = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins}| result ='''Keep''' |
|
|
| date2 = 27 December 2007 |
|
|
| result2 = '''Keep''' (nomination withdrawn) |
|
|
| page2 = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (2nd nomination) |
|
|
| date3 = 5 Feb 2008 |
|
|
| page3 = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) |
|
|
| result3 = '''Merge and redirect''' to ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{archives}} |
|
:Furthermore, please reread ]. If they don't understand already, they're not clueful enough to be admins. - ] 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hmm, that's way too harsh. Sorry for being asslike there. What I mean is, this is a description of what the channel is for, and that includes assuming good judgement already exists. If we have to detail good judgement, the reader shouldn't be on the channel. If we have to detail the penalties for cluelessness, the reader shouldn't be on the channel. If someone proves to be clueless on the channel, I kick them off - ] 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I should of course note that this has yet to happen. Though could the log leaker please cool it? Thanks - ] 15:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Incomprehensible== |
|
|
I consider myself reasonably computer literate, but the instructions at Sean Whitton's toolserver start off by asking "Register your nickname on freenode using the information . You must register and link an alternate nickname and set an e-mail address.". The associated link to http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#nicksetup advises that to register one needs to "/msg nickserv register <your-password>". I'm being dense here, but the page has no entry box to enter this into, nor gives any clue as to some other program to use... ] <sup> ] </sup> 03:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:What program do you use? There should be an input box at the bottom under the channel window (i.e. where you type to talk). ] ] 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Computers are stupid, annoying and don't work. IRC is no exception. There's a reason IM gained popularity the way IRC never did - ] 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:A lot of people make a lot of money from computers being stupid. :) (points at self and David too). Well anyway, I use ChatZilla as an IRC client, it works well with Firefox... there are lots of others, you can get some idea if you read the main ] article. Hope that helps. ++]: ]/] 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cloaks == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully someone can clear this up for me - why are cloaks being required for access? <code>/cs access #wikipedia-en-admins add user 5</code> should work just as well whether cloaked or not. Would it not make sense just to require users to be identified? ]''']''' 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Cloaks are not required (unless they are for new users). I don't have one. ] 02:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I know that they aren't required for physical access <code>/cs invite #wikipedia-en-admins</code>, but am wondering why they are being required on this page for no seemingly good reason... ]''']''' 06:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::For my convenience mostly ;-) They're not mandatory, but they're still a good idea - ] 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You have to have a cloak to get an invite exemption (so you don't have to self invite every time) is how it was explained to me way back when. I don't think we give invite exemptions any more, or at least I heard a rumor to that effect, something about too many being a drag on servers, or hard to administer, or something, I forget. Second, I at least intend not to give channel access unless you either have a cloak, or are online at the time I grant it and can satisfy me of your bonafides. (I use the "mail you a silly but unique phrase via your onwiki email and make you parrot it back to me" test, and I get to your onwiki email by going to your successful RfA)... I do think they're a good idea in and of themselves too. Hope that helps.++]: ]/] 11:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Lizards, monkeys and picture == |
|
|
|
|
|
<catmacro license=gfdl>I APPROVE OF THIS EDIT</catmacro> - ] 04:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not private == |
|
|
|
|
|
Users on this channel should be aware that unencrypted text sent over a web of servers via an insecure server/client structure is not private. Beyond this, they should have no expectation of privacy if they do wrong things, like, say, going on an insane blocking spree. I have removed the expectation of privacy. ] - ] 13:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Erm, I humbly object. There's an established tradition of communicating logs to the arbitration committee when necessary, but we simply cannot have a policy here that contradicts freenode policy. You should revert yourself. ] ] 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
** I disagree. We can certainly have a policy here that contradicts freenode policy. Freenode policy is binding only on signatories to that policy. "The Wikimedia Foundation," has not bound themselves to any such policy. Beyond that, as a Section 230 service provider, we are neither the publisher nor speaker of material on the site. ] - ] 14:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*** The foundation doesn't have to. The foundation has nothing to do with this. When I use freenode's services I consent to their terms of service, just as I do with Misplaced Pages. If I violate those terms of services I can expect to be banned from either site. ] ] 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**** Yes, users who repost logs on wikipedia may face sanction at freenode, though I do not see a freenode policy prohibiting this. Users who repost logs on wikipedia might be banned from the channel because the channel has no relation to wikipedia at all and may have policies that are at odds with a 💕 that anyone can edit. They will not, however, face sanction at wikipedia, because wikipedia does not prohibit reposting IRC logs. ] - ] 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
***** Let me see if I understand you. You are encouraging the creation of a policy whose intent is to undermine the policies of an unrelated site so that events which have no relation to Misplaced Pages may be published on Misplaced Pages–none of which has anything to do with the encyclopedia itself? Is this correct? ] ] 17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
****** If this has nothing to do with the encyclopedia, why do we have this page? Why was there a prior statement informing editors that some irc channel totally unrelated to wikipedia was "private?" ] - ] 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
******The existance of this page sure makes it seem like this chat room ''does'' have something to do with Misplaced Pages. ] ] 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Does this page need to be on Misplaced Pages? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I realize there's no making the ''channel'' go away, but why have a page referring to it? It has no official connection to Misplaced Pages, right? Why should this be mentioned on a project page any more than any other chat room should be mentioned? If it's unofficial, let's have it be unofficial. ] ] 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Depends what one means by official. I know some WikiProjects have their own IRC channels and mention them on the project pages--are these official? ] ] 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:What I'm getting at is: I was about to reach for the MFD button, and I thought it would be polite to raise the question here first. Make this a "Wikiproject:James's chat room buddies" or something, then. Make it clear that it's just another chatroom, out of the millions. People thinking this room has ''anything'' at all to do with Misplaced Pages causes us problems, with no offsetting advantage. If I want to promote ''my personal'' chatroom, Misplaced Pages is not the place for it. ] ] 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Call it what you like. No one regards the channel as official, and if the administrator whose actions caused this had actually ''read'' this page he'd have known better. I'd rather have a page making it clear what the situation is–we didn't use to have one, and people were unclear where they stood. We all know how effective that was. ] ] 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Jimbo == |
|
|
|
|
|
It was alleged that the privacy of this travesty was done by fiat of Jimbo. Is this accurate or not? ] - ] 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*I'm not aware of Jimbo ordering up any travesty by fiat. Please don't beg the question. ] ] 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
