Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Community Portal/Aristeo and Irc

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.
This is a major community-wide discussion that has been resolved. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Protection policy confliction

I don't want to get too involved, since I'm retired and everything, but a couple people wanted me to bring this to light.

I was exploring the site, half-bored, half-exhausted, when I stumbled upon a series of pages that Daveh left in the "Full Protection" category but did not protect. I brought this to the attention of Nephele in IRC, recommending that she leave a message on Daveh's talk page asking if he meant to protect those pages. Nephele felt that it was unnecessary, and proceeded to protect the pages.

Moments later, I noticed that none of the protected pages were covered by any of the criteria on the Protection Policy. I told Nephele about this in IRC, and she disagreed, saying "I'd say they fit under 'high sensitivity': they are financial records". Since these records could be reverted just like any other page, I asked her "If a vandal went through the records and put some false information in them, would it be an inconvienence or a catastrophy?" She never answered my question, but she did ask me to bring this to the attention of everyone else.

Does the protection policy need to change so that these protections are "legal"? Was she right in her analysis that these pages are highly sensitive? Does a rule need to exist, like Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Ignore all rules rule, that allows people to ignore the rules as long as they are acting in the interest of the site? If someone with the intent of harming the site went through the financial records and placed false information in them, would it be an inconvienence or a catastrophy?

--Aristeo | Talk 16:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I checked the pages and full protection seems appropriate to me. I agree they fall in same group as the copyright page. While I agree that they're not as sensitive as the copyright pages (which govern all contributions to the site and should not be messed with, even briefly), they're also clearly pages which no ordinary user (in fact not even non-Dave admins) should be editing, so full protection seems exactly correct. --Wrye 16:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Someone may want to correct a typo or adjust the categories of these pages. I realise that no one should adjust the actual content without Daveh's approval, but someone may need to perform some sort of maintenance to them and wouldn't be able to if they were protected.
Let me ask you this: What makes you feel that these pages are sensitive?
--Aristeo | Talk 17:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Aristeo, I think it is obvious that financial records go under the clause of 'Protecting pages with a high sensitivity' under the protection policy. This is nothing new. The precedent for protecting financial pages was set by User:Daveh on November 22, 2005 when he protected UESPWiki:Site Costs and UESPWiki:Donate. This decision by Daveh, the owner of the site was confirmed by you when you added them to the Category:Full_Protection on October 19, 2006, the same day you created the category. The precedent was upheld by the community from February 8-13, 2007 on the UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Protected_Pages when you proposed unblocking them. On top of all that Daveh himself added all of pages Nephele protect to the Full Protection Category, which seems to indicate that he wished them to be protected. Also, in the future, I would recommend the couple of people that wish this to be brought to light, speak on their own. I also think that your use of IRC logs is inappropriate, since you said yourself, "The IRC room is good for fast and informal discussions" (UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Irc_Discussion. If these discussions are to remain informal, I suggest we don't use quotes from IRC in discussions on the wiki, especially since some of your statements are misleading when compared to the actual conversation. --Ratwar 17:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
It seems to me that it would be much more useful to not speculate hypothetically about what might happen in the future. At the moment, it seems like there is sufficient reason to fully protect these pages; If Daveh disagrees, he is free to tell me that I misunderstood his intentions, and the situation can easily be fixed. If in the future an editor realizes that for whatever reason they think a change needs to be made to these pages (or any fully protected page) they can post a comment on the talk page, on the community portal, on the administrator noticeboard, on Daveh's talk page, on my talk page, or any of many other unprotected pages on the site. And then there can be a discussion and a decision can be made about what needs to be done. But trying to spend our time right now imagining every possible future scenario doesn't in my opinion help anybody. I'd rather spend my time helping editors with real questions that they have about how to improve this site's primary content (which is in the game-related namespaces, not the UESPWiki namespace). --NepheleTalk 17:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Based on the last two reactions I recieved, it would seem that I proposed to resurrect Hitler! Nephele and Ratwar: Try to address the issue, not whether or not I should have brought it up in the first place.

I understand that these are financial records. But what makes them so sensitive that they need full protection?

--Aristeo | Talk 18:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The reason I fully protected the expense/revenue records is that there is no reason for any, including Wiki admins, to edit these pages. I'm the currently the only one who has access to the information and there is no additional content on those pages. The only possible thing anyone could contribute on those pages is formatting. If I accidently fully protected a page that should be semi-protected or not protected at all I'm fine with reverting it. If anyone finds any errors or has suggestions for formatting these pages they can comment on the talk pages, or my talk page. If others feel the pages are better off semi-protected I'm fine with that as well. -- Daveh 18:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
With all due respect, sir, pages should not be protected because no one can contribute to the content. As you said, someone could contribute to the formatting, and as I pointed out, could adjust the categories or perform other necessary maintenance without having to go through an admin.
It's a common mistake for wikis to protect pages unnecessarily. I admit that I requested the protection of a few too many pages back when I was starting out on the wiki. However, most wikis consider over-protection to be harmful for many reasons, and it would be wise to trust the other editors of the site unless these pages truly are "highly sensitive". (Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4])
I ask again: What makes these pages so sensitive that they need full protection?
--Aristeo | Talk 18:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I would remind you and everyone that we are not other Wikis and do not necessarily share all of their policies. If you wish to discuss the protection policy here to clear it that is fine. I think that the reason "no one can contribute to the content (except the site admin)" is a perfectly good reason for page protection. Again, if the other admins disagree that is fine but that should be discuss on the protection take page. --

Question raised and answered. (In fact as Ratwar points out, Aristeo raised it before and it was answered the same way). Reasons for protecting the page have already been given. Aristeo just isn't convinced of them. I don't see any reason to repeat statements already given, nor of course is it necessary to convince Aristeo that every action undertaken at the site is the correct one. Let's leave Aristeo to his puzzlement and get on with our regular work. --Wrye 19:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No one explained it. Ratwar said that the answer was obvious, but went off on a tangent on how the decision was originally made and how IRC is for informal discussions. Nephele said that she didn't want to worry about future scenarios and said she just wants to focus on the main content. No one is saying what makes these pages highly sensitive, which leads me to the conclusion that they're not.
Also, Wrye, we don't have any need for your smart-ass remarks. If you don't want to help, that's fine, go eat a banana or something. Just don't interupt this discussion anymore.
I'd appreciate if we take care of this situation, whether that means we unprotect the pages or put something in the protection policy that states that financial records should be protected.
--Aristeo | Talk 20:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Aristeo, you yourself have said, "I realise that no one should adjust the actual content without Daveh's approval". Therefore I really don't see what your beef is. Even you agree that the financial records shouldn't be toyed with, now this seems to indicate that the pages should be protected unless there is an overriding reason to allow the pages to be edited. Personally, I don't think category changes that would happen (at most) once a year or typos which are just as rare on pages that are updated as infrequently as these are a good enough reason to leave them unprotected. In my previous message, I devoted a lot of times to two things, the previous consensus of the community that pages with financial records are highly sensitive and the way in which you decided to bring this matter to our attention. I think everyone would agree that the previous consensus is very relevant to the discussion at hands. As to the manner which you brought this up, I only did that because you spent the majority of your first statement talking about what lead to you bringing it up. If you didn't wish to discuss it, don't bring it up. --Ratwar 23:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll be more than happy to re-post my initial questions, as well as fill in the answers based on my responses.
  1. Does the protection policy need to change so that these protections are "legal"? (Answer: They're more of a guideline then they are a binding policy.)
  2. Was she right in her analysis that these pages are highly sensitive? (Answer: Who cares? We just don't want people messing with them.)
  3. Does a rule need to exist, like Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Ignore all rules rule, that allows people to ignore the rules as long as they are acting in the interest of the site? (No answer)
  4. If someone with the intent of harming the site went through the financial records and placed false information in them, would it be an inconvenience or a catastrophe? (Answer: It would definitely be an inconvenience, but since no one can edit them, it doesn't really matter. [see #1])
Ratwar and Wrye: Your responses were pretty big disappointments, but I guess I shouldn't have expected anything better. Sorry for the inconvenience, everyone.
--Aristeo | Talk 00:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Aristeo and Irc

=== MOVED TO... Looks like this is becoming another chapter in the Dispute and Wikiscroll saga. Recapping the recent events for those who missed them:

  • After the [[UESPWiki:#Protection_policy_confliction|Protection policy confliction]] exchange above, and in response to Aristeo's more derogatory and derisive comments there, Ratwar posted an official warning on Aristeo's talk page against making personal attacks.
  • Aristeo then deleted that warning (while adding a crude comment in the history section). Users are not supposed to delete official warnings.
  • Nephele then used the workaround that we have for editors who violate this rule -- repost the warning on the users main page in a way that they cannot delete it.
  • Aristeo then used his ownership priviledges (borrowed from Magnus) to remove Ratwar from operator status of the IRC channel.

Since Aristeo (no longer an adminisistrator and now under a warning for engaging in personal attacks on UESP talk pages) has ownership priviledges at #UESP and is willing to use them against people who he perceives as having offended him, and since none of the actual admins here has even operator privileges on that channel, the "officialness" of #UESP is pretty clearly in question.

A couple of course of action present themselves:

  1. Discuss with Magnus (actual owner of the channel) to synchronize operator privileges on the channel with admin status here. Removing Aristeo from borrowed ownership priviledges would also be indicated. Or...
  2. Start a new IRC channel, with ownership/operator privileges matching UESP admin status. Or...
  3. Abandon IRC altogether. (I personally don't use irc at all, but other admins and editors do.)

--Wrye 02:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I plan on discussing it with Magnus tomorrow. If problems still exist afterwards, and I don't think they will, I will start investigating other options to solve any conflicts between the wiki and the chatroom. Still, I don't think that this will be necessary. --Ratwar 02:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I've just blocked a vandal "I will not let you abuse your adminiship" and reverted his/her vandalism of the four admin's pages, plus the main Morrowind, Tribunal and Bloodmoon pages. My suspicion (which easily be wrong) is that this was Aristeo, given its timely response to the current discussion, and given the ummm... attitude about supposed abuse of admin privileges. However a couple of other people are possibles. Or it could have been a random vandal seizing the moment. I don't have checkip priviledge, so I can't do an ip check. --Wrye 03:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
The IP 195.175.37.70 resolves to an unknown site in Turkey, although Wikipedia says it could be an open proxy which seems likely under the circumstances. Technically we could just block that IP like Wikipedia does if it becomes an issue. -- Daveh 09:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm inclined to think we should perhaps block all of the open proxies identified by wikipedia [5]. I know it's a pretty long list, but if even wikipedia won't allowing editing from any of those open proxies then it doesn't seem like we should, either. And it also seems likely that whoever is responsible for this latest vandalism knows about these open proxies (either already did before this happened, or now does because of this thread), and is therefore liable to try again from another one. --NepheleTalk 12:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess I owe everyone an explanation.

  • I strongly believe that the official warning is frivolous. I also feel that a few additional people need official warnings of their own. I was upset by the general incivility and disparaging comments towards me when I tried to start a meaningful discussion, and it seems pretty silly that these people felt uncomfortable with my elevated tone.
  • Official warnings can be deleted, and I feel that there is no policy basis for Nephele to superglue the warning to my user page. Allow me to quote the relevant part of the blocking policy:
    If a user ends up modifying or deleting a posted warning or block notification, there is no need to reinstate the original message (such action is likely to provoke an unnecessary edit war). The original message continues to be valid even after being altered: the page's edit history provides verifiable evidence of the message's original text; the editor's modification confirms that the editor subsequently visited the page and saw the message. If a notification about an active block is deleted, a replacement message can be posted on the user's main page
  • Although it took a lot of effort on my part to talk myself into doing it, I gave Ratwar back his operator privileges for now. However, I still am going to discuss the matter with Magnus as soon as he's online.
  • I did not vandalise the wiki. I don't see why anyone would want to either, it only takes a second to clean up. I'm not the only person who disagrees with these three people. Feel free to do a user check on me if you don't believe me.

I no longer want to participate on this site. I put a lot of time and effort into this site; no matter where you look on the site you'll see something that I did. As a final request, at least because of all the work I've put into the wiki, I would highly appreciate if I could have full control of my user page again. I would like to leave with my former user page intact and without the "warning" or anything else taking away from it.

--Aristeo | Talk 12:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Re Aristeo's request to have the admin warning removed, I think it should stay.
  • This was not the first incident of personal abuse -- other incidents exist and are documented on the De-Adminship Request page.
  • Furthermore, his claim to "no longer want to participate on this site" is not credible since he made that claim back when he started Wikiscrolls at the beginning of this year and several times since. Yet he keeps coming back and involving himself in administrative issues (not editing).
  • Moreover, the point of a warning is not just to warn the user himself, but also to notify other users of his behavior.
--Wrye 13:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
What's the big deal about the warning? The people who need to know about the actions already known about it, and leaving it up just seems to be airing "dirty laundry". Besides, does the warning even MATTER anymore? Talon Lardner 18:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, the reason we like to keep the warning messages visible is that they dictate how future warnings or blocks will be handled (if it comes to that). But I am currently working on a way to change that, as part of a new archiving policy.
On another note, I spoke to Magnus, and my Op status is not in jeopardy at this time, so I don't think any more action about the IRC channel needs to be taken at this time. --Ratwar 19:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, in my opinion, the actions of all parties involved are deplorable -- both Aristeo's actions for stooping to this level, and the admins who not only blocked Aristeo for these actions, but are actively trying to embarass users that they dislike by posting permanent warnings on their user pages. It displays petty, childish and vindictive behavior, and is directly counter to the responsible behavior that should be displayed by people in a position of power. It's a complete turnoff, and not conducive to community development. Too bad -- this is a quality site and it's rapidly deteriorating into a high school "clique". Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. --12.150.153.2 09:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Exactly, that's how I'm starting to feel too... LOTS of scapegoatism going on, lots of public punishment for those who are "difficult", which is quite funny how someone whose crime has never harmed a single page on this site is the most punished, while pageblankers and vandalizers just get shooed away. --Talon Lardner 23:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Sensitive issues in IRC

Initial

As stated in the introductory paragraph of the main IRC page, one of the main reasons why our chatroom exists is to help strengthen the relationships of the community. As a subsidiary to this purpose, we do things as constructive as helping each other and our visitors with quests and glitches and organizing projects for the wiki, and we also goof off, play around, roleplay and pretend, and act silly.

Sometimes, however, the channel has been used to settle or discuss disputes based on the wiki. Although it's nice to resolve disputes, especially the long-lived ones, the process of doing so is excruciating. A few of us become too worked up when recollecting these disputes, which creates a hostile environment in the chatroom for everyone else. Anything that creates a hostile environment and alienates our community is against the core philosophy of bringing the community together.

For the reasons above and with the approval of the captain, any sensitive discussion that may cause stress to your fellow chatters is officially banned from the channel.

--Aristeo 01:10, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

So much for freedom of speech, I guess. --RpehTalk 07:28, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

You're more than welcome to talk to other users in private message in any way you like, as long as you don't break the network rules. And of course, the recipients have the right to ignore your private messages as well. ;) --Aristeo 13:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

The UESP irc channel is not officially connected to UESP wiki. I.e., it's not "our channel". Overlap between channel operators and wiki sysops is small (just Ratwar). The uesp wiki doesn't set uesp channel policy or vice versa. And while many editors from the wiki hang out at or visit the channel, others don't (e.g., I, despite being second "oldest" sysop don't use it at all). While the channel can be useful for quick discussions and non-controversial coordination, any substantial issues regarding the wiki are best discussed on the wiki). (For some of the history and arguments behind this, see the Dispute and Wikiscrolls discussion, where dispute over irc discussion arose several times.) --Wrye 00:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
I think that's an excellent point, Wrye. --Ratwar 01:40, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Magnus 1

(I know I don't edit much on the Wiki, and most of might not know me but I am 'The Captain' or Magnus on IRC as well as here, owner of the channel and moderator on the forums. Also, excuse my formatting, I've yet to become very good at it.)

This is in reply to Wrye, to connect with the points/issues you've brought up I'll try to keep in order, however I do have a habbit of skipping around and being a bit unorganized.

For you saying that the IRC channel is not officially connected to UESP I think it is, I believe that either JangotheFett or myself asked and got permission from Daveh to call it the official channel (however, since my memory isn't the best I cannot confirm it, I just wanted you to know that it may actually be official.) You are right, the channel does not go by the policy of UESPWiki exactly or by the book, we do have our own policy and we believe that it follows the principles of the Wiki and the community very closely and may even be a bit more strict (we try to keep a PG or PG-13 rating in the channel at all times). We do not follow it so that it does not create conflicts. For example if we did follow the policies of the Wiki, say a person from the Wiki came in that is very 'important' ON the Wiki. Since we followed the Codes of Conduct for the Wiki they could believe (and probably rightfully so) that since they are 'important' to the Wiki they should at least somewhat run the 'show' on the channel like they do on the Wiki, this would cause a lot of conflicts and problems. The way we have it is so that people that we know are resourceful, and careful enough can run some of the show (hence our Op/Hop staff). We keep it this way to keep conflicts from arising in the channel that are in the Wiki. We want the channel to be a happy, peaceful place! As for you not coming into the channel, I cannot comment on this and of your opinion of its usefulness or that substanial issues regarding the wiki should be discussed on the Wiki. The channel is here for any kindof issues of the Wiki, it may not be for editing or information but just to make sure that the actual website is up and has been helpful/useful as a place people know they can get information from officially.

To go to why this seems to be here, namely our policy on stressful subjects. I've read the wording and I can see why you became a bit angry at it, but it was put in the wrong fashion it isn't truly like what it says. The way it is setup is that there isn't a big list of banned subjects (I don't have a "UESP TALK AND BAN.txt"). It is setup so that people come and discuss whatever they wish and IF it becomes heated (or it is OBVIOUSLY stressful from the start because of what is going on in the wiki) it will be asked to stopped.

It was put in place to strengthen our attempt to keep the conflicts from the Wiki entering and disturbing the channel, it isn't a iron fisted method of keeping only what we believe is right, just or fair it is just an attempt to make sure that a discussion doesn't breakout into a 'war' (so to speak) in the channel that started or involves the Wiki or any other stressful subject. As I've stated above, we just want a happy peaceful channel of ElderScrolls fans!


Sorry for the long drawn out piece there, but I thought that I should explain it the best I can. I'm not a master with words or getting my thoughts down (and I'm dreadful at explaining things). I'll be watching this and will try to reply to any comments. I'm just trying to show that the channel isn't a bad thing and that I think there has been a misunderstanding here. --Magnus

Wrye 1

Whether for good or ill the three UESP fora (wiki, forums and irc channel) operate and are governed pretty much independently of each other. While there is some crossover in participation (particularly between the wiki and the irc channel), there is no policy linking between the two, and so there is no basis for an "official" dependency of one on the other. If the irc policy was entirely dependent on the wiki community decision making process, or vice versa, then "official" would be accurate. However, this is not the case, so the best that we can say is "loosely connected".

Perhaps that seems rather abstract, so more solidly and clearly (as already mentioned), there is already little overlap between channel operators and wiki admins. More importantly, there is a prolonged history of antagonism between Aristeo (channel first lieutenant) and the pretty much the rest of the wiki. Aristeo has "left" and started his own competing wiki. He is moreover currently under a warning for his previous actions on this wiki. Obviously he is in no position to dictate official policy at this wiki -- and hence his status as channel operator is completely inconsistent with notion of the channel being "officially" connected to the wiki.

So, options are: 1) change #uesp to make it official, 2) start a new irc channel to be the official channel, or 3) have no official irc channel.

Option 1: I don't think that anyone is seriously interested in this. I'm not, nor are the other admins (AFAIK), nor are Magnus or Aristeo, I would imagine, nor I imagine would be the many users of it who are not wiki editors.
Option 2: It has been suggested that a new official uesp wiki channel be started that is geared specifically for people working on the wiki (rather than being a general elder scrolls community hang out area). If such a channel were created in which policy and admin/operatorship were tightly linked to the wiki, that would be the official uesp wiki channel.
Option 3: I personally would be perfectly happy to not have any official irc channel at all. My concern (for which there is a moderate amount of evidence) is that once there's an official channel, it starts being used in place of wiki talk pages. For trivial decisions ("I'll edit this, you edit that.") this isn't a problem, but for any discussion that's about the way things should be done on the wiki, it runs counter to the wiki way -- people who are less frequent contributors get locked out entirely (because they can't afford to be on irc all the time), conversations tend to get lost or intentionally edited (see the Dispute topics for instances). Also, I'm concerned to that an official irc tends to make the "in group" the group who hangs out on the channel -- instead of the people who edit the wiki. Metaphorically speaking: A coffee room is fine, but the people who hang out there 24/7 should not be the people running the company.

So, summarizing: UESP wiki and uesp irc channel are not currently officially connected. It may be desirable to set up a new, official uesp-wiki specific channel. However, neither (current)unofficial nor (possible future) official irc channels should be used for any substantial wiki decisisions -- for such discussions, the talk pages should be used instead. (Note: This last is now a new idea, but was discussed and roughly agreed to in the Dispute and Wikiscrolls topics.)

--Wrye 23:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Aristeo

I noticed that Wrye protected the page we were in disagreement over. What a wonderful way to stop an edit disagreement with someone -- prevent that person from editing the page. I am sure you won't find that technique endorsed by UESPWiki:Consensus or UESPWiki:Protection Policy. (Not that it matters, admins aren't bound by policy here.)

About four or five people who are regulars in the channel (Nephele, Ratwar, Rpeh, and Giamgiam, at least) are also regulars on the wiki. After taking a quick look at the recent changes, it seems to me that these four or five users are a moderate percentage of active, regular wiki editors, but "moderate" might not be good enough for some folks. On the other hand, the channel harbors a few people (Magnus, Andres, and myself) who do not care too much about editing this wiki.

#uesp is not only a hang-out place for editors, it is also a place where we help people who have difficulties with the game. As good of a resource that UESP is, it does not help everyone, and our channel is one way to help the remainder of people who cannot find what they are looking for. If we get rid of the channel, we are not just hurting the people who use the channel to get to know other UESPians on a personal level -- we are taking away a resource from the people who actually use this site.

However, if no one here wants to have an official channel, I am definitely not going to stand in the way. As soon as I can get a hold of Magnus, I will be talking to him about renaming the channel to something else. Hopefully, we can retain the useful parts of the chatroom that I glossed over above, and perhaps we can even keep the same members. And if someone will remove Wrye's protection, I will be more than happy to reflect the changes as they occur.

--Aristeo 05:17, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Nephele

I would like to try to keep this discussion focussed on issues related to IRC, rather than trying to address every aspect of the wiki in a single discussion. Therefore, I am responding to some of Aristeo's peripheral comments at User talk:Aristeo instead of here.

With regards to IRC, yes, I am regularly present in #UESP. I personally spend time in #UESP because I know that wiki editors use the channel to ask questions; those editors need to have people present in the channel who can answer their questions. I don't think that answering general Elder Scrolls questions is a primary purpose of #UESP, in particular because there are other channels that already fill that purpose (e.g., #eshelp). The unique service offered by #UESP is wiki-related discussion, and at least some of the people who use the channel do so only because of that unique service. In fact, from my point of view, that discussion happens on #UESP in spite of, not because of, the way that the channel is currently run. Therefore, a list of existing IRC regulars should not be used to draw conclusions about how the channel should be operated.

I have not added the IRC user box to my user page specifically because I am currently very uncomfortable with encouraging other wiki editors to use the channel. There have been multiple problems in IRC in the past, and I feel that those problems need to concretely addressed before #UESP becomes more widely used. One such problem, mentioned by Wrye, is past attempts to use IRC to establish wiki consensus and even wiki policies. Another problem has been taking statements made in IRC and quoting them out of context. I have brought up these concerns at several times.

In particular, I made a point of carefully preparing a set of suggestions about IRC several months ago and then presenting them in the channel. At the time, it seemed that everyone was in agreement that specific changes were necessary. However, despite multiple subsequent edits to the IRC article, no interest has been shown in trying to follow through with such changes. And in fact shortly after that last discussion, Aristeo violated all suggested changes by doing exactly what I had very clearly complained about: Aristeo posted quotes from IRC, that were taken out of context and therefore provided a very inaccurate portrayal of the actual IRC discussion. Ratwar also pointed out that the quotes were inappropriate [6].

The current system, in which IRC policy is unilaterally decided, makes it very difficult to fundamentally resolve these issues. This current discussion and many past experiences show that there is no interest in having community input on the channel's policies. This seems fundamentally at odds with a wiki-based community, since the wiki is based upon allowing the entire community contribute to, and make decisions about, policies. Instead of even considering changes to the channel's policy, Aristeo seems more interested in shutting down the channel, again without even taking the time to ask what the current channel users might want. It is hard to see how #UESP can be a resource that helps the community when decisions are made without any consideration of what the community wants and without even basing decisions on what would be most helpful for the community. --NepheleTalk 15:58, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Rpeh

It has been suggested that this entire debate came about because of a discussion I kicked off on the channel a week or so ago. As such, I feel I should respond despite being an admin on neither the UESP web site nor the #UESP IRC channel. For the record, I became regularly active on the wiki about two months ago, and started IRCing (please tell me if there's an accepted phrase here - I'm very much a virgin) about three weeks ago.

It is my opinion that the discussion about the nature and future of the relationship between the WWW and IRC versions of UESP is tainted by the relatively recent fallings-out between the various administrators. On the IRC channel, I tried - with hindsight this was incredibly naive - to instigate rapprochement, or at least detente, between two of the highest-profile protagonists in the earlier debate and failed in what has become a fairly spectacular manner. Suddenly, the same battle lines are being drawn, the same arguments are being made and the same insults are being thrown. The discussion has been only superficially about the issue at hand; the deeper hostilities remain entrenched and seemingly irreconcilable.

I speak as someone who was thoroughly put off this site by the earlier unpleasantness. Given that the participants in this debate hold positions of authority in one place or another, I expect disputes to be settled in a responsible manner whereas at the moment, the argument shows every sign of descending into little more than schoolyard taunting. I hasten to add that not every participant has done this; some - you know who you are - have remained calm and professional throughout. The behaviour of some people, however, should call into question their fitness for the high duty to which they have been called. You know who you are too. I need to say here that this is not necessarily about previous comments on this page. I have also had discussions through IRC and email.

If I may now turn to the points under consideration:

  • The two entities under discussion (WWW and IRC) are clearly disparate. Whatever arrangements were set up years ago have been superseded by events. Separate administrators and administrative policy is not a good idea. That one system of discussion is acceptable in one place but not on its 'official' counterpart is clearly nonsensical.
  • The IRC can become a clique and this is clearly undesirable. To obviate this possibility, I would suggest that any decision reached on the channel is posted on the Community Portal for in-site discussion. Any final decision should be made with reference to the existing Consensus policy and the outcome of the debate on the site should be the deciding factor.
  • IRC is too-useful a tool to lose simply for the sake of it, regardless of individuals' preferences in the matter.
  • I am not a regular on IRC.
  • Protecting the page was an over-reaction, but one borne out of previous experience. Whilst I won't condone the action, I can fully understand it. My personal opinion, for what little it's worth, is that the page should be unprotected immediately.

At this point I would like to apologise for the length of this message, and thank you for your forbearance. You will have noticed that I'm not calling for any particular decision. The reason is that I feel the required course of action is quite clear and that this entire sequence of events can come to an amicable resolution. I hope the protagonists come to the same conclusion. --RpehTalk 16:38, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Wrye 2

Looks like this has settled out pretty quickly: Aristeo shut down #UESP and Ratwar and Nephele set up a new #UESPWiki. Although, of the active admins, I'm the most wary of IRC overusage, I think this is pretty obviously the best solution. So... Problem solved, and back to modding, playing and writing for me! --Wrye 00:23, 16 July 2007 (EDT)