IRC/Group Contacts/Meetings/October 2012

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Details[edit]

The meeting will be held:

A log of the meeting is available at /log

Summary[edit]

Meeting started at 19:04 (UTC).

Real agenda
  1. Revisiting the "no public logging" policy.
    After 20 minutes of a roused discussion, we moved to the next point without any conclusion at all.
    One idea that was floated was "cloak-only" logging - the logs would only contain what was said by people with wiki*edia cloaks, which would help filter out abuse,spam, privacy issues, etc
    1. RFC on possible options? a) continue ban; b) discourage but do not allow; c) allow; d) allow and host ourselves; e) allow and host ourselves with sanitisation in some way (eg cloak-only).
    2. if we publicly log, should we notify in some way? eg hourly bot notices
  2. LTAs (long-term abusers)
    1. defining LTA an issue - philosophical conflict between "we must see evidence that someone with a severe history of misbehavior will stop it before we allow them back" and "enough time has passed that we should assume that they will no longer misbehave, even if they've not said or demonstrated that"
    2. what kinds of abusive behaviour are covered here?
    3. interaction between on-wiki and IRC bans (generally agreed to be distinct)
    4. another RFC! to be formulated by ops and then unleashed on a willing community to... well, try to come to a consensus
    5. can we define what the status quo is wrt LTA, ban-on-sight, etc?


    • Logging vs trolling
  • Responding to ban evasion - kickban on sight, or kickban upon bad behavior being repeated?
    • We can discuss at meeting, but ... generally speaking or channel-specific?
    • How long should repeat offenders be banned for?
  • The group contacts (GCs) involvement in channel day-to-day channel management
    • If the LTA (long-term abuser) list is considered a IRC-wide shoot-on-sight, shouldn't additions/removals to the list be done only through GC consensus?
  • Communication - op mailing list
  • Catalyzing & Our guidelines
  • Consider replacing extremely inactive GCs with people who are more active
  • Lack of ban reasons vs. Wikimedia transparency - should we have page on Meta with editable reasons?

Potential topics for discussion[edit]

Feel free to add your ideas
  • Let's revisit the "no public logging" policy
    • Is generating statistics without quoting text "public logging"? Privacy concerns of that.
  • LTAs (long-term abuser) - especially LiteralKa, derp
    • Logging vs trolling
  • Responding to ban evasion - kickban on sight, or kickban upon bad behavior being repeated?
    • We can discuss at meeting, but ... generally speaking or channel-specific?
    • How long should repeat offenders be banned for?
  • The group contacts (GCs) involvement in channel day-to-day channel management
    • If the LTA (long-term abuser) list is considered a IRC-wide shoot-on-sight, shouldn't additions/removals to the list be done only through GC consensus?
  • Communication - op mailing list
  • Catalyzing & Our guidelines
  • Consider replacing extremely inactive GCs with people who are more active
  • Lack of ban reasons vs. Wikimedia transparency - should we have page on Meta with editable reasons?

List of probable attendees[edit]

  1. GCs: Dungodung, Barras, PeterSymonds
  2. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. Shirik (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  4. Thehelpfulone 20:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  5. Pine 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  6. ow
  7. -Antonorsi (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  8. Will try to make it, but I cannot guarantee it. Snowolf How can I help? 17:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  9. -Mh7kJ (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  10. Joseph Fox 07:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  11. Frood (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  12. Vandalism destroyer (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC) AKA The_Thing
  13. Would very much like to attend to be more up-to-date on the Wiki IRC presence. AlexJFox (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Previous engagement I forgot about, will check out the log. AlexJFox (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  14. Ironholds (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  15. odder (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  16. --Elfix 21:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  17. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  18. Krzysiu (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC) I'll try to come and talk about public logging vs. statistics vs. privacy
  19. masti <dyskusja> 21:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  20. --DaB. (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  21. Jalexander/Jamesofur 07:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  22. Maire (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


I really wish I could come, because I want to make a case for allowing public logging, and it looks like there hasn't been a meeting like this for 2 1/2 years. While I'm not saying my opinion alone could sway a whole crowd, I hope that someone will be arguing in favor of it in my place. Soap (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, except maybe for different reasons. Previously I was in favour of the no-logging rule, but now I'm starting to think that if we keep it that way, IRC would always remain contentious when brought up in things like RfAs, even though I truly believe the vast majority of conversations that take place are not problematic. #wikipedia-en-help should remain unlogged to protect the privacy of new editors (many of them SPAs who are on IRC only to ask about their AfC draft), but I'm no longer strongly against keeping logs for #wikipedia-en. wctaiwan (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm down with a flu and realistically at this hour I won't be at the computer :( but maybe? But I think it is a good idea to discuss periodically. Pundit (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)