IRC/Guidelines/Public logging

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

For at least 4 years (that I recall), there has been a rule in place in some Wikimedia IRC channels against the public posting of logs of the channels without the permission of all participants in the conversation. The origins of this rule are unclear, however there seem to be several points in favour of having this rule:

  • The chatty and informal nature of the channel means that participants say more things than they really should, including personal details;
  • freenode policy is that chat logs shouldn't be released without the consent of the participants; and
  • Logs will only be used to attack people and increase scrutiny in a forum that shouldn't be used to co-ordinate things on-wiki anyway.

On the other hand, there are several reasons advanced for getting rid of the rule:

  • The rule as it stands is effectively unenforceable: some people already publicly post logs of the channel for various reasons;
  • If people want to post public logs enough, it is often extremely difficult and disruptive to attempt to identify and remove them from the channel;
  • Having the no public logging rule there may actually encourage teenybopper script-kiddies to post the logs, to cause annoyance;
  • People shouldn't be saying things in a public forum like #wikipedia that they would not want to be quoted on; and
  • Allowing the posting of logs of channels would bring greater accountability and transparency to on-wiki admins.

Due to the ever-ongoing dramas relating to IRC logs, I thought it would be a good time to ask members of the IRC community, as well as members of the wider Wikimedia community, their opinions about the no-public-logging rule. This isn't really intended to be a vote for keeping or removing it, but any consensus that develops from it will probably be acted on. I will start things rolling by giving my personal opinion below. - Mark 10:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Just to note, I am talking here specifically about #wikipedia, and perhaps also #wikipedia-en.
GC note: Just to clarify (after some queries), we, the Group Contacts, are happy for the #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en communities to change the rule in this, as determined by Mark. James F. (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Give your opinions here[edit]


  • In my opinion, I think it would be best to remove the blanket ban, but instead of having an "official" loggerbot or encouraging people to log it, simply warn people that they may be logged. - Mark 10:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I support openness and transparency and oppose secrecy, so I'm in favor of lifting the logging restrictions which are unenforceable anyway. Why let the "attack sites" have all the fun? Dtobias 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have long felt (and I wasn't secretive about my feeling) that the no public logging rule caused more harm than good. While I very much understand the privacy concerns of channel members, and I have a ton of respect for people who disagree such as wimt and MZMcBride, I've never seen that the rule accomplishes its goal of keeping the channel private. While we haven't had any incidents recently that I've seen, there have in the past been some cases of trying to find logbots which seemed a little witch-hunt-ish. It also leads to the confusion between public logging and logging in general, which was why my alternate nick for quite some time was kmccoylogger, just to push some buttons. :) Anyway, my opinion was always that we should just shut up about logging, though I suppose now we're not getting the toothpaste back in the tube and if the rule disappears there *will* be some logbots, whether they're run by channel ops or not. Participants in IRC need to understand that they lose some opportunity for privacy. Even the most privacy-conscious users will make a mistake at some point and reveal their IP address. That just needs to be made clear to all users. kmccoy 19:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that the rule has never completely accomplished keeping the channel private, and nor could it ever entirely prevent public logging. Nonetheless, to the best of my knowledge, there is no very complete set of logs out there for either #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en online - even the most extensive of them barely cover a month. So whilst it's clearly unfeasible that the no public logging rule is going to prevent any and all public logging, I would contend that it has significantly reduced the amount of logging. There seems to be a general presumption that the fact the rule is not entirely successful means it is unhelpful, and I don't agree with that. I do completely agree that, regardless of whether the rule stays or not, people need to be better informed that IRC is not a private forum, and things like their IP may be revealed to others. I also agree that witch-hunting for log bots to the detriment of the channel is unhelpful - but that's not to say that finding and removing log bots need always be unhelpful or disruptive. And as I have said before, I can recall (though I won't detail for obvious reasons) some specific instances where quite significant amounts of very sensitive details have been accidentally pasted in channel. These have not made their way onto any public logs. To me, that's evidence in itself that the no public logging rule works - not to an absolute degree - but it works. Will (aka Wimt) 19:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • We are here to edit/create an encyclopedia, not chat about private stuff in the IRC. If you reveal private information on the IRC, that is your fault --Antonio Lopez (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    And if someone else reveals private information about you, is that also your fault? I absolutely agree that private things should not be discussed on something as public as IRC, but the fact is that they are, and publishing all these in a log strikes me as rather concerning, given some of the things I have seen said in these channels in recent memory. If we do decide to public log the channels, it would be very important to make the implications of this very clear to all the participants. Will (aka Wimt) 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    Yes it is, because I had the option to be anonymous, plus I am here to edit Wikipedia so the logging is pointless. Antonio Lopez (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to be absolutely clear - are we still only talking about #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en - or all IRC channels? If we are only talking about those two, and people are made aware of this in advance of this change, I think that should be okay. Cirt 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm - should we have a rule that we can't enforce ... I feel like it doesn't make a difference whether we have it or not, except it's a little unfair to imply to users that they are not being logged, when, in fact, there's no way to assure that–for all we know, they probably are being logged!--Danielfolsom 19:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There is nothing going on in there that needs to be hidden, I have no problems with a public log (strip hostmasks possibly) and make it clear that it's logged. It might actually improve the behaviour in there if people realize that it's public. It might make sense to put a nofollow for the robots.. having search engines hit it might contaminate search results. -- Tawker 03:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sure many of you already know how I feel about this (I've been bringing it up for years), but for the record: "No public logging" is a rule that causes moderate harm for almost zero advantage. Get rid of it. Zocky 12:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removing of the public logging rule. macy 15:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove the rule. It makes a mockery of the other channel rules, it encourages things like Brandt's tracker, and blocks the useful features of public logging (I know I often consult the IRC logs on - for other channels). Gwern
  • Support removal. By the way, I believe the servers log everything we say because mibbit users who join are presented with 10 minutes worth of backlogs upon joining the channel. In a sense this already breaks the rule, no? Soap 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Following a slight aversion toward the channel (harmful), which I'm sure is shared by many, this has since made me giggle a bit whenever reminded of this ridiculous rule. Glad to see overwhelming support for elimination of unenforceable bureaucracy. No need for official log unless the wiki decides that IRC is official business. here 04:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm of the opinion that IRC is a public forum — if you do not want your information discussed, or if you do not want a record of your transgressions (whether positive or negative), do not discuss (them) in such a medium. Therefore, I'm in support of the removal of the public logging ban indiscriminately for the channels previously discussed. --Izno 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Anything you say in public may, above all, be heard by the public. There is no use in unenforceable rules. Those who wish to have a private conversation should not use a public IRC channel to do so. Seraphimblade 09:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with above comment. Totally unenforcable! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • \o/ Yay logs! Finally! :-) Not having public logs has caused lots of grief in the past. Folks sure took their time to figure that out! :-P --Kim Bruning 01:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I already know several markets with low, low prices for dramas. I just don't need to get them here. WilyD 11:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Total support This is a public channel, so I don't see a problem with public logging. Koavf 23:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - These are public channels; anyone who thinks a discussion will go no further than the users active on the channel at the time is being incredibly naïve. This rule serves only to restrict positive, legitimate uses for public logs; those who want to post logs for malicious purposes are doing it anyway. Garrett 00:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I've never reposted an IRC chat log, but I've always been under the impression that, once a person gives a statement in a public location, that statement is open for republicizing, that one or more statements may be bandied about, possibly even out of context of the original discussion. The #wikipedia forum, open to (pretty much) whoever wants to stop by (except those people who have been thrown out for being "jerks") certainly seems to fit all the requisite criteria for a public forum. Additionally, this is essentially an unenforceable rule -- that's just my two cents on the matter. 03:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support fully. In principle, all discussions about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects should be open. The only exception would be where it is necessary to conduct discussions which reveal private information. It is never a good idea to reveal personal info in an open forum, and I do not see that we have a responsibility to protect the careless. Cheers,--Aervanath 18:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: All channels. Have a bot that sits in all the channels and logs everything and uploads it to a server and then have those logs accessible to the users, Except for channels like -admins (no idea what it's actually called) which they have to enter their wiki* account details in to access. For example, the neowin users on their server have a bot that logs and all the #neowin channel can be accessed by everyone but channels such as #mvc and #subscriber can only be accessed by people in those groups or above [staff]. Peachey88 (Contribs) (Wikipedia: User) (Wikipedia: Talk) 07:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support disabuse of bogus rules: These so-called rules are only enforced when the logs are used to reveal the channel admins acting erratically or in bad faith. For example, when Jimbo Wales showed up recently in #wikiversity-en and acted improperly, I proposed to publish the log to reveal his abusive and incivil conduct. The channel admins simultaneously proposed to use the log of the same IRC session as evidence to prove that I had intended to violate the so-called rule against publishing logs. How can it be proper for the channel admins to use the channel logs as evidence against me, while at the same time insisting I have no right to use the logs as evidence that Jimbo Wales and the channel admins are misbehaving? I proposed that we jointly publish the IRC session log and submit the case to community peer review. After all, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. So I propose we all take a gander at the cooking of the goose du jour. —Moulton 18:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: It's really impossible to enforce a rule about public logging. Let's face it, one of the biggest projects around (wikipedia) tries and fails on a regular basis. IRC provides a community much in the spirit of wikipedia itself, and the IRC channels related to wikimedia projects are there for collaboration, not drunken revelations of that hot chick in your office and what happened on christmas eve. I've always believed that you should never say anything anywhere on the internet that you wouldn't want displayed on your mother's kitchen fridge, and that if you do and you're quoted it's your own damned fault. Bring on the logs. Horst.Burkhardt 18:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support public logging of Wikipedia and administrator channels and ban on private chats, because of concerns about child protection, canvassing, etc. If IRC cleans up its act, it would attract more productive-contributors, who do not want to relive junior-high recess. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Support with conditions[edit]

  • Public logging should be allowed in all channels but -admins (and other special channels, such as -ops and otrs) due to the fact that some confidential info may be posted there. Firefoxman 20:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    On the top of the page: EDIT: Just to note, I am talking here specifically about #wikipedia, and perhaps also #wikipedia-en. Cbrown1023 talk 21:14, 3 September 2008 (
  • If we're logging, the bots *must* have an opt-out option built into them. --Cmelbye 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support with official logging[edit]

  • I think we should publish logs officially (I'm more than willing to write the code and host them), and be done with it. This way, there are no illusions as to the logging status of the channel. I agree with the above reasons "against" a 'no public logging' rule. Werdna 11:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Have to agree with Mark here, "No public logging" has become a cliché and people keep breaking that rule so its not actually been adhered too, and regarding finding these bots, its really impossible, the best thing to do is remove this point but also add to the topic warning people that this channel may be logged.--Cometstyles 11:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Though I favour logging, I'm not really comfortable with publicly logging it to some other site..its better to have our own master log rather than allow others to log to some other WP:BADSITES..--Cometstyles 01:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Werdna, and, also would be a 'clean' source for them, so that faked logs would be harder for certain parties to circulate. SQLQuery me! 11:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If logging were allowed I believe that an official "logging bot" should be in place. Most IRC programs will log chat to a text file which can be edited in just about any simple text editor. Yes I think that lifting the ban would actually be beneficial unless there is some form of official logging, I would have to oppose. Bvlax2005 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with any of the above; I also think that removing the silly rules against public logging would be a good idea. As well as the reasons noted above, it's extremely disruptive to have onwiki conversations where permission was given broken up by someone trying to police this rule. I agree with Werdna's proposal that we should publish logs officially in a neutral venue. People already know the channel might be logged, and so far this hasn't had the desired effect, so I don't know that Mark's proposal is enough. —Giggy 11:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • John Reaves' suggestion of hosting on a wiki run by ops, where "bad stuff" can be removed if necessary, is a good one. —Giggy 08:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a completely pointless rule - those channels are constantly logged and the logs are available from any number of freely available sites. We might as well log it ourselves and publish the logs, it would clean up a lot of the crap that goes on in those channels. --Allemandtando 12:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Let the logs be public. It gives more accountability, less messing about kicking log bots and maybe people will behave more if they know their comments are going to be able to be read. Majorly talk 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Effective governance requires ethical governance and transparency is an essential element to ethical governance. Like it or not, admin governance decisions are made there. There should be an official logging of it made available to anyone who has the right to be on it. WAS 4.250 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Log them, post them and establish transparency. If we are endorsing the use of the channel for on-wiki work, it should be subject to the same availability as on-wiki discussions. JimMillerJr 19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Have on official public log, discourage others from doing so and put a notice in the entry message. John Reaves (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, if possible, have them published to a wiki or something similar that ops have access to in case the need to redact potentially libelous/offensive/personal/etc information were to arise. John Reaves (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm Martin and Wimt have a wiki that we could use...--Cometstyles 21:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't care at all! - Rinn~
        • Yay, a constructive use for that wiki! :-) Majorly talk 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
          • On-join messages are a curse on humanity. Please don't use them. --MZMcBride 22:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
            • I've never heard any one complain about them. Do you think they're annoying because they popup and make you look at them? If so, that's kind of the point ;). John Reaves (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Why do you guys choose to do this on the day I go to the beach? >:| Whining about being late to the party aside, I've thought for a long time as well that we don't really need this and should probably do away with the rule — a public "official" log will probably also help things. Cbrown1023 talk 01:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree that the logging rule should be done away with, and only an officially sanctioned bot doing the logging on a protected page, to prevent false logs, and such. Though I do think each project should have it's on log page. NeurovLogic 08:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A dedicated bot that does the logging is the best option (in my opinion). Transparency ftw. EVula // talk // // 15:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support public logging, as long as IP addresses are removed or only visible to trusted ops. Nwwaew 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Werdna completely but if that's not possible Mark's suggestion works too. Alexfusco5 02:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

*I absolutely support the proposal to provide public logs - the private IRC channels leak like a collander anyway. However, I'm nervy about the officially sanctioned log. Who will be doing the sanctioning? What will be censored? I think there are great benefits to be had that may encourage better standards of behaviour in certain channels, and would be keen to see no censorship of bad behaviour, but merely removal of those strictly legally sensitive issues relating to BLPs. Concerted vandalism is also dealt with in the channels - perhaps timelapsing the release of the logs in something akin to the 30 day rule might be appropriate. --Mcginnly 03:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I strike my partitipation in this debate - clearly if #admins aren't included in this, I'm not sure what purpose it has - there's no real problem with #wikipedia or #en-wikipedia - this looks like a political sop to deflect the simple argument that en-wp should be able to effectively control its own admin channel. boo. If James F won't play ball - let's have a channel J Wales and Arbcom can actually control. --Mcginnly 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I certainly support the removal of the public logging rule, and would support an official log. Tombomp 08:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal of the rule. I've been kicked/banned from both channels innumerable times and had things held against me based on "ZOMGLOGS" that nobody could actually show me (despite the fact that I was the one speaking). But only under the condition that there's an official log bot because you can't trust people not to fuck with the log files to their own benefit. Ziggy Sawdust 16:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You get kicked for being an annoying troll, there is no need to copy logs to you when you damn well what you're doing. John Reaves (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    • This is exactly what I'm talking about. You get to accuse me of being an "annoying troll" who "knows damn well what he's doing" with absolutely nothing to back up your claims. This might be true, it might not be, but it doesn't matter because there's no logs to back it up. Ziggy Sawdust 20:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd agree with removing the rule and providing "official" logs, which would keep participants' hostnames and IP addresses private. (On the other hand, once the logs are posted, they shouldn't be edited further for "privacy." Any such info is already in the hands of hundreds already, and redacting parts of logs will cause drama and a false sense of security; people should instead be wise about what they say in-channel in the first place.) krimpet? 23:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Offical logging bot would be good 07:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a solid idea. Publishing "master logs" would largely eradicate the suspicions of edited and changes that accompany logs supplied by individual channel members. The current norm is (dare I say it?) that anything said in a public Wikipedia channel precisely follows the nature of the forum in which it is published: that is to say, anything you say in a public channel is going to be logged. Our IRC standards and rules need to be updated to permit public logging: the nature of IRC is already non-transparent enough as it stands. Anthøny 17:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Finally. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Werdna. --Aqwis 12:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I support an official logger, and I support allowing logs in general -- anyone can log as it is, so those who you might not want to will do so anyway. I would also like the ability for people to contest the official log somehow with their own logs, in case there is doubt as to the authenticity of the logfile provided by Wikipedia. Spoom 20:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    • PS: To those of you who are concerned with IP addresses etc. being posted to the logs, doesn't Freenode mask that be default anyway? Spoom 17:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • No. Prodego talk 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
        • In that case, I'd support some IP / DNS obfuscation where appropriate. One could argue that if someone wanted their information hidden they'd get a mask, but it doesn't cost anything other than possible programming time to remove the identifying information (other than nick). Spoom 14:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I support logging on the the public IRC channels, if people want to share sensitive information they should not be doing it on such forums, use e-mail or some kind of invitation only chatting program if you are worried about security and the logging of the channel should be official just to give people no illusions that what they say there is private. Icewedge 06:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It will encourage less dickishness as well as the above reasons. Swatjester 10:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Rules can be enforced, don't see a reason why not to. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support with official logging and conditions[edit]

  • I would only agree to having the logs taken by a reliable wikimedian, not for the sight of others. The logs may only be seen if requested and, at the discretion of that reliable wikimedian, given to the requester.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  12:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I can sort of see the logic behind having an official log bot, because it would enable us to hide IP addresses and also give us the ability to redact bits if necessary. But if we were to go down that path I'd want it to be well-coded and tested, with some sort of interface built in to allow authorised users to do the above-mentioned redacting (preferably giving some sort of reason). - Mark 01:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Ack, ack, ack. It's one thing to log what happens and be consistent and accurate. It's quite another to create logs and then 'alter' history based on the whims of people who can't keep quiet in a public channel. I imagine a giant headache for chanops or whomever is tasked with constantly altering the logs every time someone says something out of context or pastes their password or .... An alterable log will also encourage others to keep their own copies (and possibly post them on other sites / places). Blah. --MZMcBride 06:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've never actually understood the need for NPL rule. And some channels are indeed logged, which isn't noted anywhere (because the logs aren't official). I don't know if intentionally logging all public Wikimedia channels would be a good idea though, so I think there should be logbots only where there is an ongoing need/wish for that. Maybe public logging would prompt more invite-only secret channels, so as to hide transparency, but we already have a bunch of secret channels that are used quite frequently even for non-secret talks. --FiliP × 08:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Filip/Dungodung --Fabexplosive The archive man 11:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support public logging, but only on request, and I echo the concerns voiced above me.--Kerotan 12:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to see offical logs posted upon request only. LegoKontribsTalkM 04:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Remembering that it can't be posted on any Wikimedia projects (fair use is not acceptable in non-mainspace, and all my comments made on IRC and by email remain under my copyright with all rights reserved unless explicitly stated so), I don't mind people keeping or sharing logs of any public channel by email or other method. I also don't mind an official published log provided it isn't passed off as entirely GFDL or anything. Daniel (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems like the most reasonable option on offer. Orderinchaos 10:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


  • I've always been against public logging of channels that are anything more than support-only channels, and I don't believe #wikipedia in its current form falls into that bracket. Personal information is, both intentionally and accidentally, disclosed in #wikipedia, and making such information easily available with a simple google search does not strike me as a sensible idea. Whilst I agree that the current policy of no public logging is not completely enforceable, it has, by and large, reduced the amount of logging in the channel considerably. Just because we can not absolutely enforce the prohibition of something does not mean we have to turn around and start condoning it. I would also strongly object to any form of logging that revealed IP addresses for fairly obvious reasons. If (and I stress if) we were to relax the rule, the best option would be to produce our own log, and continue to not allow others to do so, so at least we would retain the ability to remove sensitive information whilst hopefully discouraging others from attempting to log it. However, I would stress that I don't support that option, I just consider it not as bad as a free for all. Will (aka Wimt) 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    As a further comment, I note many people here in favour of logging the channel so that relevant conversations to Wikipedia can be quoted on wiki. I personally have nothing against this, and indeed excerpts of IRC conversation can often be useful in on wiki discussions. However, wholesale logging of the channel will also publish other conversations which, regardless of whether or not they ought to happen in these channels, do occur, and do involve personal information that serves no benefit to anyone in being published. I can recall a number of incidents in which information (highly sensitive in cases) that people have wanted to be kept private has inadvertently been disclosed in these channels. That's bad enough, but it's massively worse when that suddenly gets permanently archived on some logging website we have no control over and is freely searchable by anyone. Will (aka Wimt) 17:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Wimt on all counts. --MZMcBride 17:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Wimt fully on this. As MZMcBride pointed out, the fact that having an "official" logger-bot will probably encourage nuisances to post their own (personal-information-containing) logs publicly. If consensus is in favor of lifting the ban on public logging, however, I think that if one wishes to see a log, it can be documented in policy that one is free to request it (preferably a chanop, but you can, of course, be refused), which is probably already somewhat common practice. —Animum (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Wimt. Personal logging and selective publishing of relevant conversations as appropriate, good; indiscriminate publishing of all #wikipedia activity, bad. This would probably work well deployed across a few high-activity Wikimedia chans. haz (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I am against logging. I am actually not that worried about about privacy, since I myself am a pretty public person. But I do worry that Wikipedia might seem unprofessional if our silly chats are published. Since when you type away at full speed sometimes you say things you shouldn't. As many have said above, sure we can not fully enforce the no log rule but at least it might keep the amount of published logs down. Just because a rule can't be fully enforced doesn't mean it should be removed. Then there is the legal problem: As far as I know you own the copyright of what you write. I have not found any notice in the Freenode IRC welcome message or on the Freenode web site that states that we resign the copyright of what we write in the Freenode chats. (Even if there is such a notice, if it is that hard to find then in most civilised countries it is invalid.) So anyone that is publishing logs risk being sued by anyone who's text is in that log. I know that in some countries you can publish what you record if you are yourself taking part in the discussion, however I doubt that a passive log bot counts as "taking part" in the discussion. --David Göthberg 14:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
w:Fair use covers your copyright concerns. WAS 4.250 23:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Recording laws also likely cover your copyright concerns, so it would depend where the logger actually was... most states allow one-party consent recording. Technically by your reasoning, a recording device isn't "participating" in the conversation and thereby isn't legal, but I think many lawyers would disagree with you. Even if this is accepted as true, one could bypass this by having the logging bot be owned by someone actually participating in the chat. Spoom 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The behaviour of users on Wikipedia is carefully watched by many. Having an IRC channel with a "no public logging" allows users to unwind and relax without fear of causing any major Wikidrama. If logs were published, even official logs, the "Wikipedia is not IRC" divide would instantly begin to break down as users onwiki sought to sanction others for their comments on IRC. Also, per wimt. Martinp23 16:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I fully agreee with Martin and Wimt. Snowolf How can I help? 01:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Im agaisnt Public logging and will treat any such logs as a violation of my copyright 05:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Martinp23 and Wimt in regards to public logging and I therefore Oppose. --The Helpful One 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with those opinions posted, the egalitarian nature of WMF should not be supporting attempts to police/crackDown/harrass users based on off-hand comments they make on an IRC server. A stronger warning, that anyone found to have posted public logs will face a six-month ban from the server, would in fact be delightful. TINC, but that doesn't mean that I want people poring over logs of my online chatter any more than I want them tape-recording me and poring over transcripts of my everyday chatter. Sherurcij 06:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with wimt and Martinp23 on this. --Neskaya 04:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I will never be for public logging of IRC channels.--Res2216firestar 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose (and for very good reasons) 1. This is a wiki, participation is voluntary and not something to get worked up about 2. We all say things we regret, and having them indexed by search engines won't be good for real-name participants (of which there are some) 3. Harrassment can occur because of this.

Of course, IP addresses are logged, but that's behind-the-scenes stuff, so it's not really logging in the sense we're discussing. If you disagree with my statements, well feel free to take it to the talk page. --Kelsington 18:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose: if people wanted their communications to be public they would post them on the web themselves or they would talk on the wiki. Just imagine anti-wikipedia journalists scrutinising the Wikiepedia IRC logs for things to include in defamatory articles. Public logging is going to decrease the participants of the IRC channels and it will make people talk less on IRC and more via private messages or email, so the arguments about transparency are just plain wrong. NerdyNSK 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose with conditions[edit]

  • I personally am opposed to all public logging of the channel (because I know someone would eventually say in there would be used against them and make that person miserable), but consensus will go against me, so if it turns out that the rule is repealed, I think we should have a reliable third party that is not involved with Wikimedia bring in a logger bot. Also, I think we should censor the IP addresses in the log for privacy, and have a place to ask for removal of content in the logs (ec if someone posts their home phone number, or says something that may hurt their reputation on Wiki). Yamakiri 15:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose allowing open public logging by anyone, would be open to the idea of a logged #Wikipedia if an unlogged channel was provided as well, there is also a need to VISBLY enforce topicality, and move non-topic dissucsaions to a -social channel. Sfan00 IMG 15:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Other than for pisg, I think that public logging should be disabled, or at least have a bot keep logs in a publically readable location, run by extremely trusted users. Soxred93 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]

  • There is no "freenode policy that chat logs shouldn't be released without the consent of the participants"; the only mention it gets in their policy is that if there are OFFICIAL (sanctioned/24-7/etc) logs there should be a note in the topic. (nothing at all about individual participants releasing partial logs) —Random832 15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't "no public logging" violate WP:BEANS? Bstone 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    It may, but Wikipedia policies do not apply to IRC. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    Opening the doors to public logging may result [in my opinion] in a tentative by some to get onwiki polices enforced on the IRC channels. Snowolf How can I help? 01:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    Is that a bad thing? Giggy 03:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    You want to have to discuss over every comma you say on IRC? Also, I wonder how we're gonna enforce rules on banned or retired editors [who are at the present time welcome on IRC]. Also, #wikipedia has no relation with the English Wikipedia, and I guess we'd have to apply the rules from the Wikimedia project of each user. You really want to open that door? Snowolf How can I help? 22:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If (which I don't support) we're doing away with "No public logging" I'd recommend us posting the logs ourselves to have an "official" version - as noted above, to avoid false logs. - Rjd0060 15:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe they should have public flogging instead of public logging... that could be more interesting to watch. Dtobias 00:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)