Talk:IRC/Group Contacts

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

For what are the Group Contacts responsible? I doubt that it is in the scope of them to log everything in here and they certainly don't need to interfere with every problem that occours that can't be solved by their ChanOP rights. -- 14:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our job is to hand out (and, sadly, rein-in) ChanOp rights, rather than day-to-day management of individual channels.
James F. (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Group contacts not recognised[edit]

Session Start: Wed Nov 08 16:27:58 2006
[16:29] <Angela> hi numist. please could I get a Wikipedia cloak for Betacommand?
[16:30] <numist> a wikipedia cloak?  I'm afraid not
[16:30] <Angela> oh?
[16:30] <numist> I'm not up to date on who the GCs are, but I think only JamesF or Jimbo
[16:31] <numist> can request cloaks for
[16:31] <numist> er, for wikipedia

Does anyone know why this might be the case? Has anyone else who used to be a contact had this problem? Angela 05:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a central directory, and to the best of my knowledge you're on it—I've had staffers go "uhm, let me check" while they hunted down someone with access to this apparently close-hold list, but nobody's ever had the audacity to simply say "no, you're not on it" based on their personal memory, without bothering to look. You'll probably have better luck with a more clued-in staffer. Austin 06:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know it's several months later, but to clue you in - at the moment, only James and I are on the database due to a security breach a bit ago that meant freenode were forced to knock it down to James (and then I joined). Feel free to let me know if you need to know anything else. —Xyrael / 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update this page?[edit]

Can someone please update this page to help clarify what's going on these days on freenode, how the recent change in chan ops happened, how this is being resolved, and who at freenode and among the wikipedians can be expected to be following these matters? Thanks, +sj | help with translation |+ 18:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Group contacts[edit]

The page says:

"Right now, freenode staff are recognising the following people:

  • James F. (talk) (James_F, James_F|Away, James_F|Busy on IRC) (Chair)
    James is currently inactive in this position due to other work with Wikimedia and Real Life (TM).

  • Sean Whitton (talk) (seanw on IRC)
    Due to James's inactivity, Sean is completing all group contact work and should be contacted first for assistance."

Could someone provide evidence that Freenode recognizes James and Sean as group contacts? I've read elsewhere that they don't. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not too sure about James, but Sean Whitton is a freenode staff and he is for now the sole group contact of wikimedia (in absence of James) and thus is incharge of other wikipedia related channels such as #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en and he has appointed channel contacts to oversee the selection of ops for individual channels..I don't think that their is any thing "official" to show that "Freenode recognizes James and Sean as group contacts" but if you would like to find out yourself, you could join #wikimedia-ircconnect and personally talk to seanw or James (they are msotly online)..--Cometstyles 03:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
freenode does recognize James Forrester as group contact for the channels #wikipedia-*, Sean Whitton is deputy contact. This is different from saying that freenode recognize James Forrester and Sean Whitton as group contacts for Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Can you link where this has been questioned? Snowolf 14:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page says "wikimedia community", when I said #wikipedia-* (well of course #wiktionary-* and so on), but I hope you got the point. Snowolf 14:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*puts on freenode staff hat* I can confirm as staff that James and Sean are in fact the contacts and this information is entirely up to date. *puts on Wikimedia contact hat* Essentially, we try to stay out of day to day channel affairs and we let the channels run themselves. The way NickServ presents information is somewhat ambiguous here. freenode grants us the right to take over #wikimedia-* #wikipedia-* etc. by asking staff (usually by asking myself) and to set cloaks. Seperately we are also listed in NickServ as contacts for certain channels, but this does not necessarily mean we have taken them over. We may just have been put there as reliable people. I hope this clears up the situation - channel contact and group contact are very different. —Sean Whitton / 21:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Sean, sorry it doesn't clear it up. Freenode has apparently said it doesn't recognize a group contact for Wikimedia. What distinction are you drawing between group contact and channel contact? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well wikipedia/wikimedia are listed in the Primary Groups and according to the Group Registration, Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts are "The approving contact" thus we have 2 groups "wikimedia" and "wikipedia"...Freenode recognizes James as the Group Contact for Wikimedia since James was appointed by Wikimedia to represent them as such. Sean is appointed by James as his deputy and Group contacts as I stated above choose Channel contacts for individual IRC channels who in turn choose channel ops to look after these channels...--Cometstyles 17:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nowhere in the links you gave does it say that Freenode recognizes a group contact for Wikimedia or Wikipedia, and Freenode has apparently made it clear elsewhere that they do not recognize one. Wikimedia has explicitly said that it does not want to underwrite the Wikimedia/Freenode relationship, and does not support anyone as group contact. So the information on this page seems to be wrong. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Above, I noted as freenode staff that we recognise myself and James. Thus freenode has made it clear as I was speaking on behalf of freenode when I said that :)Sean Whitton / 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

#metawiki and #meta-wiki[edit]

Good day, just to let you know that both channels in the title should now redirect to #wikimedia as #wikimedia-meta does. The first one was already a registered channel, but I have spoken to the founder and he was willing to set up a redirect for us. The second one was not registered, so I did register it and set up a redirect. Amqui (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD personal wars on #wikimedia[edit]

Hello. I'm copying here a request made on IRC about #wikimedia, also copied at [1]. #wikimedia has recently been unrestful due to his constant whining about some permission pruning decided at #wikimedia-commons and executed by Odder (of which I don't know the details; apparently ops which were inactive on the channel and/or on wiki). He managed to make Odder angry and silenced (+q) him "for 3 hours", then doing the same for russavia who defended Odder. Silencing regulars is an unprecedented action for #wikimedia but RD refuses to reverse it. Detailed discussion of IRC can and should stay on IRC, but I ask the GC members to log here their vote for or against deopping RD on #wikimedia. Failing that, recommendations on channel-internal processes to decide a deop (on-channel vote?) would be appreciated. --Nemo 14:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This matter has been already addressed by the channel contact and no action by the group contacts is needed. Regards, Snowolf How can I help? 15:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I agree with that assessment. --FiliP ██ 16:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Snowolf, @Dungodung: I disagree with that assessment. No one has addressed anything, and I have been contacted by no one regarding the abuse of privileges as shown by Rjd0060 today. odder (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The abuse of privilege that took place in #wikimedia-ops was already dealt with by Barras by removing odder's op rights in #wikimedia-ops. I don't see what more needs to be done. Incivility, personal attacks and abuse of operator privileges have no place in Wikimedia channels. Regards, Snowolf How can I help? 16:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snowolf: Thank you for your response. I am no longer interested in pursuing this issue. Thank you for your time. odder (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another incident of abuse of the OP status on IRC by RD[edit]

I would like to start this discussion back going again. Today I was kicked from the #wikipedia-en channel on IRC after just getting access again after a self requested block from it. He blocked me today for absolutely no reason other than Rjd0060 (Aka RD in IRC) doesn't like me. Its perfectly ok that he doesn't like me, he is certainly not the only one and has a right not to like anyone he chooses. If he cannot control his feelings about others though then he has absolutely no business having permissions in IRC. Several of us were having a discussion about another username (that was logged into the channel with the username HardErection) and why they weren't kicked and he just jumped in the middle and kicked me out of the channel. Someone really needs to address RD's growing abusiveness and aggressiveness on the IRC channels. He knows there is no oversight or checks and balances and takes advantage of that. Its pretty obvious at this point that User:Rjd0060/RD has a log term history of abusive use of the op status on IRC and I would again like to ask for a vote of no confidence in RD's op status in IRC. Since you were invovled last time Snowolf I am also linking you to this as well. I will also add dungodung and Barras to the list of contacts here so they are aware of this discussion. Reguyla (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In brief, this user has been warned repeatedly in several channels to stop complaining about their on-wiki ban. General discussion IRC channels are not meant for that. He was provided several times his appeal options for the wiki block yet still continues to evade bans on IRC, and violate numerous channel guidelines. He will continue to be banned should the issues that caused the bans continue. He should understand that his block is not a topic for #wikipedia, -en, etc. Continued ban evasion will lead to continued bans. I won't be following up here other than this comment as this is an IRC matter and any further inquiries shall be directed to me there, should you need me. (also as a matter of procedure this is not the proper forum for such complaints as described on these IRC pages). Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And that's all well and good, except that I wasn't talking about my ban or block and when someone asked about it I changed the subject. I cannot help if others bring up the ban that is continuing to be abusively maintained on me at ENWP but I should not be blocked for it when others bring it up. If I wasn't still blocked in contrast to what the English Wikipedia community decision was last August, then there would be nothing to talk about now, 6 months after it should have been done. I know several people are logged into the channel and log the discussions and can see the discussion as it unfolded and I think you will see that what Rjd0060 says is incorrect. As I told Rjd0060 offline on IRC, I don't care what the procedure is, I wanted his abusive conduct documented so that as it continues to be repeatedly brought up, it can be addressed and corrected. If there is a better place to submit this please let me know and I will submit it again there. I do however recommend that his conduct be addressed on its merit rather than on the procedural grounds of the submission. RD stated on IRC that there is nothing anyone can do to make him stop which is reason enough to do something about it. Reguyla (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is (not yet) a matter for the group contacts to get involved. It is a matter you can bring to the channel managers (superops) and then also to me, in my capacity as channel contact for #wiki(p/m)edia(-en). However, I don't usually discuss such IRC stuff on-wiki. Feel free to talk to me on IRC. -Barras talk 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, RD pretty much already told me nothing was going to happen with this which is probably why he is so abusive on IRC. Also, I thin IRC is good for somethings and discussions about issues, but given this has been an ongoing issue with RD in the past, I felt that the situation merited some transparency rather than hiding it in offsite IRC logs and PM's that aren't logged or available. I don't know who the "Superops" are besides you, Snowolf and dungodung as the Group contacts. The last I looked you were not logged into IRC and I just got a bounceback reply saying you were away. Reguyla (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I was asked to participate in an IRC discussion about me ban on the #wikipedia-en channel where I was then read the riot act by RD and Fluffernutter. They tried to convince me to agree to "terms" that were clearly done to a) get me to agree that the matter was resolved so I would drop the complaint on RD's conduct on IRC and b) as a trap to justify later that I violated an "agreement" the next time someone mentions my ban. Frankly, since there was no intention to follow the community decision to unban me on ENWP last year and my unban was manipulated be a couple people who opposed me being able to edit ENWP again I just do not trust them to follow through on their agreement. So even if I intended to just drop the complaint against RD's conduct, I do not think they would have followed through on unblocking me from the #wikipedia-en channel anyway. Additionally, my ban on that channel was self requested by me and GorillaWarfare happily carried it out. However, when I then requested to be unblocked a couple months later she said no. So the ban was in place because I asked for it, not due to a violation or conduct. So as far as I am concerned it is a waste of time and resources for me to even be blocked on that channel anyway let alone to participate in a discussion about the recent block from the channel by RD. I just wanted to add this note for the sake of transparency, because discussions on IRC are easily hidden and manipulated. Reguyla (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment Comment The situation described above is, of course, just a recent example of @Rjd0060 well-known history of abuse of operator privileges on IRC over the past 18 months or so. @Rjd0060 seems quite convinced that his abuse will never be acted on, which I am quite sad to say is probably very true, as is visible from @Barras's answer above. It is shameful that there is an apparent clique of IRC superusers that will defend its members till the bitter end, and it is equally as shameful that you refuse to discuss these matters outside of IRC, especially since it is well-known that IRC channels are under direct control of the Wikimedia community, as demonstrated multiple times over the recent period. odder (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Umm... yeah, that's woefully inaccurate. In fact, the user raising the complaint repeatedly disrupted several channels and was banned by numerous operators, including myself, over a period of several days—all of which started because the user has repeatedly socked on enwiki and wanted to complain about being blocked because of it (once again by several more admins—presumably the same evil "clique" to which you're referring... so I guess this conspiracy of "abuse" must be vast). Once banned on -en-unblock, he proceeded to continue by disrupting #wikipedia, among others. So I suppose if your standard for "well-known history of abuse" is "doing his freaking job and acting to the best of his ability," then yeah, I guess that he has a "well-known history" of rampant "abuse," and this is just one of the many, many instances of Rjd0060's savage and ruthless "abuse" coming to light over the period of time I've known him on IRC. I guess the only thing to do is stop the menace that is give a barnstar to Rjd0060. --slakrtalk / 06:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talk about inaccurate statements. My ban on ENWP should have never happened in the first place, then the community had a discussion about it and agreed I should be unblocked, then a couple people who opposed my block had a new discussion and changed the community decision to what they wanted. Then, yes I did create a new account after the community said I should be unblocked, in defiance of a block extension that is invalid and is against the community decision. Now I continue to be blocked, 6 months after the date the community said I should be unblocked because the admins on ENWP don't have any respect for the community. That's not even to mention the personal attacks on a variety of pages directed at me, the manipulations of policy to make sure I stay blocked, the Arbcom advocating that someone contact my employer and out me to have me fired, etc. All well known incidents of abusive conduct by administrators on the English Wikipedia and Slakr and others wonder why I would be pissed and why I would fight it. The whole situation is nothing more than a handful of abusive admins that want to ensure that they stay exempt form policy and other admins like Slakr who, although not corrupt themselves, enable the ones who are by ignoring the problem and blaming the victim. I would also add that many of these "disruptions" slacker mentions were brought up by other users, in several cases I attempted to changed the subject and they still blocked me for it anyway. Not because it was the right thing to do, simply because its me. The only thing preventing me from continuing to edit positively on ENWP are pig headed admins who want to prove a point. There is no disruption except that which they create by ignoring a community consensus and by unnecessarily aggressive blocks on IRC for no reason other than because they can and they know that no one is going to do anything about it. Reguyla (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will have to agree with Barras that this is not the venue to discuss these issues. There are dozens of #wikipedia-en ops that this could be discussed with, both in private, and in public channels. Thanks --FiliP ██ 19:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD's conduct is persistent and needs to be publicly documented somewhere. Not buried in undocumented IRC channels to protect an admin from criticism and hide the problem. He just blocked me again, this time on a dozen different IRC channels (most of which I don't even participate in). Two hours after I was critical about him on #wikipedia-en. He's clearly only doing it in retaliation for starting this discussion. Reguyla (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fluffernutter, Barras Still no comment I guess? This is exactly why we need a central place on wiki that we can use to complain about the conduct of the IRC mods. If it stays on IRC, off channel then it doesn't get documented and there is no history so it just gets hidden and forgotten. RD has a history of abusive conduct on IRC and everyone knows it. Protecting him and his actions doesn't help him, it makes you look bad because you are supporting and enabling his conduct. He see's you don't care what he does and it ensures that he and others will keep doing it. Reguyla (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another abusive and pointless IRC block by RD[edit]

@Fluffernutter and Barras: Again today User:Rjd0060 (RD on IRC) blocked me from #wikipedia-en because someone else mentioned my ban. I told them to stop because there were people looking for a reason to ban me from the channel and just as I feared, RD jumped at the chance. He claims he and other ops talked about it because of comments I have made the last couple days. The problem with that argument though is that the only think I I talked about for the most part in the last 2 days was editing at Wikisource and I wasn't on much at all do to other commitments this weekend. Since the other people in the discussion weren't blocked for our discussion of Wikisource editing, I assume its not that but simply that he and a couple of others tat don't want me chatting in that channel and have no reason to block me at all. Its just a way for he and a couple others to claim "drama" by creating it so they can blaim me for it. In fact I was blocked for 3 days by slakr (also for very little reasons frankly) and only got unblocked 2 days ago. This nonsense needs to stop. IRC isn't very useful as it is, but it does make a good place to report problems at chat with others about wiki stuff. I really do not have any hope that this will be taken seriously but I wanted to report the interaction anyway in the hopes that someone would take action on RD/Rjd0060 ongoing abusive actions on IRC. Reguyla (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crickets. --slakrtalk / 21:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its not surprising in the least. RD knows that no one is going to do anything, that's why he keeps doing it. What's worse is that and others see it, or will see it, and it enables and encourages them to do it themselves which will progressively degrade the IRC environment to the point where anyone who says anything someone doesn't like will get blocked for little to no know, like happened to me. But its ok, since I am just an editor who builds content and that's not what these sites are about anymore, its not that big of a deal. There are plenty of other projects, even within the WMF family of projects that still need contributors who build content. Like Commons, Wikisource, Simple Wikipedia and even Wikiveristy and Wiktionary and others. So what's ENWP's loss will be their gain and I will contribute content there instead since editors aren't wanted at ENWP anymore. Reguyla (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Slakr: Apparently no one cares about abusive conduct by the ops on IRC. That's a shame and shows that the folks in charge of IRC don't really take it seriously. Reguyla (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please unblock me on #commons IRC channel[edit]

Greetings, per this discussion please unblock me on the commons IRC channel. This discussion reflects the Commons community did not agree with RD blocking my access and agree I should be allowed to participate in the Commons IRC channel. Reguyla (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, discussing IRC bans is not done on wiki. The Commons community does not "own" the channel, or any channels for that matter. All channels fall under the remit of the Group Contacts and you know the rest. This discussion will not go anywhere on wiki, as you've been repeatedly told - which reiterates the fact that you fail to comprehend any of the issues you've caused that led up to the justified and over-discussed action that was taken to stop your behavior which is contrary to IRC network and Wikimedia guidelines. To reiterate for the final time: the wiki is not the correct forum for IRC (block) discussions. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well Rjd0060 you blocked me from all of the IRC channels so this is the only avenue open to me to appeal the decision. Also, the commons community may not "own" the channel but neither do you and if the commons community decides that a member of it, myself or anyone else, is welcome, then it's not your place to tell them no. You are also correct that I know it falls under Group Contacts which is, in fact, why I chose this venue to present it. So, you either need to unblock my IRC account (which is what I am asking for here anyway) or act on it here. Either way, I am forced to await your decision either way eventhough I know that you are going to deny the request since you are the one who blocked me in the first place and no one is going to do anything about your longterm problematic conduct on IRC. Reguyla (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, although I may have executed the action (ban) it was not solely my decision and there was much discussion before, and certainly since the ban was put in to place. And you're right about me not owning the channels - technically the Group Contacts do, and they were involved in the discussion that resulted in your ban. Third, to clarify mis-statements made elsewhere by others, all channels who have opted in to the extbans system have done so by the senior channel leadership. These bans were not simply just put in place by random people but in fact by people who have stake in the channel. Lastly (and I mean lastly on wiki), the #wikimedia-commons channel operators can set a ban exemption on your account and have always had the ability to do so - so you need to take that up with them, in the appropriate forum which would be not here. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The #wikimedia-commons operators I have spoken with either don't know how to technically do that or fear retaliation by you for doing so. They said they think it involved something like -e, but they do not know how to do it comfortably. Some of that is in the discussion I linked above. And again, I cannot do anything on IRC because you blocked my account. So if you want to continue this discussion on IRC that is fine with me. Just unblock my account on whatever channel you want me to use, tell me what that is and I will go there. But simply wishing this discussion away to a channel you know I cannot access too is frankly, childish. Reguyla (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rjd0060: I just checked IRC just in case but I am still blocked. So, if you want me to request something on IRC RD, the you need to tell me what channel and then unblock me so that I can request. Telling me to go to IRC when you know I am blocked there is pretty childish. Reguyla (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The ban set by RD affecting you is at the very least endorsed by one group contact (to clarify that right away, that is me), however, maybe also by other GCs. To shorten that now, we are not going to remove the (global) ban. It doesn't really matter what commons or whichever other community decided in some on-wiki discussion about an IRC channel. That has pretty much no meaning for IRC matters. #wikimedia-commons currently has two channel contact which are responsible for the channel as well as some accessmods/superops or however you want to call them. If you want to appeal your ban for that specific channel, talk to them. Technically, any op is able to whitelist a ban. If they don't know how, they can read it up, freenode surely has some manual or they can ask for help with the issue in one of the op channels or contact someone with the right knowledge directly. This all is completely outside group contact business currently. We (the GCs) usually only step into local channel issue if really needed, which simply isn't the case here as there are enough people in that channel with the appropriate flags to deal with that matter. I guess we're done here with that. -Barras talk 00:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, I am not asking for my global block to be lifted eventhough it's absurd to have it in place at all, I know that you certainly aren't going to do anything about it or RD and you have been perfectly cleat about that in the past. I am merely asking for access to the Commons channel which I cannot access, so I cannot ask them to do it. Maybe there are technically skilled people who can do it but I do not know who they are and the ones I have talked to have told me they didn't know how or didn't want to do it because they feared retaliation, RD or others. So, if you do not want to do it that's fine and it's clear that RD is not going to undo it since he is the one that implemented it, but perhaps there is someone else around who might be able to implement that change, per the commons community discussion I linked to above and the IRC discussion about it in the channel that I was not privy too. I really don't think this is an outrageous request to get access back to one channel. Reguyla (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not going to bother repeating what you've already heard here. However from looking over your recent contributions on Commons, I'm seeing a troubling pattern of harassment of Arbcom members via their talk pages. Even after they explicitly asked you to refrain from posting, you continued to do so. I'm afraid that you still have not shown that you are improving your behavior, nor shown how your presence on IRC will contribute to the benefit of the projects as a whole. At this point, I'm for keeping the current ban until you show some clear improvement. --Az1568 (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oh that's complete bullshit. All you are doing is cherry picking details to support the conclusion that you want, which is to support your pals Barras and RD who shouldn't be allowed to do anything with IRC anymore and should be relieved of their positions on IRC. The commons community has stated in a public venue that I am welcome in that IRC channel, so, you have the choice of going with what that community wishes for that channel or not. But if you make the decision that your personal wishes override the community, then that shows that none of you have the maturity or respect for policy for the positions you have. Which is basically what I have state previously about Barras and RD and which is what lead to this retaliatory ban on IRC in the first place. Which is a major reason that it was necessary to do it on wiki, in view. To provide history of their actions so they couldn't continue to hide it in Secret and unpublicized IRC logs. So fine if you want to keep it in place I'll just ignore it, create a new account and follow the communities decision without you since you are not responsible enough to carry it out. And just to clarify for a third time since you all are not reading what I am posting. I am not asking for my global ban to be reduced, because you will just find some petty excuse to do it again. I am asking for my access to the Commons IRC channels only. Although if you want to restore access to the SWMT as well that would be great so I can help out there too. It's really hard to do that task without access to the channel. Reguyla (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well that was nice. I went to IRC as suggested above. Got ignored for a couple hours so RD told me to hush, then started hitting me with personal attacks including calling me a terrorist (which I find highly offensive and stated as such in IRC) and a troll, further iterated he did not have to follow a community decision and then blocked me when I wouldn't listen to his baseless threats and antagonism. This is someone the communities have chosen to represent the WMF projects with Freenode? Reguyla (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • It was a joke, and I told you so in the channel. As far as trolling, that is no a joke. It's evidenced by your IRC commons, contributions here on Meta as well as Commons. Your continued ignorance of the information being presented to you is exactly why your appeals have been rejected. You're still arguing about something on the wiki which has nothing to do with the wiki. These very edits reiterate the need for your extban on IRC - and you really should begin focusing on on-topic areas if you wish to continue contributing to Meta-Wiki. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Oh please I hope you really don't think I am that stupid and anyone who reads the context can see it wasn't a joke. As for my edits at Commons thats complete BS. I have done tens of thousands of edits there and you are cherry picking a handful (where I did not call anyone a terrorist BTW). As for my edits here. You and others have been allowed to hide your problematic behavior on IRC for a long time by taking extreme measures by keeping stuff off Wiki and out of site/sight. My comments here on Meta have been to ensure those problems are visible and not hidden. I don't expect you to like that or want that, but it is what I have done to help improve these projects by raising awareness of people like you who have no respect for policy and think you can do anything you want without oversight or consequences. Unforuntately, with supporters like Barras who feel the same way you are largely right. Because, as proof, if an editor or regular IRC commenter would have called someone a terrorist, ignoring a community decision or antagonizing others to allow you to justify blocking them they would have been blocked for personal attacks but you? Nope, just in a days business. Now I asked for a simple thing after getting a community consensus and you ignored me, then stated you don't care about what the community said, then attacked/insulted me and now lied/manipulated events. To say I have no respect for you (and I am fine knowing you feel the same about me) would be an understatement. Reguyla (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today I was on the chat room, they told me to register my nick, I did, then they told me to ask for the cloak, at a point I saw a writing like 'provide a diff'. They told me to edit my user page and write 'IRC cloak request' as summary. I did it on, and went on, and when I closed, they told me I should have done this on What shall I do? --Vogand (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IRC Cloak Request[edit]

Hello, how long does it normally take until a Cloak Request is done? I asked for a cloak more than 5 Months ago and I still don’t have it. I don’t no, if somethink may failed with the request, but I did it as it is descriped here. – KPFC (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Complain for harassment on Freenode by a Wikimedian[edit]

How to submit such a complaint?
I may not do it here because of policy against publishing content from the channels. Doing it in private messages makes the accused party unable to respond. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To make things clear, this is neither a trivial quarrel nor some long-standing disagreement which suddenly came to head. The user in question is reluctant to criticize me on-wiki, yet he produced two instances of slanderous commenting about me in the last four days, on two distinct channels. Note that I’m present on few channels and can’t see what happens elsewhere. When I tried to obtain satisfaction via private messages, they replied with:

<░░░> I add you to my ignore list
<░░░> STOP writing me in PM.

Please, don’t dismiss my grievance without any consideration, because the user in question wears a Wikimedia cloak in Freenode. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, so generally if a user asks you to stop contacting them (regardless of reason) - I would think it's probably a good idea to listen to them and stop all further contact so they don't need to place you on ignore? Otherwise it actually turns into you harassing them. --Az1568 (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Az1568: did you obtain a complaint from any user whom I allegedly harassed on IRC? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone asks you to cease contact--as you've demonstrated above--and you continue, it is harassment. If you have a problem with a user misbehaving on IRC and they have a Wikimedia cloak, you should send the details privately to a Group Contact like Az1568. You can send channel contents privately. Killiondude (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reviewed the evidence presented in this matter by both sides and found that Incnis Mrsi has been primarily instigating the disputes on IRC, along with a recent history of disruptive behavior across channels. As such, I've revoked their affiliated cloak at this time. --Az1568 (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cute – AlexZ punished me with cancelling my Freenode passport for wasting several minutes of his time. When you’ll hear a news that Wikimedia is blocked in yet another country, try to realize whether are these quarrels between authoritarian regimes your business. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Incnis Mrsi: When somebody tells you to stop talking to them, maybe you should listen?? Have you considered that you might be the wrong one here? Also your comparison of a dispute on IRC to authoritarianism is absurd. CaptainEek (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IRC is a sort of online authoritarianism, but everyone can set up a channel (or even a network) without much effort (believe, I have an expert knowledge of that). No problem with authoritarianism on IRC per se. Some problem with Wikimedia Inc.Foundation that built an authoritarian confederation without a practical way to supersede it, at least during some few years. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]