Talk:IRC/Group Contacts/Log

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Appeal[edit]

Contact Channel Nick Level Date Comments
PeterSymonds #wikipedia-en-help Chzz -vVotsriRfA 22:18, 03 February 2012 (UTC) emergency action due to access abuse

I appeal this; the removal of my flags is detrimental to the project; no justification has been given. Chzz 23:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was explained to you quite clearly. You abused your access to remove several users without any cause or justification, just because they apparently disagreed with you during a discussion. The removal was an emergency measure, and as such, your appeal is denied. Please talk to the channel contact (Thehelpfulone) if you wish your permissions to be restored (though I believe he has already stated that this will not happen). PeterSymonds (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I confirm what Peter says above. -Barras 00:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: if this had been Wikipedia instead of IRC, would one of the biggest content contributors (c.f. most productive helpers) be given an immediate and permanent ban without any opportunity for the wider community to discuss it? No RfC/U? No AN/I thread? Nowhere that anybody at all could say "bad block, please reconsider"? Pesky (talkstalk!) 19:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This doesn't relate to a ban. This relates to the removal of his IRC channel flags. But since you make parallels, let's assume that the access flags on IRC were like the steward flags on Wikimedia. They enable the user to grant and remove almost any flag in the channel. If a Wikimedia steward started randomly removing people's admin flags on a project, without any reason, that steward would be removed as an emergency measure. This is what happened here; Chzz started removing several users from the access list without any reason or justification. In fact the only justification he could give was w:WP:POINT. As such, like the hypothetical abusive steward, he was removed as an emergency measure. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can understand your point, but there seems to be a lack of equity-wossname. As I've said in WP, though I understand that Chzz may have gone over the top, he was the same as a high-content-contributor Admin in WP. And if an Admin in WP went off on a rant about something, there's no way they'd be desysopped immediately with no input from the community, and no way the community could even say "Hey, hang on a mo here!" This is what worries me: there's no equivalent of RfC/U. AN/I, anywhere at all that other people can chip in, and there just has to be a route of appeal available, and some accountability to the Wikiupedia community, somewhere, for a channel calling itself "Wikipedia-en-anythingatall". Also, if someone who has a block on WP has a rant about it, it's kind of taken-as-read that they're likely to rant a bit, and generally that's turned-a-blind-eye-to, if you see what I mean. From what I gather, the only times Chzz has "demanded" help seems to have been when there's been a backlog of things needing to be cleared up, and he's felt as though he's doing most of it on his own and is getting overwhelmed by the sheer amount of it, and just calling for help in dealing with it. I know there are all sorets of communication problems in IRC and WP and all, in fact I started this thread on Jimbo's talk page earlier today, after having spend most of last night (heh! d'oh ...) working around various ideas as to why interpersonal communications around our particular kind of community might be the way they are. Can we try to work on some way forwards from here? At the moment, one of the most prolific helpers on WP and IRC just isn't there at all, whcih is not really a "desired outcome". There must be a better way we can move forwards from this other than just to either write someone off, or put them in a position where they feel the only thing they can do is quit. That's a lose/lose situation, and the worst of all outcomes.P.S. In the interests of disclosure and trying to ensure that we can communicate OK, I'm a high-functioning autistic; this means that although I mean well, I don't always come across quite how I mean it. (Oh, and HFA's can be a tad tight-focus obsessive, too -- not deliberately trolling, that's just the way our brains are wired up! Pesky (talkstalk!) 20:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pesky, I think you might have misunderstood what Peter said up there. He didn't remove Chzz's permissions because Chzz ranted, but because Chzz abused them. It would be akin to, say, me publishing the contents of oversighted pages on en.wp, or my going on a spree blocking every person who had pissed me off in the past. There would be no "Oh, gee, maybe Fluff's upset about something, we should wait a few days and talk to her about why" - there would be a quick removal of my advanced permissions and a giant "wtf were you THINKING, Fluff?" That's what appears to have happened here - Chzz abused his advanced permissions to make a point on irc, and had his rights removed because of that, and has not had them restored because he has been unable to regain sufficient trust. Pretty much a direct analogue to an emergency de-sysop on en.wp. The issue of him being abrasive in -help, etc, is quite separate from the issue of him abusing his permissions. And for what it's worth, Chzz appears to have quit IRC under his own power, not because of any sort of ban - he's repeatedly said on-wiki and off that he's done with it, he won't be back, etc., and there's no ban on irc holding him back from joining -help again that I can see. Fluffernutter 20:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, what's the process for Chzz (and everyone else) to move on from this in a win/win way? How could Chzz communicate that (for example) he realises that what he did wasn't appropriate under the circumstances, and make him feel properly valued again and less insecure and frustrated by the situation? What would he need to do, and where? Can anyone else help to resolve this? Pesky (talkstalk!) 11:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
It seems that nobody can. I would like it if it were at all possible for some way to be found that Chzz doesn't feel that he's been driven off, disempowered, marginalised, devalued. I think it's important to address people's feelings as well as their actions; to try to understand a bit more. I feel that the comparison between Chzz removing flags and Fluff publishing OS pages is unequal, but that's just how I feel. I don't know what to do, now. There must be something better than the current situation which won't result in leaving Chzz feeling belittled and humiliated. Pesky (talkstalk!) 09:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand, but I've already explained his route of appeal above. He needs to speak to the channel contacts. I can also assure you that nobody has belittled or humiliated Chzz into leaving the project. One does not need any channel access flags to help users, and he had nearly full access to the channel—until he abused those rights and they were removed. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I understand you, too. But I do think it's important to remember that although you and others don't feel that Chzz has been belittled and humiliated into being driven off the project, that's almost certainly how he feels about it, and without being able to do something to change the way he's hurting and disheartened and feeling rejected, I can't see a way forwards. And he's such a good teacher. Chzz and I are very different people; but if I were in his shoes I'd be suspecting that any invitation to come back and play nicely would be much the same as an invitation to "come back so we can rub your nose in your lowly position", kinda thing. Pesky (talkstalk!) 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]