User:Kylu/IRC

An Intermediate Primer on Wikipedia (which is currently unfinished but slowly progressing)

Introduction
There are many ways to find instruction for beginners regarding the use of Wikipedia, but so many times we lose our way trying to find advanced instruction. There are, of course, innumerable WikiProjects and subpages of someone's talkpage which seem, somehow, to become noticeboards of some sort.
When you get sick of editing for a bit
Adminship
1. The RfA process
2. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards
3. Determining suitability
4. Things you can do
  1. Button use in a nutshell
  2. Lead by example, not rhetoric
  3. Assisting with administrative backlogs
  4. Don't keep permissions forever
    Follow the example of Cincinnatus.
    
    If you need permissions (such as admin, bureaucrat, or other), go ahead and accept them.
    
    Do the job you were placed into the position to perform, then when you're done, or you're
    
    no longer willing to do those duties, request that they be removed. It's a
    
    positive thing: You're willing to step aside in order to keep from being an entrenched power.
    
    If you have access to a private maillist and no longer are active in that field, leave the
    
    list.
    
    The absolutely worst thing that can happen is that you're granted power for some short time
    
    and decide to keep it even after the community no longer trusts you. While I don't personally
    
    subscribe to the voluntary recall system, I do think that
    
    it's a step in the right direction and certainly better than the majority of us.
5. Things to NOT do
  Many things will not help your standing as either an administrator or as an editor. Please don't confuse these actions with being Rouge, these are just Bad Ideas which will give you headaches.
  1. Blocking established users without consensus
  2. Being Bold in the MediaWiki: namespace
    
    While being bold is a great idea, it pays to be conservative when editing
    
    in the MediaWiki: namespace. Bluntly, even something so minor as
    
    mislocated punctuation can break external links and cause page edits to not be saved.
  3. Editing others scripting pages
    
    If they ask you to edit their .js and .css pages, go ahead, but don't do this without permission from the
    
    page owner. Leave that drama to someone else.
  4. See yourself as better than others
  5. Stop writing articles
    
    Personally, I find it far easier once becoming an admin to use one of several sockpuppet accounts (some through
    
    closed, private proxies) to edit accounts in peace. Once you get the slightest hint of a problem, abandon it
    
    and learn from your mistake: never, ever repeat whatever it was you did to annoy the other person.
    
    For a while as an admin, as long as you either crank out FA's or don't link your editing to your
    
    administrative actions, you're fine. Once someone follows you to your article to try to make the 3RR violation
    
    block you gave them into a personal disagreement so they can claim admin abuse, it's time to edit from something
    
    else. Note that this is a valid use of sockpuppets.
  6. Templating regulars
    
    I'll let the already-posted essay speak for me: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.
    
    It's not policy, but it's a great idea.
Legal Issues
If it comes up, the majority of the time Wikipedia legal issues are decided under the laws of Florida. If you have a legal question you just don't know how to deal with that regards Wikipedia, contact User:Brad Patrick.
1. U.S. Law and the nature of corporations
  Wikimedia is a company. Wikimedia's first loyalty is to itself: If you put Wikimedia in a position where it has to choose between continuing its existance and protecting you, you lose. This is normal, don't feel offended. You don't have to owe Wikimedia any specific loyalty either, though respecting the fact that it's graciously allowing you to edit might be appreciated.
2. Articles on Living Persons
  Please read, then reread, WP:BLP. If you make a mistake and post your personal feelings on a public figure on that persons article, or you put false information in the article (even on accident) you're likely to soon be a target of that person's legal wrath. Don't forget that if the Foundation receives a subpoena for your IP address, they won't hesitate to deliver the information. Nobody's going to go to jail because you want to defame a public figure.
3. Defamation, Libel, and Slander against others
4. Personal Information and Privacy Violations
5. Intimidation and Assault
6. Copyright and Fair Use
Off-Wikipedia Interactions
1. General Notes
  When you do anything on Wikipedia, even if the cause for your discovery of the situation is based on off-Wiki reports and speculation, you cannot claim off-Wiki discussions as the basis for consensus. There is no such thing as consensus off-Wiki
  
  Do not claim that someone elsewhere told you to do something.
  If you perform an action and claim someone off-wiki said you should do something, what you're saying is that you performed your action with no reasonable justification. Obviously, this should be avoided.
  
  Do not say Oh, we talked about this on IRC (or elsewhere).
  Really. It just pisses people off. Nobody has ever said this on-wiki and have the situation not turn into a shitstorm. Plenty of our editors simply feel that IRC is nothing more than a den of iniquity, and it's laughably simple to move the problem to a different venue.
  
  Protocols are not evil.
  All Internet protocols (Email, IM's, IRC, etc...) are helpful and useful for different purposes. None of them are "dangerous" to you nor inherently more counterproductive than others. Suggesting that Wikipedians should not use any given protocol will (again) simply piss people off.
  
  Conspiracy is evil.
  Please don't conspire with others to cause harm to other editors, either by baiting them into breaking rules or by brainstorming methods to rid yourselves of someone you don't like. It doesn't do any good. If you have a problem with an editor, either avoid them or try to resolve it using the dispute resolution process.
  1. Things to encourage (DO's)
  2. Things to discourage (DONT's)
  3. Admin-specific actions
    Emergency blocks based on off-wiki conversations
    It's a bad idea, and will lead to your desysopping if you're not exceedingly careful. Let those who don't need to read this primer handle it.
    
    If your attention is brought to a situation that, after review, seems to require a block, always remember that you may well be hearing only one side of the story.
    
    Administrative actions should have on-Wikipedia reasoning.
    If your friend asks you to delete a page in his personal namespace, tell him to apply {{db-author}} or {{db-owner}} first.
    
    If someone says a user is vandalizing pages and needs to be blocked, have that person apply a warning template first, then go over the contributions. Just pretend IRC isn't there. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's not there.
    
    Blocking people due to something they did to you off Wikipedia is not acceptable.
    Period. This simply isn't excusable.
2. IRC - Internet Relay Chat
  While IRC can be a helpful tool to both beginning users (#wikipedia-bootcamp) and experienced users (#wikipedia-spotlight, see also Wikipedia:Spotlight), the same issues that plague other medium of communication are prevalent here as well, especially given the private nature of IRC communications.
  1. Freenode and IRC policy
    While IRC is not Wiki*edia, keep in mind that the same basic standards of behaviour do apply. from m:IRC guidelines
  2. Being a catalyst
    From freenode philosophy: catalysts
    The "catalyst" role is critical to freenode and an essential building block of channels. No one is required to be a catalyst, but the users who perform this role ensure the smooth and efficient functioning of the network.
    
    IRC does not automatically produce a stable culture of cooperative effort. Even in cases where cooperation is intended, misunderstandings and personality incompatibilities can result in an extremely chaotic and hostile environment. Catalysts help prevent and resolve misunderstanding, calm the waters when users have difficulties dealing with each other and provide examples of constructive behavior in environments where such behavior might not otherwise be the norm.
    
    Catalysts try to resolve problems, not through the use of authority and special privilege, but by fostering consensus, gently nudging participants in the direction of more appropriate behavior and by generally reducing the level of confrontation rather than confronting users with problems.
    
    Channel and network administrators may be catalysts and, indeed, are encouraged to take on that role. Channels which recognize the importance of the catalyst role will foster more effective coordination of effort. An important characteristic of successful catalysts is the infrequency with which they wear authority or invoke special privilege.
    
    freenode staffers and facilities hosting personnel are advised that an understanding and appreciation of the role of catalyst is essential to understanding the nature and intended purpose of the network. As the network grows in size, formal training in the catalyst role will be provided.
  3. Useful links:
    1. Wikipedia:IRC channels
      If you're going to go there, where you should go.
    2. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
      Always, even on IRC. Even about IRC.
    3. Meta:IRC channel cloaks
      These hide your IP address from other users online. Has nothing to do with Cabal clothing fashions.
  4. Posting public logs
    Posting logs of IRC sessions without the permission of all involved is highly discouraged and will likely result in you being no longer welcome to converse with those individuals, as well as banned from IRC channels. There is no policy, however, stating that you should be blocked for posting a log on Wikipedia. Please remember that you can still be blocked for disruption, even if that disruption is created by spreading logs of others without their permission.
3. Blogging
  We've already had instances of blogger comments inciting disruption on Wikipedia. If you run a blog, note that there are over one thousand admins alone, and many, many more users which go looking for things on the internet every day: Sooner or later your comments catch up to you.
4. E-Mail
5. Instant Messenger Services
6. Other websites
The Dispute Resolution Process
1. Suggested Process
2. Avoid Escalation
3. Abhor Arbitration
  There's nothing wrong with the process itself, for the most part. The arbitrators have undergone a difficult election to get to the point where they're in that position, and then they have to be hand-selected by the founder of Wikimedia. The problem with arbitration is simple: If you've gotten to the point where you're mentioned in an ArbCom case, it means you've failed. It takes two to tango, and cases where only one of the parties is guilty of anything tend to get handled on WP:AN/I and WP:PAIN.
Other related projects
1. Meta
2. Commons
3. Other language Wikipedias
4. Wikiquote
5. Wiktionary
6. Wikispecies
7. MediaWiki and Software Development
Unrelated projects
1. Wikia
  
  Take Wikipedia and make it ad-supported and far more varied in content.
2. Freenode
3. Wordforge
  Shameless self-plug. Go write some fiction. Creative writing! You can include original research!
  
  Enjoy yourself, but don't piss people off too badly please. It's not a Wikimedia wiki. If you
  
  annoy me for no reason there, I get to use my twitchy block-finger.
Things to avoid when bored
1. Playing Wikipolitics (also known as WP:DRAMA)
  The longer I stay here, the more my opinion veers towards simply ignoring the
  
  fact that this board exists at all. If you're an admin, it seems best to keep a
  
  low profile, do nice rote administrative work, and let those who seem to enjoy
  
  mucking around in wiki-politics handle this entirely.
2. Trolling
  There is a frequent misunderstanding that you can speak your mind on Wikipedia
  
  without consideration of others and there are no repercussions. While there are
  
  certainly no obligatory blocking rationales for WP:AGF and WP:NPA,
  
  repeated attempts will eventually either land you in front of arbitration
  
  or the community simply getting sick of dealing with you.
3. Vandalism
  This one is a dangerous idea:
Other IRC-related essays
1. User:Geogre/IRC considered
  
  I'll be honest, I don't think Geogre and I see eye-to-eye, but he does have the
  
  benefits of usually being patient, always being eloquent, and manages to have
  
  positions on issues that I have not considered. I have a sneaking suspicion he
  
  spends off hours sampling wines and attending poetry readings and operas, whereas
  
  my recreation time is typically spent watching anime, writing fiction, and snacking
  
  on Pocky. Thankfully, so far, he's humored my questions and explained comments
  
  that I fail to grasp. I suspect if he learned that I respect him, he would require
  
  resuscitation.
2. User:Lar/IRC
  
  Lar is a friend of mine and, in my opinion, one of the fairest Wikipedians I know of.
  
  Occasionally this is annoying, especially when I'm being unfair about something and
  
  he disagrees with me. Happily, he's usually around on IRC and willing to both let me
  
  vent steam and offer advice, which sadly I don't listen to nearly as often as I should.
3. Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC
  
  Some of the Arbitrators have decided to declare their personal views on IRC here. While
  
  you may not agree with some of the views expressed here (whether you are pro- or con-IRC)
  
  I'd encourage you to read them and think about them open-mindedly and singly. My best
  
  advice regarding this page, assuming you would take my advice, is to read the statements
  
  of each arbitrator and take a break before moving to the next one. I've found myself
  
  considering positions that I normally disagree with, and having an open mind on the subject
  
  never hurts. Sadly, much drama has ensued from those who take a position and never budge
  
  from it at all.