Wikipediocracy

mac wrote:

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Somebody quoted Ironholds bragging about trolling me on IRC. Can anybody locate that log?

Oh, you mean this:

Tarc wrote:

[10:10] <Ironholds> heh
[10:10] <Ironholds> see, back on WR, there was one contributor I used to have great fun trolling.
[10:11] <Ironholds> he was incredibly angry and couldn't spell. And pointing out he couldn't spell would make him angrier, and less grammatical.
[10:11] <russavia> ahhh malick shabazz -- how nice to see EEML's pal there
[10:11] <Fluffernutter> the thing about trying to counter-troll trolls is that generally, the trolls are better at it
[10:11] <Ironholds> So every time he posted I'd reply with nothing but a string of spelling corrections. He'd get pissed. He'd eff and blind at me. He'd do so using terrible prose. I'd reply with nothing... ;p

Courtesy of Tarc. Hope this helps.

Malleus wrote:Why are you wasting time on this, as the outcome is obvious? You'll get a nice long ban and Ironholds will walk away Scott free.

Malleus wrote:Why are you wasting time on this, as the outcome is obvious? You'll get a nice long ban and Ironholds will walk away Scott free.

• Whether the RfC on private communications was valid.
• Whether the "IRC" in question included, for the purpose of that RfC, IRC channels associated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
• What constitutes association with the Wikimedia Foundation in terms of IRC.
• Whether or not association with the WMF affects the status of an IRC channel as "private".

:::::I'm flattered you feel I'm worth more than 6,000 dollars. Yes; a lot of staffers hang out on IRC. This is because a lot of users hang out on IRC, and it's the one real-time environment open to us to interact. Users surface issues with software to me, or to the developers and other liaisons who idle in the channels, and we can have a conversation and get it fixed much faster than if we were exchanging talkpage messages 12 hours apart. This isn't a donation of staff-time to freenode, it's a "donation" of staff-time to the community. It's my job. It doesn't show Foundation control over the IRC channels, it shows that wikipedians ''use'' those channels and being able to talk to Wikipedians is an important part of my day job. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 08:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Malleus wrote:Why are you wasting time on this, as the outcome is obvious? You'll get a nice long ban and Ironholds will walk away Scott free.

EricBarbour wrote:Getting tired of talking about Ironballs again?

mac wrote:Turns out Ironholds feels that abusing people on IRC and trolling people on WR is part of his job:

:::::I'm flattered you feel I'm worth more than 6,000 dollars. Yes; a lot of staffers hang out on IRC. This is because a lot of users hang out on IRC, and it's the one real-time environment open to us to interact. Users surface issues with software to me, or to the developers and other liaisons who idle in the channels, and we can have a conversation and get it fixed much faster than if we were exchanging talkpage messages 12 hours apart. This isn't a donation of staff-time to freenode, it's a "donation" of staff-time to the community. It's my job. It doesn't show Foundation control over the IRC channels, it shows that wikipedians ''use'' those channels and being able to talk to Wikipedians is an important part of my day job. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 08:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose Wikipedians should feel honored that he spends time abusing them in IRC.

By that logic, he really should get an account here, since Wikipedians "hang out" here too.

Malleus wrote:Why are you wasting time on this, as the outcome is obvious? You'll get a nice long ban and Ironholds will walk away Scott free.

Yeah, pretty much. This case has taken a bad turn, with secret evidence and all. If you can drop out of the case based on this, take it. He is now pretty much bulletproof.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:

mac wrote:Turns out Ironholds feels that abusing people on IRC and trolling people on WR is part of his job:

:::::I'm flattered you feel I'm worth more than 6,000 dollars. Yes; a lot of staffers hang out on IRC. This is because a lot of users hang out on IRC, and it's the one real-time environment open to us to interact. Users surface issues with software to me, or to the developers and other liaisons who idle in the channels, and we can have a conversation and get it fixed much faster than if we were exchanging talkpage messages 12 hours apart. This isn't a donation of staff-time to freenode, it's a "donation" of staff-time to the community. It's my job. It doesn't show Foundation control over the IRC channels, it shows that wikipedians ''use'' those channels and being able to talk to Wikipedians is an important part of my day job. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 08:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose Wikipedians should feel honored that he spends time abusing them in IRC.

By that logic, he really should get an account here, since Wikipedians "hang out" here too.

Malleus wrote:Why are you wasting time on this, as the outcome is obvious? You'll get a nice long ban and Ironholds will walk away Scott free.

Yeah, pretty much. This case has taken a bad turn, with secret evidence and all. If you can drop out of the case based on this, take it. He is now pretty much bulletproof.

SandyGeorgia (T-C-L) suggested a petition to have Keyes removed from WMF. Should it take the form of an RfC/U?

There should be an RfC on Wikipedia's IRC channels.

Vigilant wrote:

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: SandyGeorgia (T-C-L) suggested a petition to have Oliver Keyes ( Ironholds (T-C-L) Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) ) removed from WMF. Should it take the form of an RfC/U?

There should be an RfC on Wikipedia's IRC channels.

Where?

why there has not been a broadly circulated petition to ask the WMF to cease employment for those who act inappropriately, even in unofficial fora, towards the website they are employed to further? I am unsure if the current case can be solved by the arbs, but I do not know why a single one of us donates our time to a venture that hires people who can behave in the ways we have seen-- why has the community not risen up to sign a petition asking that the person be removed?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: On her talk-page SandyGeorgia (T-C-L) commented:

why there has not been a broadly circulated petition to ask the WMF to cease employment for those who act inappropriately, even in unofficial fora, towards the website they are employed to further? I am unsure if the current case can be solved by the arbs, but I do not know why a single one of us donates our time to a venture that hires people who can behave in the ways we have seen-- why has the community not risen up to sign a petition asking that the person be removed?

lilburne wrote:

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: On her talk-page SandyGeorgia (T-C-L) commented:

why there has not been a broadly circulated petition to ask the WMF to cease employment for those who act inappropriately, even in unofficial fora, towards the website they are employed to further? I am unsure if the current case can be solved by the arbs, but I do not know why a single one of us donates our time to a venture that hires people who can behave in the ways we have seen-- why has the community not risen up to sign a petition asking that the person be removed?

Well when I hear of companies that sack people because of what they've said on facebook, twitter, or in a blog about the company or boss they work for. Then I usually think what an crap arsehole company/boss. I wouldn't want anything to do with them. Then again this is wikipedia.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: Misogynist violent comments were repeatedly made by a WMF employee who appeared on Wikipedia's IRC channels as part of his WMF duties.

Vigilant wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:Getting tired of talking about Ironballs again?

They've got him back in his bottle again and there's rumor of a three week vacation upcoming.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: I would suggest language like

When using IRC channels with the Wikipedia name, editors are expected to avoid any actions which would bring disrepute on Wikipedia or which are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. WMF employees and other WMF/Wikipedia officers should be especially careful to protect the reputation of Wikipedia.

Scott5114 wrote:

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: I would suggest language like

When using IRC channels with the Wikipedia name, editors are expected to avoid any actions which would bring disrepute on Wikipedia or which are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. WMF employees and other WMF/Wikipedia officers should be especially careful to protect the reputation of Wikipedia.

Easy loophole: the channel just has to change titles from Wikipedia to Wikimedia and it's instantly out of the purview of English Wikipedia ArbCom and in the purview of Meta (since it could theoretically contain discussion/users from Wikidata, Commons, etc.) If Meta's oversight becomes to onerous, one could drop the Wikimedia name altogether and become an officially unaffiliated channel.

Changing a channel name is as simple as telling everyone to quit the current channel and join the new one.

"Bad faith" and "false"

Regarding your reversion here. I'm acting in good faith for the encyclopedia, maybe not for individual careers at the WMF, but definitely for other editors here. Your accusation of bad faith borders on a personal attack, if I didn't want to assume you just make the (pre-)judgement in total ignorance.

As for "false," show me where it's false. Flow is replacing Talk pages, and Flow will only use Visual Editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not. More accurately, you were assuming bad faith. So, in order; statements about the VE being "crammed up the ass" of editors are not assuming the good faith of the other participant here. Assuming, as you do here, that I object for sake of "individual careers" ditto. We don't have a single staffer who couldn't be earning far more at any other company - a company where they're not required to spend all day with users sending them aggrieved messages. If we only cared about our "individual careers" we'd be elsewhere. We're here because we're also acting in good faith for the encyclopedia. Yes, we disagree, undoubtedly - but tell me truly that you've never had a user disagree with you who was acting in what they believed to be the interests of the wiki?
In order, the incorrect bits:

When you imply, in your edit summary, that we are simply going to force flow or the VE on the community without an opportunity to discuss it or amend it, you are incorrect. We are having that discussion now - on this talkpage. We are also having it on the Flow portal on enwiki, the Flow portal on metawiki, and the Flow portal on mediawiki.org - and that's before development has even started. We're having a very, very preliminary discussion.
The rest of your statement is incorrect for the reasons I've already outlined in the discussions about the VE/Flow interaction; that what Flow looks like now may be totally different from how it looks like when it's built, which in turn may be very different from how it looks when it's deployed. This is a very preliminary discussion of a very preliminary featureset - look at Page Curation. The initial design of that was based around the idea that there would be, say, a dozen categories you could pass or fail an article on. Pick as many as you want; if you have some left over, the article will go back into the queue to be checked for the remaining items, and users will be able to filter by item type. If you've used Special:NewPagesFeed, you'll know that's not how it works in practise.
To reiterate; preliminary discussion. Preliminary featureset. A discussion we are having about this featureset precisely so people can surface major issues with it, and so they can be discussed. I have no doubt that the need for wikimarkup is going to be brought into the conversation, and by that I mean "I'm in the office in 3 days, and I'll bring it up in person". I don't need an extra 300 editors battering down the gates to know it's a problem. The fact that it is a problem has been surfaced, and will be taken into account. There's not much more to do here.

Anyway. I've been having conversations with people for...15-16 hours now. I'm going to go to bed, and I'll re-engage in the morning. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a single staffer who couldn't be earning far more at any other company - a company where they're not required to spend all day with users sending them aggrieved messages. If we only cared about our "individual careers" we'd be elsewhere.

Scott5114 wrote:

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: I would suggest language like

When using IRC channels with the Wikipedia name, editors are expected to avoid any actions which would bring disrepute on Wikipedia or which are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. WMF employees and other WMF/Wikipedia officers should be especially careful to protect the reputation of Wikipedia.

Easy loophole: the channel just has to change titles from Wikipedia to Wikimedia and it's instantly out of the purview of English Wikipedia ArbCom and in the purview of Meta (since it could theoretically contain discussion/users from Wikidata, Commons, etc.) If Meta's oversight becomes to onerous, one could drop the Wikimedia name altogether and become an officially unaffiliated channel.

Changing a channel name is as simple as telling everyone to quit the current channel and join the new one.

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the [[WP:Teahouse|Teahouse]] to bring in mentors from across the wiki to {{Plainlinks|https://snuggle.grouplens.org|try out Snuggle}} and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in {{channel|wikimedia-office}} on '''Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC'''. See [[WP:Snuggle/IRC/2013-07-17|the agenda]] for more info. --User:EpochFail

Snuggle is a browser-based newcomer observation and support system. Snuggle is designed to allow Wikipedian mentors to observe the activities of recently registered editors and separate desirable newcomers (good-faith & productive) from the undesirables (bad-faith & vandals).

This tool was designed in response to recent research that shows that the decline in newcomer retention in Wikipedia[1][2] is the result of an increasingly negative environment for desirable newcomers[3][4] and that Wikipedia's current socialization systems don't work because mentors don't find newcomers when they most need help[5][6]. Snuggle is designed to help experienced Wikipedians identify desirable newcomers who are editing in good-faith and help them dodge Wikipedia's sharper corners.

thekohser wrote: It would seem to me that, at least for some portion of WMF staffers, they have found the company at which they will earn the most they could possibly hope for, given their peculiar skill sets and personality quirks.

I don't need an extra 300 editors battering down the gates to know it's a problem.

Jim wrote:

thekohser wrote: It would seem to me that, at least for some portion of WMF staffers, they have found the company at which they will earn the most they could possibly hope for, given their peculiar skill sets and personality quirks.

This.

... and Mr Keyes is the poster child for that group. Public relations - client liason? He'd not last 10 minutes in that role in the real world with quotes like Vigilant shows above.

Malleus wrote:Why are you wasting time on this, as the outcome is obvious? You'll get a nice long ban and Ironholds will walk away Scott free.

cyofee wrote:

Jim wrote:

thekohser wrote: It would seem to me that, at least for some portion of WMF staffers, they have found the company at which they will earn the most they could possibly hope for, given their peculiar skill sets and personality quirks.

This.

... and Mr Keyes is the poster child for that group. Public relations - client liason? He'd not last 10 minutes in that role in the real world with quotes like Vigilant shows above.

To extend Greg's argument, the WMF are bringing people like Ironholds upon themselves by paying their employees below market price.

One would think that with essentially unlimited money, the WMF would be doing their best to attract the best and brightest. A big step in the right direction would be paying top dollar for top talent.

Vigilant wrote:

cyofee wrote:

Jim wrote:

thekohser wrote: It would seem to me that, at least for some portion of WMF staffers, they have found the company at which they will earn the most they could possibly hope for, given their peculiar skill sets and personality quirks.

This.

... and Mr Keyes is the poster child for that group. Public relations - client liason? He'd not last 10 minutes in that role in the real world with quotes like Vigilant shows above.

To extend Greg's argument, the WMF are bringing people like Ironholds upon themselves by paying their employees below market price.

One would think that with essentially unlimited money, the WMF would be doing their best to attract the best and brightest. A big step in the right direction would be paying top dollar for top talent.

This is only partially correct.
The single hardest skill that I've attempted to master is interviewing candidates.
It's a long, tedious, painstaking process to hire really good people.

Trying to build or maintain an A level team is really fucking hard.

Wikimedia bypasses this and hires like minded people who hang around long enough in the right chat rooms.

A managers hire A people to try to be the dumbest guy in the room.
B managers hire C people to try to be the smartest guy in the room.


The Wikimedia Foundation is lacking at every level of engineering and support disciplines.
Does anyone think that the program management covering Flow and VisualEditor integration is well handled when the tech lead for Flow has no fucking idea what editor they will be using?
Worse yet, the tech lead feels obligated/compelled to show his team's ass to the customer?

This shit does not fly at real companies in the valley.

But then, Sue and Erik can't get real jobs in the valley because they utterly suck at their nominal job descriptions.
Every other evil thing at WMF engineering flows from this.

Adam, I want you to go away, and come back and ask this question when you've both (a) read any of the threads that relate to the A/B test (which you clearly haven't, because if you had, you'd have seen my message a day ago that said I was chasing the results up) and (b) demonstrated you're capable of assuming good faith. I don't know why I haven't been allowed to release the results yet, but if I had to pick an answer, it would probably be "because everyone is busy and the emails have got buried". It wouldn't be "because vast conspiracy". Your recent statements undermine the work of those people trying to keep the VE team honest, and that's not a good thing. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Zoloft wrote:I can just imagine the fun we'll have when Generic Sketchy Editor (T-C-L) 'snuggles' a group of new, teenage users.

User account "Generic Sketchy Editor" is not registered.

Vigilant wrote:Nice public relations work there, Oliver.

Adam, I want you to go away, and come back and ask this question when you've both (a) read any of the threads that relate to the A/B test (which you clearly haven't, because if you had, you'd have seen my message a day ago that said I was chasing the results up) and (b) demonstrated you're capable of assuming good faith. I don't know why I haven't been allowed to release the results yet, but if I had to pick an answer, it would probably be "because everyone is busy and the emails have got buried". It wouldn't be "because vast conspiracy". Your recent statements undermine the work of those people trying to keep the VE team honest, and that's not a good thing. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

How anyone in charge of public relations can let Oliver Keyes keep talking to the customer base this way is equally culpable for his inherent incompetence.

I believe that I will prefer VE over the source editor once it contains fewer bugs.
Yes
No

Not for me, since I do so much image work, which, ironically, is far easier to do with filenames than any sort of GUI could handle. I think it will be good for others, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

VE contains a lot of transclusions for templates that a baby could use, and with time, I believe that it will make image work easier too. LiquidWater 12:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that doesn't make it suitable for someone who often has to use the Find command to look for a filename, because I've just restored a larger version. I can't keep multiple image sizes in copy paste, but I can leave the "300px" or "50px" or whatever in place. Further, I want the captions to remain exactly the same, I don't want to have to copy them over. Cntrl-F, enter, Highlight, Cntrl-V is probably always going to be faster than anything VE can make, unless someone makes a tool specifically for my use. I'm not rejecting VE because I think it's a bad idea; I'm rejecting it because I have very specific editing requirements that no VisualEditor could reasonably be expected to handle.Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

So don't use it. Simple. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I did say that I thought it would be good for others. Had the WMF not thrown a fit about not wanting anyone to hide the user preference, I'd have shut it off and got on with things. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor bug Bug 50615.

Hiyas there Ironholds,

Mind giving me a hand with bug 50615? That specific issue seems to be solved now, but since Maggie reported the bug for me i cannot change the status to resolved. One slight drawback though: Solving that bug seems to have caused a new one to surface:

Steps to reproduce:

Navigate to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... oldid=prev
Press "Edit this Page"

Instead of editing the old page that was just displayed the visual editor seems to default to the most recent version of the page. Not sure if i should amend the old bug, or create a new one for this. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Not Ironholds! Ack! Crossing the streams .
I've RESOLVE FIXED it; good catch on the followup. Want to throw it in? I'd suggest a new bug, yep. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Argh, i forgot this is the official account. Sorry for that IronEyes! . As for the bug: One freshly baked bug 51364 has just entered the oven. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Snuggle

Hex wrote:

Snuggle

Will somebody please take these people aside and have a word about product naming?

Hex wrote:

Snuggle

Will somebody please take these people aside and have a word about product naming?

neved wrote:

Malleus wrote:Why are you wasting time on this, as the outcome is obvious? You'll get a nice long ban and Ironholds will walk away Scott free.

Come on, Malleus. You should have most trust in the dear leader and his ruling party.
Jist see how many admins were desysoped and some even were blocked

HRIP7 wrote:

neved wrote:

Malleus wrote:Why are you wasting time on this, as the outcome is obvious? You'll get a nice long ban and Ironholds will walk away Scott free.

Come on, Malleus. You should have most trust in the dear leader and his ruling party.
Jist see how many admins were desysoped and some even were blocked

Odd that ChrisO (T-C-L) isn't listed on that page. He was desysopped in the Macedonia 2 case. The desysop doesn't show in his user rights log either.

Zoloft wrote:Poking around and looking at how various editors interact with Ironholds (T-C-L), I found this hilarious page, where a pop-up Good Article reviewer, Electronscope44 (T-C-L) savages Ironhold's prose, sources, and intelligence, then proceeds to begin correcting the article themselves. Fluffernutter (T-C-L) flies in and attempts to bolster Ironholds. Mysteriously, Electronscope44 is soon blocked by Jdforrester (T-C-L).

HRIP7 wrote:

neved wrote:

Malleus wrote:Why are you wasting time on this, as the outcome is obvious? You'll get a nice long ban and Ironholds will walk away Scott free.

Come on, Malleus. You should have most trust in the dear leader and his ruling party.
Jist see how many admins were desysoped and some even were blocked

Odd that ChrisO (T-C-L) isn't listed on that page. He was desysopped in the Macedonia 2 case. The desysop doesn't show in his user rights log either.

TungstenCarbide wrote:

Zoloft wrote:Poking around and looking at how various editors interact with Ironholds (T-C-L), I found this hilarious page, where a pop-up Good Article reviewer, Electronscope44 (T-C-L) savages Ironhold's prose, sources, and intelligence, then proceeds to begin correcting the article themselves. Fluffernutter (T-C-L) flies in and attempts to bolster Ironholds. Mysteriously, Electronscope44 is soon blocked by Jdforrester (T-C-L).

Hillarious.

Anyone want to guess why he got blocked? Doesn't look that serious judging from the banter on his talk page.

17:10, 5 July 2011 Jdforrester (talk | contribs) blocked Electronscope44 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Concerns best raised off-wiki. Please e-mail me - jdforrester@gmail.com)

mac wrote:

TungstenCarbide wrote:

Zoloft wrote:Poking around and looking at how various editors interact with Ironholds (T-C-L), I found this hilarious page, where a pop-up Good Article reviewer, Electronscope44 (T-C-L) savages Ironhold's prose, sources, and intelligence, then proceeds to begin correcting the article themselves. Fluffernutter (T-C-L) flies in and attempts to bolster Ironholds. Mysteriously, Electronscope44 is soon blocked by Jdforrester (T-C-L).

Hillarious.

Anyone want to guess why he got blocked? Doesn't look that serious judging from the banter on his talk page.

17:10, 5 July 2011 Jdforrester (talk | contribs) blocked Electronscope44 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Concerns best raised off-wiki. Please e-mail me - jdforrester@gmail.com)

Anyone care to email him?

tarantino wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:

neved wrote:

Malleus wrote:Why are you wasting time on this, as the outcome is obvious? You'll get a nice long ban and Ironholds will walk away Scott free.

Come on, Malleus. You should have most trust in the dear leader and his ruling party.
Jist see how many admins were desysoped and some even were blocked

Odd that ChrisO (T-C-L) isn't listed on that page. He was desysopped in the Macedonia 2 case. The desysop doesn't show in his user rights log either.

At the time, only a steward could desysop someone on enwiki.

The Adversary wrote:

tarantino wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:

neved wrote:

Malleus wrote:Why are you wasting time on this, as the outcome is obvious? You'll get a nice long ban and Ironholds will walk away Scott free.

Come on, Malleus. You should have most trust in the dear leader and his ruling party.
Jist see how many admins were desysoped and some even were blocked

Odd that ChrisO (T-C-L) isn't listed on that page. He was desysopped in the Macedonia 2 case. The desysop doesn't show in his user rights log either.

At the time, only a steward could desysop someone on enwiki.

ChrisO is not on the "For cause"-list, he is on the "Resigned" list.
I believe this is because he formally resigned ...just before he was to be formally desysopped.
Law (T-C-L) / Undertow (T-C-L) did the same, so did several others (see the list).

The Adversary wrote:

tarantino wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:

neved wrote:

Malleus wrote:Why are you wasting time on this, as the outcome is obvious? You'll get a nice long ban and Ironholds will walk away Scott free.

Come on, Malleus. You should have most trust in the dear leader and his ruling party.
Jist see how many admins were desysoped and some even were blocked

Odd that ChrisO (T-C-L) isn't listed on that page. He was desysopped in the Macedonia 2 case. The desysop doesn't show in his user rights log either.

At the time, only a steward could desysop someone on enwiki.

ChrisO is not on the "For cause"-list, he is on the "Resigned" list.
I believe this is because he formally resigned ...just before he was to be formally desysopped.
Law (T-C-L) / Undertow (T-C-L) did the same, so did several others (see the list).

Do the rules really allow this? Can someone really wait until arbitrators have voted to desysop them, but before the case is technically "closed", and then "resign"? I think the ArbCom would have every right to proceed to close the case as if this resignation had not taken place, and let the desysopping stand. Or if not, it should be made clear that if the person in question ever seeks to be an admin again (or any other position), the consequences of the resignation under these circumstances are the same as if the person had been desysopped. (I think I may have seen something like that done at some time, but I couldn't find an actual policy to that effect.) And here is another question: Is it ok for an admin to give himself rollback rights when it appears the ArbCom is about to vote to desysop him? And now, having resigned, he is left with the rollback? Admittedly, this took place before there was an actual majority to desysop (by a couple of days), but it seems unlikely that the writers of the policy allowing admins to give editors rollback, intended that an admin give that right to himself, under these circumstances. For the record, I don't think Wikipedia would be harmed if that particular action were allowed to stand, it just seems like a procedural move that should not be encouraged. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:

Scott5114 wrote:

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: I would suggest language like

When using IRC channels with the Wikipedia name, editors are expected to avoid any actions which would bring disrepute on Wikipedia or which are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. WMF employees and other WMF/Wikipedia officers should be especially careful to protect the reputation of Wikipedia.

Easy loophole: the channel just has to change titles from Wikipedia to Wikimedia and it's instantly out of the purview of English Wikipedia ArbCom and in the purview of Meta (since it could theoretically contain discussion/users from Wikidata, Commons, etc.) If Meta's oversight becomes to onerous, one could drop the Wikimedia name altogether and become an officially unaffiliated channel.

Changing a channel name is as simple as telling everyone to quit the current channel and join the new one.

That would be a start.

Let them talk about how much they hate their ex-girlfriends, the women they want to shoot, how to prolong the murder of women, and allow women to play along only if they play at being abused without besmirching Wikipedia (or WMF).

Also, remove WP:IRC.

The Joy wrote:

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:

Scott5114 wrote:

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: I would suggest language like

When using IRC channels with the Wikipedia name, editors are expected to avoid any actions which would bring disrepute on Wikipedia or which are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. WMF employees and other WMF/Wikipedia officers should be especially careful to protect the reputation of Wikipedia.

Easy loophole: the channel just has to change titles from Wikipedia to Wikimedia and it's instantly out of the purview of English Wikipedia ArbCom and in the purview of Meta (since it could theoretically contain discussion/users from Wikidata, Commons, etc.) If Meta's oversight becomes to onerous, one could drop the Wikimedia name altogether and become an officially unaffiliated channel.

Changing a channel name is as simple as telling everyone to quit the current channel and join the new one.

That would be a start.

Let them talk about how much they hate their ex-girlfriends, the women they want to shoot, how to prolong the murder of women, and allow women to play along only if they play at being abused without besmirching Wikipedia (or WMF).

Also, remove WP:IRC.

How about all Wikimedia/Wikipedia-related IRC channels (including the Admin IRC channel) allow autoconfirmed editors to at least peer in and observe the conversations?

Did I just hear a thousand administrators scream out in terror and call me unspeakable names? I'm sure I just did.

HRIP7 wrote: Odd that ChrisO (T-C-L) isn't listed on that page. He was desysopped in the Macedonia 2 case. The desysop doesn't show in his user rights log either.

Hex wrote:

HRIP7 wrote: Odd that ChrisO (T-C-L) isn't listed on that page. He was desysopped in the Macedonia 2 case. The desysop doesn't show in his user rights log either.

You have to look in the global rights log for that (see note at the top of your link). As you can see from the linked diff, he requested removal of his own sysop status just days before Arbcom had it removed themselves.

Oh, and fixed.