Forum:Regarding non-admins being IRC chanops

Like every IRC channel on freenode, we have "chanops" who on paper are admins of this wiki.

Some users may be aware that there is one user of the channel (who edits the wiki on the rare occasion) who is also a "chanop". The user was "unofficially" given the flags back when we were having a spate of problems with one particular user, who hasn't stepped foot in the channel at all in 2012.

It seems to be that lately, one of the bureaucrats has (repeatedly) removed that user's rights in the channel. There is no evidence at all to say who it was so I'm not going to investigate it but I'm guessing it's either due to a personal belief against the user or a personal belief that non-admins shouldn't be chanops (please don't use this forum to accuse anyone). No disciplinary action will be taken against anyone because a) nobody knows who it really is that's doing it and b) there is literally nothing saying whether non-admins can be IRC-ops or not; can't take someone up on something that doesn't exist. This forum however is regarding whether or not any non-admins should have operator flags.

For now I'm going to abstain from voicing my own personal opinion on this but I am going to list pros and cons of non-admins having operator flags (in particular for #wikia-sims).

Pros

 * Can cover when no other chanops are online/active.
 * May have experience from elsewhere.

Cons

 * # wikia-sims seems to have enough ops anyway who are administrators; there is often always an active administrator (i.e. any voiced user) in the channel.
 * We don't get that many disruptive users.
 * Other non-admins in the channel may feel prejudiced that they don't have operator flags yet another user does, especially if say User A doesn't have op flags but has rollback yet User B has ops but no rollback. It may also lead to every other user asking for op flags and it can seem unfair if they're declined.
 * Having too many non-admins as ops may cause an uncontrollable level of disruption, leading to the channel becoming an unpleasant place. I've witnessed this in another channel before.

I realise I have indeed listed more cons than pros but that doesn't mean I haven't left anything out and it doesn't mean I'm biased towards one side of the argument. For now I am going to abstain from voicing any real opinion but I would like to know what other IRC users, particularly administrators, think so that we can get something put in place and I don't need to keep restoring that user's rights only for them to be removed again in a short space of time. 14:45, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
I do recall that there was, not too long ago, a push to de-op all non-administrators from the IRC channel, resulting in a couple wiki users who had, as a courtesy due to their activity, received op status having that status removed. I'd say if that was the decision made back then and if we want that decision to be upheld, then it only makes sense to follow through and de-op that person as well. However, the alternative might be to say that we don't necessarily want to limit operator status to admins/bureaucrats, but would rather extend that status to any competent and trustworthy IRC users, perhaps even regardless of whether or not they edit on-wiki. In that case however it would come down to deciding who was eligible and how it would be managed, and I think that would be more of a headache than it's worth, so I'm ultimately in support of closing it off completely to non-admins or bureaucrats. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 14:53, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

I also vaugely remember something like that happening, I mostly just lurk in the IRC popping in when my name is said, mainly because I'm playing IRCop and chanop on another server. I can understand making only the administration chanops, lets you keep a oh...how should I say it, symmetrical powerbase between the IRC and wiki, inotherwords, keep what you already have so you can more easily manage the staff. Though, if you guys really wanted, you should put up an application or something for applying to be an IRC chanop, just an idea. - JR Crichton Talk  17:14, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I do recall that situation with voiced users (not sure if that was what you meant; I can't remember deopping non-admins with +o too well) losing their flags who weren't admins. That mostly happened because while it started as a joke with a few users, it spread to virtually everyone being voiced and noone could distinguish an admin from a normal user, hence admins being voiced only. Though partially irrelevant (or completely if I've recalled the wrong situation), it does have the same cons and a link to IRC and the wiki being parallel in terms of user rights. 20:14, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * You're referencing the correct thing GG, I didn't remember it correctly. The link between IRC and wiki is what I was hitting at - saying that only admins on-wiki should be voiced or opped on the channel. Though John's application idea is worth considering as well. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:37, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * With the right kind of management, John's idea is indeed worth considering as it seems efficient though there is also the headache factor referenced earlier by LiR. 20:48, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of requests for chan-op status. I'm completely fine with users having op status, and imo I see no issue with too many ops, so long as they don't abuse their power and know what they are doing.
 * Regarding "too many" ops...and maybe I'm thinking about this a little bit too hard but compared to other channels I'm in (say #uncyclopedia for example), we're relatively small - there's no real need to have say 20 ops in a channel of only 25 regulars (exaggeration). I would suggest that if it is decided that the majority are in favour of having non-admins as chanops that the request system is similar to that of rollback, with a request being approved based on trustworthiness, maturity, history of disruptive behaviour (mainly in #wikia-sims though anything major elsewhere may be worth noting) and how regularly they actually go to IRC - not worth having an op who's never there. The headache factor does still counterbalance the request system as well as the pros and cons listed in the above section but as I've abstained from any real opinion (for now), I've acknowledged the positives and negatives. 10:19, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

As the only "normal" user who actually has channel operator privileges in the IRC channel, I think I should give my two cents here&hellip; firstly, to whoever kept removing my flags: I know you dislike me, but please, try to not just do stuff like that behind my back. I'm up for discussion and so is the rest of the op team.

It's indeed true that I have been an op on the channel since last year. GG knew me from another channel and deemed I was trustworthy enough to have the flags. Back then there was a pretty big problem with random proxy trolls joining the channels and spamming the hell out of it. I've set my share of bans on trolls, and I don't think I've ever banned a "regular", only trolls. I guess you could call me a VSTF of the IRC channel; I just cleanup stuff like that. I'm two hours ahead of UK and as such, I'm online earlier than the UTC folks. I'm also very often on IRC (my account is always online, hopefully) and I'm available most of the European evening times. I also have chanop experience, for example on ##wikia, and I've been using IRC for over two years already, so I do know how it works and how to handle operator flags. I personally don't see a reason for an upper cap of admins; if the user is dedicated, engaged, and trustworthy, why not give them op flags? It's true that we don't get too many disruptive users nowadays, but will it hurt having another op? It's not like my +o on the access list hurts anyone. For con #3, I haven't really seen that happening&mdash;most dedicated IRC users have op status already. Same goes for #4; this is not a problem that is happening on #wikia-sims. I know there's been a fair share of drama regarding IRC conduct that I have been involved in as well, though I don't think any of those times was related to my operator privileges. Finally, it doesn't really matter to me if I have flags there or not. If you remove them, so be it, I'll still be on the channel like I used to. I just think that as an op I can contribute to the channel even more by keeping it clean as well. 1358 (Talk)  10:41, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * In his defense, I will say that Xd has done a good job as a chanop; the purpose of this forum is to address a flaw of who has operator flags and who should have them. As for the cons, they could happen. Con #3 happened a fair bit back when non-admins were voiced, some users didn't like that another non-admin had voice yet a couple of chanops gave the other users voice too to "make it fair", which is how the problems with voice arised in the first place, hence I put my foot down and restricted voice to admins only. Con #4 has been a slight problem in the past. While I admit that general conduct amongst the majority of users has improved greatly, I'm still slightly wary. I remember a non-admin wanted op flags some time ago for unknown reasons but has abused operator flags elsewhere before and I knew he'd only do it again. To be honest, I can only see a few non-admins that I would (currently) trust with operator flags, Xd being one of them.


 * But Xd is right - a non-admin can have experience in another channel and can help to keep things civilised. A few users have said (in IRC) that having only admins as ops makes handling things easier as well as IRC having a closer relationship with the wiki with the same users with the same rights (like recently when I made my IRC contact position redundant by giving bureaucrats the same flags). I am seeing mixed opinions on this so far (doesn't look like everybody has said something yet) so I'm going to keep this forum open to see what else comes up. 11:37, April 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Though I'm against adding flags on random people for fun or because the complained, I believe per Xd, that users with certain experience (that can of course be trusted) should have operator flags. In this way, the channel can only improve. As for the other users requesting flags because "somebody else who isn't an admin has", I believe a notice and an explanation is most appropriate. As for point against non-admins having flags 4, I don't believe #wikia-sims is ever going to reach that point. Con 2 can also be invalid, since though we may not get many disruptive users, it is still better to have protection against them, though I must admit that con 1 is valid. Overall, however, I believe that giving op flags to experienced and trustworthy users can only make the channel better.
 * This is the closest I have come so far to voicing a real opinion on this. The whole application system could work. However, it would be troublesome deciding who would actually be eligible, whether we actually need any more ops for a channel of our size (the admins seem to be enough tbh) and ultimately, is going through the headaches/stress/whatever really worth it? I'm not sure how it would go if the system was indeed implemented and I'm even more puzzled as into whether or not it's even worth trying based on the reasons I listed in the previous sentence. True - it doesn't hurt to have extra chanops though we already have 11 admins with flags on #wikia-sims with an average of ~16 users per night.


 * I'm not jumping to any conclusions here but personally I'm unsure how giving out the user flags will actually go down. I know that some of the bureaucrats may have "stronger ties" with some users than others and may potentially prioritise that they'll receive the flags regardless. I have noticed before that some forms of "user recognition" on-wiki may be slightly flawed based on the popularity of a user. I know I have no way of proving this but it's a hunch and one that is not easy to address. The other day, a user asked me for voice flags for no reason whatsoever (I don't see what's so special about voice anyway; it just creates more hassle if given to anyone) and that user has had a history of "immaturity" on the channel before. I understand that someone may not wish to decline giving flags to another user "just to be nice" and I can't say I blame them, but if the application system is going to work then there has to be a way that it priorities trustworthiness, maturity etc. over popularity - it would need to be taken pretty seriously.


 * tl;dr? It could work but there are a lot of flaws and frustrations that need to be worked around; is it all really worth it? 22:15, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion
Overall, the result of this has been very mixed (including the comments made on this forum and IRC consensus) - there is no clear answer and going for a traditional vote (which I hoped to avoid) will be rather pointless as it'll just prolong this whole thing and I'm certain noone else has anything to say. To be honest, I am disappointed in those who didn't say anything regarding this at all, even if it was just on IRC - it could have really made a difference to the outcome of this forum.

From what I've seen just on the forum, half of the users have said we should go for the application page while the other half either said not to or have remained mostly neutral. Ironically, the same happened from IRC consensus. Sadly there isn't a way of going about this without over-complicating everything over something which isn't exactly a life or death situation.

Just so we don't repeat this long chain of events over again, I'm just going to take things back to square one and make it so that only administrators have operator/voice status in the IRC channel. I do realise that there was in fact no consensus to decide on going for this but there was also no consensus to decide to go for the other option either.

The community does have every right to object to this and we can always revisit this subject later on - it's not a big deal. Please be aware that I never intended to bypass how we make decisions as a community but I'm rather making a bold yet fair decision to have a concrete rule regarding this issue and to also bring this prolonged discussion to an end. I'm just disappointed that a few users who are regularly on IRC, whose comments could have made things much easier, decided to ignore this discussion completely... 19:02, April 22, 2012 (UTC)