Forum:Establishing Requests for IRC op/chatmod rights

Hey,

I know this has been thrown around on IRC before and I am fully aware I've voiced numerous concerns about this idea but seeing as a lot of the time there are no ops in the channel that are active (I may look like I'm there 24/7 but I use a bouncer, not to mention I haven't been that active lately due to...other stuff...), I figured now would be the best time to formally put this forward and we may as well do it for chatmod while we're at it.

The title of this thread states my proposal of establishing two separate pages to request IRC chanop at chat moderator rights. I'd like to note from the offset that I was hesitant to bring this up based on my concerns from the past but I'm willing to give this a go based on the following grounds:
 * The vetting process is done just like an RfA - with a community vote on whether the candidate should get the flags or not. I remember the initial ideas being that it should be done more like how rollback is given out - my main issue with this is that IRC op flags are an integral part of what an administrator can do on IRC as well as the possibility of candidates easily being given the rights solely on personal ties without anyone else really getting a say; an RfA-style vote is the best way to go about this. I'm not saying that the causes of my concerns will come to light but I'm definitely not ruling it out either.
 * The IRC ops get a slightly watered down version of the flags in order to avoid undermining the purpose of administrators on IRC. I recommend giving them only +Aor (note that admins have +AOiortv) which will allow them to use /cs quiet and to use the required op commands while not allowing the users to receive autovoice/op or to set channel topics, so that we can designate who's an admin and who isn't as well as the fact that the topic can easily be changed abusively and therefore should be left to admins. Chatmods are unable to promote new chatmods (something that admins can do), so no issues there.
 * Some sort of control over how many new ops/chatmods we'll get. There's no need for everybody to have these rights and apparently newer users often dislike seeing 99% of the channel with operator status.

I do still have numerous concerns over how this will all go down in the long-term and while I am open to discussing any possible compromises to what I said above, I feel that what I've listed is vital towards this whole thing gaining any support from me at all. My concerns are more to do with IRC than anything as Chat is much easier to manage and I am therefore more open to the idea with Chat.

Note that this thread isn't about who should get any rights at all, this is discussing the idea. If we do decide to go down this road then we'll decide once the nominations/requests pages are set up.

So what does everyone think? 22:29, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm in support of this idea, but I have two points/ideas to add. Firstly, could both requests be handled on one page, instead of two? Second and more importantly, would we establish in the guidelines for nomination/request, some sort of rule regarding whether or not an Op/Mod needs to be an active user on TSW? Some of the people in the IRC Channel and Chat may not be major contributors but might frequent those places, so I'd like to see it opened up to people even if they aren't frequent TSW users. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 23:00, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * It can potentially be done on one page with say two different sections (one for Chat, other for IRC). Two pages seems easier but I'm open to what everyone else thinks. As far as guidelines/minimum requirements for eligibility are concerned...I'm not sure. I do remember a long time ago someone suggesting that we could give chat moderator status to rollbacks though only a few of the chat regulars are rollbacks and two of them, by my knowledge, are already chatmods. At this stage, all I can say as far as that subject goes is that we base it on how active one is in Chat/IRC (no point giving it to a lurker who never talks), how long they've been about and would they really benefit from the rights. That's all I have, aside from the obvious stuff, such as behaviour and whatnot (as there it's detrimental giving the rights to someone who is constantly getting banned, being told not to do something by a current op etc.). 23:10, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * What you're saying is pretty much in-line with what I was thinking for this. I've got nothing else to add. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 23:14, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

I fully support this type of plan, but I'd have to say that the difference between +Aor and +AOiortv is so minimal that possible operators should just receive the regular rights the administrative ops are given. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk)
 * Initially, autovoice (or autoop as it gradually moved towards) was used to distingush between administrators and non-administrators; I'd rather it stayed that way. I'm very iffy with topics because it can easily be abused and it's only really used for wiki announcements and administrative maintanence, so I'd rather that stayed with administrators. Non-admin ops can still do everything they need to with +Aor without undermining the role of administrators and they don't need to voice users, set topics or have an automated status flag. 08:17, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Minor comment - Just a heads-up, if we do decide to go ahead with this then we lose the ability to  should we need to send important stuff to all administrators at once (such as twitter logins/passwords, vandalism data etc.). I'm not sure how much of an impact losing that would be but I felt that it's worth noting. 22:36, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

About Topics (for anyone unaware), and other considerations: Topic Lock is enabled in the channel, so anyone without the +t flag is unable to update the topic (ChanServ will revert the topic back to what it was before).

However, Lab is incorrect about a few things he mentioned. +o does grant the ability to voice anyone, but it's +f that grants the ability to have ChanServ auto-voice someone. Anyone with an @ prefix can simply type /mode +v SomeNickHere or /mode #channel +v SomeNickHere (depending on your IRC client) to grant temporary voice to someone. The only thing ChanServ flag +v allows someone to do is to use /cs voice #channel SomeNick. Ergo, if you grant +o, you may as well grant +v (or not). I had to point this out because I'm one of (I believe?) three or four individuals with extensive IRC experience (please note that I could very well be wrong about this). I believe this leads well into my next points.

The minute someone is granted Op, they are in my mind a member of the channel staff. As the #wikia-sims channel is run to support TSW, by extension they become a member of the TSW staff. Generally speaking, this means being granted powers that, if granted to the wrong person, can be abused. Therefore, anyone granted these powers must simply agree to certain things, such as not voicing users. This is technically a proposal to create another staff position (albeit one that would not be a prerequisite to any other position such as Admin).

There is one more thing I'd like to point out. On most IRC networks, if someone with the @ prefix before their nick asks you to stop doing something, then generally you know that you must stop it. If they do not possess that prefix, there may incorrectly believe they are free to continue with the bad behavior. Therefore, I recommend the following flags: +AOiorv  You will notice that I left +t out of it, which in combination with the Topic Lock, means such individuals may not change the topic. I did include the +i flag because all that allows someone to do is use ChanServ to invite themselves to the channel in the event the channel has channel mode +i (usually unneeded, but just in case, they can still let themselves in).

That and if ChanServ goes down, which it has and does from time to time, remember that anyone who doesn't have an @ at the time is powerless, creating the opless channel problem.

However, I do understand the concern of too many @'s, so perhaps there may be a way to balance this. Then again, I'm making my recommendation based on the assumption that only a small number of people will be granted this, if this entire thing moves forward.

One more thing. Note that many of us use the ZNC IRC bouncer software, which has the ability to log all activity in the channel, whether you are connected to the bouncer or not. Therefore, there is accountability if it comes to that.

I hope everyone finds my two cents to be useful.

Ben (talk) 05:20, January 17, 2013 (UTC)