UESPWiki:Archive/CP IRC

IRC
As many of you may know, the UESP has an IRC chatroom located on Chatspike.net known as #UESPwiki. We moved to our current channel last summer, and since then, we have had phenomenal growth, going from a small channel with about 5 people at maximum to a channel that usually sees about 15 people during peak hours. We’ve also seen a steady decline in the number of administrator in the channel, with Lurlock, Nephele, and myself being there for substantially less time. Also, we’ve had a lack of patrollers coming into the channel. These two things have started to cause large gaps in our coverage of the channel. Of course, these gaps have existed before, but now that we are a larger more trafficked place, people notice, which reflects badly on us as both a site and a channel. 

Concerns
#I’d really like to see more ops and half ops, preferably coming from the wiki. Now, we need people who know how to use IRC (like banning, kicking, etc.), so if there’s people like that who currently come to the channel, and who wish to become a half-op, let me know, and we’ll discuss it.
#Piracy. We’ve had problems with pirates coming into the channel. It is just simply people that they pirated the game. There’s been a disagreement over how to deal with such things. Some think there should be a warning before a kick/ban. Personally, I think that a straight ban is in order.
#*Piracy is illegal. Them not talking about it doesn’t mean they didn’t do something illegal. Allowing them to stay in the channel does, in some way condone the activity.
#*As a fan site, we’ve got a ton of Bethesda’s property here. Now, it is used under fair use, but none of us really want to have to deal with Bethesda getting mad at us, if they see our actions as condoning piracy.
#Ops/Half-Ops that aren’t wiki people. We’ve had trouble with this before, but if we don’t get more Ops or more activity out of the ones we have, I’m going to need to start bring others on to help look after the channel. 

Feedback
Really, at this point, I’m looking for feedback on all of this, and what direction y’all want to take this in, especially the piracy thing. I plan on making a decision on what directions I’m going to take in about a week, but until then, let me know your thoughts. --Ratwar 13:48, 14 April 2008 (EDT)


Chat Community

Although I haven't had the time or energy to contribute to the wiki as much as I would like to, I really admire the amount of work that goes into the Wiki and really think that DaveH and company are amazing.

I've been helping with the ES chat community since 2001 and have also spent 4 years moderating the official Eldrerscrolls forums, so I am pretty familiar with Bethesdas stance on piracy. Ratwar is really being put in a spot about this because he is now moderating ESF and as the channel founder of #uespwiki this reflects on him, so he is under some pressure because he could be directly accountable to Bethsoft on this. He is also an OP in my channel, #elderscrolls, and Freddo and I brought the Elderscrolls community to Chatspike server in 2004. The piracy issue puts me in a spot with Ratwar because I can't have someone who owns a channel or website that condones piracy as an OP in my channel. That has always been the case.

The reason why warning a pirate doesn’t work, is just because you warn them doesn't make the fact that they have pirated the game disappear. They are still sitting on a stolen copy. Of course, the only way that you can know for sure if someone has pirated the game is if they say so, but anyone who would come into a channel and state that boldfaced like I've seen on two recent occasions, is being very disrespectful to all of UESP, their image and to the admin. 

Secondly, providing game help and walkthroughs by hand like that people who have pirated the game only serves people who are stealing from the very company you are representing. "Helping people who pirated" encompasses in game walkthroughs, not just "helping people install a pirated copy" as certain folks seem to think. 

Anyway I've seen folks coming in at night and discussing their pirated game and nothing being done about it. The ban list is clean, and these people are returning and talking to channel members with no repercussion. The only way you can be clear that you don't support piracy of Bethesda’s software is to block their access. Wagging a finger at them isn't going to do anything. You can't be wishy-washy about this if you want to maintain good standing in the community.

--Archeopterix 14:30, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

: Well I've slept on this, thought about it deeply, and I'm still deeply angered by the suggestion that I, Ratwar, UESP or anyone else "condones" piracy. It would be a laughable suggestion if it wasn't so serious. Of course we don't condone piracy and to suggest that we do simply because it occasionally gets discussed in a channel with our name on it when nobody is around is like saying the government condones murder because not every murderer gets caught.

: Warning pirates at least lets them know that we won't tolerate it and that other people regard it as wrong. They can, in fact, feel the disdain of the community. The sort of kick/ban you're suggesting doesn't do that. Banning a pirate makes no difference to the fact that they still have an illegal copy of the game.

: Anyway. To address Ratwar's call for comments: I don't care. The IRC channel stopped being a useful forum for discussion a couple of months back. Most of the admins and patrollers have long-since stopped using it and it now serves merely as a forum for questions from people that can't be bothered to use the site. Until I hear that it's improved I won't be using it any more.

: –Rpeh  03:41, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Well it hasn't always been "while no one was around", and most times it was while there were active users around and no ops, and it has been while there were active ops around and said OP actually defended the pirate. That certainely was condoning piracy, and putting a huge smear on your whole community. Also, just because there are no ops around does not mean that "no one around" and to imply that puts you in a very arrogant light. There seems to be times when your channel needs opping almost nightly (just before you came in tonight there was a kid with a New Zealand ISP trolling your channel) and no one to moderate. That makes your channel looks sloppy, and it makes it a target.

::If the channel is not useful to you, fair enough. But I don't think your defensiveness is appropraite, especially when you openly admit you don't know what's going on. If you're that disinterested, perhaps that demonstrates that you  aren't the best choice for moderation of that channel. As founder, Ratwar has been provided with logs and IPs and he may share them among ops as he sees fit. 
::--Archeopterix 5:04, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I meant nobody with the authority to kick or ban as you well know. During a recent incident, you didn't respond to the pirate in question other than to pass a message to me on a private channel. I was away at the time and returned to see that you hadn't said a thing to the user in question. Surely that means you are condoning piracy? In the incident to which you refer, which I well remember, the first person to mention anything to do with piracy was you. I'm sorry if this is defensive but I think a version of the facts with at least one foot rooted in the truth would be useful. here. 
::: –Rpeh  05:22, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Back to Ratwar's original points:
Piracy: I think adding a statement to the IRC guidelines making it clear that discussion of piracy is forbidden in IRC would be useful.  And I'd support including in that statement that immediate kick/bans may be used in cases where piracy is discussed.  I've always considered that to be part of the channel rules (implicit in the existing rule "The channel does not support law breaking of any kind").  Spelling it out explicitly can only help.
New ops:  I've also always assumed that non-wiki ops (or half-ops) were permitted on #uespwiki.  In particular, Magnus has always been an op in #uespwiki despite the fact that he is not an active wiki editor.  In theory the same could be done with other people who are active in the channel.  However, I think it's only fair that any such people should be required to go through a nomination process comparable to that required for other ops/half-ops in the channel.  In other words, a nomination process similar to that required for patrollers and administrators should be done, to ensure that the person has the community's support.  I'd suggest that the nomination process be done on the wiki's IRC talk page (if it's necessary more than a couple times, a separate page could be created, but for now I don't see the need).  All wiki contributors would be free to participate, but the opinions of people who are active in IRC would be given more weight in making the final decision.

But I'm not sure that original list of points really addresses the problems that have occurred lately in the IRC channel.  In particular, despite innuendo to the contrary, I'm very confident that everyone with any authority in #uespwiki agrees that piracy is illegal and that piracy should not be discussed in IRC.  So adding new policy rules emphasizing that point won't really change anything.  What I see as a more significant issue is whether or not channel ops should have any discretion when it comes to deciding what needs to be done in a specific situation.  Should channel ops have some leeway in deciding when to apply immediate kick/bans?  Or should any person who says the word "pirate" or "piracy" (or even "download") be immediately kick/banned no matter what the context and no matter who the  person may be?

Personally, I feel that channel ops must be free to use their own judgment to decide what is or is not appropriate in a given situation.  I think it's the only way the channel can function, given that it is possible to discuss piracy without saying the word "piracy."  A subjective decision is necessary to determine at which point between "I'm having problems running Oblivion" and "Go to site xxx to download free software" the discussion crosses the line from acceptable to unacceptable.  If it's impossible to come up with clear, objective rules about what words/sentences are forbidden, then enforcement of the rules has to rely upon individuals making a subjective decision about what does or does not break the rules.

Furthermore, the practice on both UESP's wiki and UESP's forums is to warn users before banning/blocking/kicking whenever possible.  This is true even in cases of piracy, and I could point to numerous examples where a user has been warned about piracy-related discussions, in most cases without the user subsequently being banned/blocked.  Given that mistakes and misunderstandings are far more likely in IRC than in wikis/forums, and given that the #uespwiki rules emphasize that the channel is supposed to be informal, I don't think that that the rules applied in #uespwiki should be significantly less tolerant than the rules used elsewhere in UESP.  Especially given that, if Bethesda really thought that UESP's policies with respect to piracy were inexcusably lax, it's pretty safe to assume that Bethesda would be more concerned about cases on the wiki and forums.  The incidents that have happened on the wiki and forums are permanently included in the site's records and can be accessed by absolutely anyone with internet access.  Why worry about a case known only to the 15 people active who were active in IRC at the time, when there are cases visible to billions of people?  Why worry about a case where the only evidence is unverifiable IRC logs, when there are are cases with unaltered histories documented on UESP's web site?  If we really think it's necessary to start modifying policy based upon hypothetical scenarios involving paranoid Bethesda executives finding any possible excuse to target UESP, then IRC policies really shouldn't be our top priority.

Back to the real issues in IRC.... Channel ops need to be allowed to use their own judgment in deciding what to do in any situation.  I don't think that a channel op should ever be treated like a criminal or threatened with legal action over a case where a judgment call was used in deciding what to do in an ambiguous situation.  I'd say the situation is clearly ambiguous in a case where two other ops and a halfop were all actively involved in the discussion and failed to take any action (which was the case in one recent incident that has fueled this controversy).  Which also means that Ratwar's second issue (piracy) is at least partially related to his first issue (shortage of IRC ops/half-ops):  if ops in the channel are harassed over their judgment calls, then it's only going to discourage people from wanting to participate in the channel.  It's not the only issue behind low numbers of ops/halfops, but it is unquestionably one issue. 

Finally, I think that any changes to #uespwiki should take into account the channel's primary reason for existence: to help UESPWiki editors.  If we don't focus on the channel's purpose, then changes are likely to turn #uespwiki into a generic elder scrolls discussion channel; such channels already exist, so why should #uespwiki be changed into a duplicate of those channels?  We should be finding ways to increase the numbers of wiki editors who use the channel, rather than finding ways to increase the numbers of non-wiki editors.  Adding new ops with no wiki knowledge will not encourage more wiki editors to use the channel; nor will alienating existing ops via false accusations of "condoning" piracy.  If there really is a problem with anonymous UESPUsers misusing the channel, why not tackle that problem directly?  For example, we could delete the "Chatroom" link on the left-hand wiki tool bar.  IRC links could instead be added to pages used only by editors (e.g., Recent Changes); an IRC link could also be added to the standard new-editor welcome message.  It seems to me that such measures would be far more effective at dealing with the actual problems in #uespwiki; given more than 10 minutes to think about it, I'm sure we could come up with other possible solutions, too. --Nephele  01:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:Whoa! This is what I get for not paying attention to the Community Portal. 
:First of all, I think removing the channel is a bad idea. It seems like everyone is waiting for a magical thing to happen to increase the activity of the channel. I know it sounds cheesy, but the only way to increase it, is for people to come online. I was under the impression that the recent inactivity was because a few of our regulars were absent (e.g. Nephele taking a break, rpeh on holiday), but this doesn't seem to be the case. Inactivity won't solve by itself, it takes effort to keep the channel running. 
:I have found the channel to be a great help for discussing methods and ideas for the wiki. And also a great source of just fun chatter (there is nothing wrong with that, is there?). Now what is the difference between how it used to be, and what it is now? Just a few months. There are still UESPUsers signing on, questions asked, it is just the regulars that are missing. 
:And if a new editor happens to come online with a question, how would you recognize someone like that, if he/she leaves quite soon afterwards, because no one responds?

:Monitoring. I feel a bit left out in Ratwar's conclusion. I may be just a half-op, but I'm usually online on IRC. My Away status doesn't mean I don't watch it. On a few ocassions I have noticed activity, and entered active conversation. Conversations are usually short, and have ended before I noticed them, but I haven't seen much need for moderating lately.
:If there is need for someone to remain on standby as long as he's able, I'm willing to chip in a little more. 

:Piracy. I don't think this is a big problem. I haven't seen any talk of it myself, but I keep logs, so if there is something too check I can. How to deal with talk of piracy? If someone mentions he/she owns illegitimate copy, just tell them you won't be helping them. "I'm sorry, I can't help you with pirated copies." will do, I think. If they persist on that subject, you can warn them. Kicking/banning is always an option if things get out of hand. I don't think Bethesda will be bothered if we simply prohibit talking about piracy. No need to immediately kick someone. It's Bethesda's concern to fight piracy, not ours. We do not condone it, but we can't pursue people who do it.

:I urge for a second time not to delete the channel. Nothing has happened to cause bad blood, or anything similar. The only reason is inactivity. 
:There are always a couple of items I feel like discussing, when the right people are online. --Timenn  &lt;   &gt;   08:07, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree with Nephele and Timenn.  I know the issue with piracy is more important to some than others, but I don't see why simply asking someone not to talk about it is a problem.  If they persist after being warned, a good kicking is certainly in order.  One of the issues I've seen is that some people simply aren't aware that what they've done is illegal; while this doesn't make it any less illegal, it seems somewhat wrong to ban them from conversation just because they've done something they didn't know was wrong.  In any case, I agree that ops should be allowed to use their own judgment in cases like this.  That's the benefit of having humans to watch the place, I think--if we wanted to immediately ban everyone who talked about something that's against our rules, we might as well have a bot do it.

::I would very much like to see the channel stay open.  I haven't been around very much over the last several months due to a screwy internet connection that makes it essentially pointless for me to even try signing on.  Fortunately, that seems to have been fixed as of yesterday afternoon (hooray!), and as long as it remains stable I can be in the channel to keep an eye on things.

::Anyway, those are my thoughts :).  I for one have really missed being able to talk to other editors in the channel whenever I have a question, or even just for fun.  It's been great for building community in the past and I hope that with a little patience it can be that way again. –Eshe  12:27, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I suppose completely shutting down #uespwiki is one way to deal with problem.  At least if the only priority is guaranteeing that no  piracy-related discussions take place in IRC.  And especially if you really believe that the channel ops "condone" piracy, and therefore can't even trust the IRC regulars to use the channel responsibly.

:::For that matter, why don't we apply the same "solution" to the wiki itself?  Let's just lock the entire UESPWiki database and prevent anyone from editing.  It sure would save a lot of trouble dealing with pesky vandals.  And why should I have to put up with being the only active admin on the wiki for a few days?  Given how "unfair" the situation obviously was over the weekend, I should have just shut down the whole wiki.  Oh, wait.  Except the top priority on the wiki isn't preventing vandalism.  And I realize that the other admins have other things going on in their lives at various times; in turn, when I've been too busy to chip in for a few days (or a couple weeks), the other admins have covered for me, without complaining or threatening to shut down the wiki.  Nobody has signed a contract saying "I must make a token appearance on the site every day no matter what or else my privileges will be revoked."

:::If there is really is such a crisis right now in #uespwiki, it seems like there are a lot of other options that could be considered, even if only as temporary measures, before jumping to the conclusion that the only solution is to just permanently kill the channel.  I already mentioned perhaps making links to IRC less prominent and more editor-specific (and for clarification, when I said "delete the Chatroom link", all that I meant was to delete the one word, "Chatroom," from the sidebar.  I was not suggesting deleting the entire channel or the entire IRC page).  Another possibility is that the channel could be turned into a fully-moderated channel where everyone has to be voiced before they can speak; the regulars in the channel could all be given +v status.  Or the channel could be set to invitation only.  Yes, those are both somewhat extreme measures but they're far less extreme than just killing the channel completely.  Assuming (which may be too much nowadays, I don't know) that we trust the channel regulars to not break any laws in the channel, it seems like either of these two measures would be completely effective at preventing inappropriate discussions from taking place.  In the meantime, other options could be discussed -- and, most importantly, the channel would remain available to wiki editors who want to use the channel.

:::I thought the main priority of the channel was to be a resource for the community to use as needed (and when needed), in which case it seems like the community should at least be asked for its opinion before any drastic decisions are made.  But obviously I was very misinformed about the channel's purpose and priorities. --Nephele  20:18, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, now that I have Eshe and Timenn as definitely being around to help run the thing, we can put off closing it indefinitely if need be.--Ratwar 18:05, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Decision
As the only op in the channel for the last week (besides Magnus), I've decided that there's really no reason to keep the channel open. I am going to close it. --Ratwar 17:08, 21 April 2008 (EDT)