User:Geogre/Draft

The subject of the usability, misuse, and inherent ills of the IRC channel #admins-wikipedia has some history. After the so-called "Giano affair," it became clear that the administrator's IRC channel had been used for pernicious insults, ganging up, derision, and the coordination of inappropriate Wikipedia behavior. These behaviors included attempts to "kill" one user's account, "ban" another regular user, etc.

This issue (the misuse of IRC) emerged again in connection with Chairboy and Betacommand blocking after "consensus on IRC." In both of those instances, the users were sanctioned by ArbCom for acting on-Wiki according to materials off-wiki. Soon after, there was a knotted and heated discussion of what to "do" about IRC. This grew acrimonious, with David Gerrard saying that ArbCom had no say over the conduct of the channel, and some users suggesting that Wikipedia pages have no links to the IRC channel(s). Stop-gap "solutions" came along. Among these were:

1. New channel operators were appointed and were tasked with ensuring that the channels not devolve into personal attacks;
2. A "Giano ban" was placed, where no one was permitted to discuss either that user or the brouhaha surrounding these complaints;
3. ArbCom asserted that blocks had to take place by rationales on Wikipedia alone.

Some of us felt that these measures were insufficient or misguided, and we have been lamentably proven correct with the "Badlydrawnjeff affair." This long-time user was blocked "by consensus on IRC" and "two hours of discussion on IRC." This "discussion" had all of the viciousness of IRC: it did not include the accused; it had gang behavior; it involved only a few users who happened to be on the channel and paying attention at the time; it left no traces; it produced no record that could be cited or examined. A user, however, was blocked because of this, and his block log is now going to bear this "mistake" on it. When he tries for RFA again, as he should be able to do, he will have to relive and rehash all of this acrimony again and again.

The stop-gap measures were doomed because they were oriented toward individual personalities and never addressed the problems of the medium itself. IRC is a chatting medium and not a discussion medium. It is private and therefore cuts off the accused from facing their accusers, and yet it is not at all private, for dozens of users see a long time editor's reputation maligned and characterized poorly. It creates a false sense of unanimity and consensus, as strong personalities dominate rather than strong logic, and it can seem like "everyone" is of one opinion when it is merely five people who happen to be awake, online, on the channel, and paying attention at the time. Additionally, people may be reluctant to openly speak in defense of another, fearing the wrath of the chatting group or the tedium of an argument. Forbidding "Giano talk" in no way prevented another improper block. Channel operators were neither attentive enough nor present enough to catch the misuse.

Therefore I would like to ask ArbCom to formally clarify its position on the blocking policy. Can IRC be used for discussing a block? Can it be, and should it be, ever used to arrange, encourage, or clear a block? Should IRC formally be forbidden from being a venue for preparation, prosecution, or justification of blocking users?

Those agreeing with this request, please indicate so below:

1. Geogre 21:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
2. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
3. — MichaelLinnear 04:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Purples 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (the worrying thing about self-evident truth is the myriad of issues it exposes amongst those who can't accept it)
5. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)