Personally, and I've said this elsewhere, anyone who cites IRC as a justification for a block needs to have his head examined. I would caution against limiting this to #wikipedia-en-admins. Problems with that channel are publicized, but there's no reason to think that such problems couldn't (or haven't) been repeated elsewhere. I can recall at least one RfA (Rory96's) disrupted by all kinds of nonsense from a completely different channel that I had never heard of. The problem transcends IRC. The problem is administrators making blocks without due consultation and consideration. Plus people who know better falling asleep. Mackensen (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the first and second points, this is problematic. It's hard to say what discussion may eventually lead to someone considering a block. It could be as innocent as one editor drawing another editor's attention to a diff, asking for a second opinion. A good guideline, I would think, is that any block of an established user (as opposed to simple vandalism and sockpuppetry) must be preceded by actual discussion on-wiki. Such discussion provides the basis for a block; something to build on. Whether the block was preceded by private discussion elsewhere (impossible to discern), the on-wiki discussion provides a basis for judging the correctness and appropriateness of a block. Actually banning the first two is impossible; we're better off firmly clarifying the third. Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of talking to myself, I see plenty of bad blocks every day that don't have a single thing to do with IRC but rather were the product of one deranged administrator who didn't consult anybody. This proposal, while well-intentioned, does not go to the root of the problem. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously, a person cannot be a mind reader or anything of that nature, but if ArbCom clarifies its position, and if we refine the blocking policy as a result, then we can lay out ground rules at least. I agree, of course, that a person in the midst of furor brevis will be a problem. There is nothing that we can do, institutionally, to address that. On the other hand, this is a medium that has, at its heart, weaknesses that make discussions of blocks particularly inappropriate. I wouldn't want to limit the application to just admins, either, but ArbCom tried to rule on that before.
- The goal of this, after we have it sorted out a bit, is to issue it as a Request for Clarification.
- If it were up to me, I would make explicit changes to the blocking policy and lay down as much of an official prohibition as is possible to make it clear that blocks cannot be proposed, coordinated, advocated, or executed by IRC. IRC is for chatting amiably and possibly gathering information, but it is not a place to sound an alarm with an eye toward a block. However, it isn't up to me, and I'm not trying to act. Instead, I'm wondering if we should seek a formal request for clarification of prior ArbCom statements.
- Despite popular impressions, I am not interested in destroying IRC. I'm interested in having it virtually disconnected from on-wiki actions, though, unless those actions are people cooperating to write an article or template or draft a proposal.
Geogre 00:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there's real disagreement on de-coupling IRC from on-wiki actions; the fury from all quarters that greeted Zsinj's block of Badlydrawnjeff attests to that (the usual rogue's gallery included). I think we're confronting an education problem more than a policy problem. Attempting to legislate in policy how a block may be discussed is, for reasons I've suggested above, problematic. What actually constitutes discussing a block? If there's a dispute, who decides? Who, if anyone, ought to be in the position of evaluating what may or may not have happened off-wiki? I don't think that there are particuarly good answers to these questions, which is why I've long argued (I recognize myself on the proposal) that blocks stand or fall based on what's said and done on-wiki, regardless of actual or purported off-wiki discussion. If I want to de-rail anything on-wiki all I need to do is scream IRC. This isn't to say that there haven't been abuses. There have, and we all agree about that. But you can't control what a user does off-wiki. At the same time, any block not supported by on-wiki consensus is no block at all. No disagreement from me.
- Arbcom doesn't write policy, not exactly. We can shape it by indicating what's acceptable and what's not. Indicating that blocks launched from some dark corner of the Internet don't fly is one thing, but mandating that no discussion of an eventual block take place off-wiki is something else altogether. I don't find it feasible, and something that fundamental would need to be done on the talk page of the blocking policy itself. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, and I've said this elsewhere, anyone who cites IRC as a justification for a block needs to have his head examined. I would caution against limiting this to #wikipedia-en-admins. Problems with that channel are publicized, but there's no reason to think that such problems couldn't (or haven't) been repeated elsewhere. I can recall at least one RfA (Rory96's) disrupted by all kinds of nonsense from a completely different channel that I had never heard of. The problem transcends IRC. The problem is administrators making blocks without due consultation and consideration. Plus people who know better falling asleep. Mackensen (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the first and second points, this is problematic. It's hard to say what discussion may eventually lead to someone considering a block. It could be as innocent as one editor drawing another editor's attention to a diff, asking for a second opinion. A good guideline, I would think, is that any block of an established user (as opposed to simple vandalism and sockpuppetry) must be preceded by actual discussion on-wiki. Such discussion provides the basis for a block; something to build on. Whether the block was preceded by private discussion elsewhere (impossible to discern), the on-wiki discussion provides a basis for judging the correctness and appropriateness of a block. Actually banning the first two is impossible; we're better off firmly clarifying the third. Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of talking to myself, I see plenty of bad blocks every day that don't have a single thing to do with IRC but rather were the product of one deranged administrator who didn't consult anybody. This proposal, while well-intentioned, does not go to the root of the problem. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously, a person cannot be a mind reader or anything of that nature, but if ArbCom clarifies its position, and if we refine the blocking policy as a result, then we can lay out ground rules at least. I agree, of course, that a person in the midst of furor brevis will be a problem. There is nothing that we can do, institutionally, to address that. On the other hand, this is a medium that has, at its heart, weaknesses that make discussions of blocks particularly inappropriate. I wouldn't want to limit the application to just admins, either, but ArbCom tried to rule on that before.
- The goal of this, after we have it sorted out a bit, is to issue it as a Request for Clarification.
- If it were up to me, I would make explicit changes to the blocking policy and lay down as much of an official prohibition as is possible to make it clear that blocks cannot be proposed, coordinated, advocated, or executed by IRC. IRC is for chatting amiably and possibly gathering information, but it is not a place to sound an alarm with an eye toward a block. However, it isn't up to me, and I'm not trying to act. Instead, I'm wondering if we should seek a formal request for clarification of prior ArbCom statements.
- Despite popular impressions, I am not interested in destroying IRC. I'm interested in having it virtually disconnected from on-wiki actions, though, unless those actions are people cooperating to write an article or template or draft a proposal.
Geogre 00:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there's real disagreement on de-coupling IRC from on-wiki actions; the fury from all quarters that greeted Zsinj's block of Badlydrawnjeff attests to that (the usual rogue's gallery included). I think we're confronting an education problem more than a policy problem. Attempting to legislate in policy how a block may be discussed is, for reasons I've suggested above, problematic. What actually constitutes discussing a block? If there's a dispute, who decides? Who, if anyone, ought to be in the position of evaluating what may or may not have happened off-wiki? I don't think that there are particuarly good answers to these questions, which is why I've long argued (I recognize myself on the proposal) that blocks stand or fall based on what's said and done on-wiki, regardless of actual or purported off-wiki discussion. If I want to de-rail anything on-wiki all I need to do is scream IRC. This isn't to say that there haven't been abuses. There have, and we all agree about that. But you can't control what a user does off-wiki. At the same time, any block not supported by on-wiki consensus is no block at all. No disagreement from me.
- Arbcom doesn't write policy, not exactly. We can shape it by indicating what's acceptable and what's not. Indicating that blocks launched from some dark corner of the Internet don't fly is one thing, but mandating that no discussion of an eventual block take place off-wiki is something else altogether. I don't find it feasible, and something that fundamental would need to be done on the talk page of the blocking policy itself. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)