What is the on-Wiki for en.wikipedia.org enforceable policy against posting IRC logs? Just curious. If it is not on-Wiki, and is only say in the login process for the given IRC channel, and the IRC channels are unofficial, how/why are 3rd party service policies implemented by random people enforceable on-Wiki? Thanks!
I noted also that Hipocrite actually linked to the Freednode policies at http://freenode.net/policy.shtml which makes no reference either way to logging.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I noted also that Hipocrite actually linked to the Freenode policies at http://freenode.net/policy.shtml which makes no reference either way to logging.
Try looking here: http://freenode.net/channel_guidelines.shtml
Some sound advice...
HTH HAND
On 5/23/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I noted also that Hipocrite actually linked to the Freenode policies at http://freenode.net/policy.shtml which makes no reference either way to logging.
Try looking here: http://freenode.net/channel_guidelines.shtml
Some sound advice...
HTH HAND
Thanks! Why is a WMF project enforcing non-legally binding policies of 3rd party services that are not 'official' for Wikimedia Foundation/project use? That's what I'm getting at: where does it say/decide on-Wiki that it's against the rules to post logs?
Not trying to be inflammatory, given what just happened, just genuinely curious as I don't recall ever seeing this written anywhere, just the same few people always saying "You can't do this!"
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/23/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I noted also that Hipocrite actually linked to the Freenode policies at http://freenode.net/policy.shtml which makes no reference either way to logging.
Try looking here: http://freenode.net/channel_guidelines.shtml
Some sound advice...
HTH HAND
Thanks! Why is a WMF project enforcing non-legally binding policies of 3rd party services that are not 'official' for Wikimedia Foundation/project use? That's what I'm getting at: where does it say/decide on-Wiki that it's against the rules to post logs?
Not trying to be inflammatory, given what just happened, just genuinely curious as I don't recall ever seeing this written anywhere, just the same few people always saying "You can't do this!"
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Just like we make people abide to our policies when they use our site, we must abide someone else's policies when we use theirs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IRC says "Most Wikimedia channels prohibit the publication of chat logs. For more details, see m:IRC channels#Logging_prohibition." ----- Original Message ----- From: Pedro Sanchez To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] IRC logging, disclosure
On 5/23/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I noted also that Hipocrite actually linked to the Freenode policies at http://freenode.net/policy.shtml which makes no reference either way to logging.
Try looking here: http://freenode.net/channel_guidelines.shtml
Some sound advice...
HTH HAND
Thanks! Why is a WMF project enforcing non-legally binding policies of 3rd party services that are not 'official' for Wikimedia Foundation/project use? That's what I'm getting at: where does it say/decide on-Wiki that it's against the rules to post logs?
Not trying to be inflammatory, given what just happened, just genuinely curious as I don't recall ever seeing this written anywhere, just the same few people always saying "You can't do this!"
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Just like we make people abide to our policies when they use our site, we must abide someone else's policies when we use theirs
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/23/07, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IRC says "Most Wikimedia channels prohibit the publication of chat logs. For more details, see m:IRC channels#Logging_prohibition."
I apologize if my questioning was or is obtuse. I'll be more straightforward.
Where on en.wikipedia.org is the enforceable policy (approved and endorsed by the community--not just the IRC admins, whose on-IRC rules have no merit on-Wiki) stating that you cannot repost IRC logs from the unofficial Wikipedia channels for community review of situations or other legitimate purposes?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 23/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IRC says "Most Wikimedia channels prohibit the publication of chat logs. For more details, see m:IRC channels#Logging_prohibition."
I apologize if my questioning was or is obtuse. I'll be more straightforward. Where on en.wikipedia.org is the enforceable policy (approved and endorsed by the community--not just the IRC admins, whose on-IRC rules have no merit on-Wiki) stating that you cannot repost IRC logs from the unofficial Wikipedia channels for community review of situations or other legitimate purposes?
You've had several answers so far and you are responding as if you're looking for a loophole.
We try to presume the editors are non-idiots of good faith. "Logging is bad for these reasons. Don't do it." What on earth more do you need?
- d.
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You've had several answers so far and you are responding as if you're looking for a loophole.
We try to presume the editors are non-idiots of good faith. "Logging is bad for these reasons. Don't do it." What on earth more do you need?
Every (rare) time that I've ever seen logs posted on-wiki, they were RVd out and removed. Basically, I was looking for confirmation that it's a fully policy on Wikipedia that posting them is a violation, given what just happened. What if someone had posted the logs of what happened to Jeff? Or Giano? Would these people be in trouble? What policy did they violate?
If the community will is that you can't post them, given how frequently IRC related stuff like this seems to come up, it should be simply stated on Wikipedia then that "Do this, it'll be reverted. Keep doing it, blocked," etc. Otherwise, *if* someone did post them, there should obviously be no repercussions as IRC is a 3rd party service and beyond the scope of Wikipedia's policies and rules at present. Simply saying "You can't do that," isn't sufficient. It needs to be grounded in either policy, law, or the support of the people on-wiki. That's basically it. :)
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
I believe I once read (might've been Wikipedia:IRC channels) that behaviour on IRC should not affect events on wiki or your perception of that editor (ie someone can be a pain on IRC but be a great editor on WP).
Doesn't/didn't the topic on #wikimedia used to say something like "Public logging = permaban"?
On 23/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You've had several answers so far and you are responding as if you're looking for a loophole.
We try to presume the editors are non-idiots of good faith. "Logging is bad for these reasons. Don't do it." What on earth more do you need?
Every (rare) time that I've ever seen logs posted on-wiki, they were RVd out and removed. Basically, I was looking for confirmation that it's a fully policy on Wikipedia that posting them is a violation, given what just happened. What if someone had posted the logs of what happened to Jeff? Or Giano? Would these people be in trouble? What policy did they violate?
If the community will is that you can't post them, given how frequently IRC related stuff like this seems to come up, it should be simply stated on Wikipedia then that "Do this, it'll be reverted. Keep doing it, blocked," etc. Otherwise, *if* someone did post them, there should obviously be no repercussions as IRC is a 3rd party service and beyond the scope of Wikipedia's policies and rules at present. Simply saying "You can't do that," isn't sufficient. It needs to be grounded in either policy, law, or the support of the people on-wiki. That's basically it. :)
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/23/07, Gary Kirk gary.kirk@gmail.com wrote:
I believe I once read (might've been Wikipedia:IRC channels) that behaviour on IRC should not affect events on wiki or your perception of that editor (ie someone can be a pain on IRC but be a great editor on WP).
Doesn't/didn't the topic on #wikimedia used to say something like "Public logging = permaban"?
Yes, but not on wikipedia, the ban is on IRC, isn't it?
~~~~~ Snowolf ( www.snowolf.eu )
The Force will be with you, always!
On 5/23/07, Snowolf mtazio@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Gary Kirk gary.kirk@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't/didn't the topic on #wikimedia used to say something like "Public logging = permaban"?
Yes, but not on wikipedia, the ban is on IRC, isn't it?
Crux of the question, yes. Why do any rules or policies from 3rd party websites or services receive enforcement on Wikipedia? James F or Kelly or whomever made the rule for the channels, but their authority on Freenode has no applicability on Wikipedia.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
I am concerned about this practice of importing external rules into Wikipedia postings - if this is the correct interpretation of the reason we don't post IRC logs. The same logic could be used to consider external links to other sites, some of which even have legal restrictions on access let alone minor rules like "no posting what you read here," to be unacceptable. Anyone have any idea how many links we have to porn sites, all of which restrict access to those over 18 (or in some places even 21)?
Risker
On 5/23/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Snowolf mtazio@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Gary Kirk gary.kirk@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't/didn't the topic on #wikimedia used to say something like "Public logging = permaban"?
Yes, but not on wikipedia, the ban is on IRC, isn't it?
Crux of the question, yes. Why do any rules or policies from 3rd party websites or services receive enforcement on Wikipedia? James F or Kelly or whomever made the rule for the channels, but their authority on Freenode has no applicability on Wikipedia.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Crux of the question, yes. Why do any rules or policies from 3rd party websites or services receive enforcement on Wikipedia? James F or Kelly or whomever made the rule for the channels, but their authority on Freenode has no applicability on Wikipedia.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
I must say, that is an interesting point. #wikipedia, as is commonly claimed, is in no way sanctioned or endorsed by Wikipedia. And yet the rules from #wikipedia will still be enforced on-wiki.
The best argument I've seen has been the copyright argument. Users on IRC are not explicitly releasing their text under the GFDL or another free use license, hence, Wikipedia can reject the text as copyvio. In my opinion, this is still a pretty cheap argument, with rather transparent reasoning behind it, but it's still valid, even if barely so.
Blu Aardvark wrote:
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Crux of the question, yes. Why do any rules or policies from 3rd party websites or services receive enforcement on Wikipedia? James F or Kelly or whomever made the rule for the channels, but their authority on Freenode has no applicability on Wikipedia.
I must say, that is an interesting point. #wikipedia, as is commonly claimed, is in no way sanctioned or endorsed by Wikipedia. And yet the rules from #wikipedia will still be enforced on-wiki.
The best argument I've seen has been the copyright argument. Users on IRC are not explicitly releasing their text under the GFDL or another free use license, hence, Wikipedia can reject the text as copyvio. In my opinion, this is still a pretty cheap argument, with rather transparent reasoning behind it, but it's still valid, even if barely so.
But what about fair use? If we are posting a snippet of a log to discuss its content, that certainly qualifies as fair use.
Chris Howie wrote:
But what about fair use? If we are posting a snippet of a log to discuss its content, that certainly qualifies as fair use.
The "copyright" argument is, as I said, a rather cheap argument. Technically speaking, the person who said something in an IRC channel holds the copyright over what he typed in the channel. Practically speaking, it's unlikely that any court would ever give a hoot about a person posting an IRC log publicly without explicit permission.
And of course the use of IRC quotes to discuss their content would qualify as fair use. But it's a bad idea. Those who are misusing IRC would continue to do so, but would simply move their discussions from open channels into more secluded channels. People, for whatever reason, don't like being held accountable for what they say on IRC. Granted, some of this is reasonable.I wouldn't exactly want my off-topic banter in #ed spread all over the internets (for example), and I'm sure that users in #wikipedia feel the same way. On the other hand, IRC users shouldn't be given a free pass to abuse Wikipedia or Wikipedia contributors.
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Blu Aardvark wrote:
And of course the use of IRC quotes to discuss their content would qualify as fair use. But it's a bad idea. Those who are misusing IRC would continue to do so, but would simply move their discussions from open channels into more secluded channels. People, for whatever reason, don't like being held accountable for what they say on IRC.
Am I missing something here? People can be held accountable for doing things without reasons. If they continue the discussions in secluded channels, and then act on them, they are acting with no public reason, in effect with no reason at all. They can just be treated as acting with no reason.
On 5/24/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Blu Aardvark wrote:
And of course the use of IRC quotes to discuss their content would qualify as fair use. But it's a bad idea. Those who are misusing IRC would continue to do so, but would simply move their discussions from open channels into more secluded channels. People, for whatever reason, don't like being held accountable for what they say on IRC.
Am I missing something here? People can be held accountable for doing things without reasons. If they continue the discussions in secluded channels, and then act on them, they are acting with no public reason, in effect with no reason at all. They can just be treated as acting with no reason.
That applies too. ~~~~
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Crux of the question, yes. Why do any rules or policies from 3rd party websites or services receive enforcement on Wikipedia?
I have a feeling that there may perhaps be some legal invasion of privacy issue - in the UK at least, it's illegal to record a telephone conversation without the other person's permission, and I wonder whether that might apply to IRC too (since it's sort of equivalent).
David
On 24/05/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Blu Aardvark wrote:
And of course the use of IRC quotes to discuss their content would qualify as fair use. But it's a bad idea. Those who are misusing IRC would continue to do so, but would simply move their discussions from open channels into more secluded channels. People, for whatever
reason,
don't like being held accountable for what they say on IRC.
Am I missing something here? People can be held accountable for doing
things
without reasons. If they continue the discussions in secluded channels, and then act on them, they are acting with no public reason, in effect
with
no reason at all. They can just be treated as acting with no reason.
That applies too. ~~~~
-- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Mestel wrote:
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Crux of the question, yes. Why do any rules or policies from 3rd party websites or services receive enforcement on Wikipedia?
I have a feeling that there may perhaps be some legal invasion of privacy issue - in the UK at least, it's illegal to record a telephone conversation without the other person's permission, and I wonder whether that might apply to IRC too (since it's sort of equivalent).
David
On 24/05/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Blu Aardvark wrote:
And of course the use of IRC quotes to discuss their content would qualify as fair use. But it's a bad idea. Those who are misusing IRC would continue to do so, but would simply move their discussions from open channels into more secluded channels. People, for whatever
reason,
don't like being held accountable for what they say on IRC.
Am I missing something here? People can be held accountable for doing
things
without reasons. If they continue the discussions in secluded channels, and then act on them, they are acting with no public reason, in effect
with
no reason at all. They can just be treated as acting with no reason.
That applies too. ~~~~
-- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
IRC conversations in a public channel aren't a whole lot like a private conversation. They're more analogous to yelling across a crowded room.
G'day Todd,
David Mestel wrote:
[some rearranging and lots of snippage. This is why deliberately top-posting is bad, kids]
I have a feeling that there may perhaps be some legal invasion of privacy issue - in the UK at least, it's illegal to record a telephone conversation without the other person's permission, and I wonder whether that might apply to IRC too (since it's sort of equivalent).
IRC conversations in a public channel aren't a whole lot like a private conversation. They're more analogous to yelling across a crowded room.
Well, speaking more loudly than you intended on Trivia Night and having the table next to you steal all your answers, perhaps. Shouting across a crowded room? No, not especially.
That applies to #wikipedia[0], though, not #wikipedia-en-admins, which is not a public channel. Nice try, though.
[0] And #linux and ##csharp-help and #sextalk, too, presumably.
On 5/26/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Well, speaking more loudly than you intended on Trivia Night and having the table next to you steal all your answers, perhaps. Shouting across a crowded room? No, not especially.
That applies to #wikipedia[0], though, not #wikipedia-en-admins, which is not a public channel. Nice try, though.
I would be somewhat impressed if you were able to show that under UK law #wikipedia-en-admins could be considered private. One of the side effects of the UK's libel laws is that there is rather a low barrier for something not being considered private,
I could well be completely wrong: I just remember having read it somewhere.
David
On 26/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/26/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Well, speaking more loudly than you intended on Trivia Night and having the table next to you steal all your answers, perhaps. Shouting across a crowded room? No, not especially.
That applies to #wikipedia[0], though, not #wikipedia-en-admins, which is not a public channel. Nice try, though.
I would be somewhat impressed if you were able to show that under UK law #wikipedia-en-admins could be considered private. One of the side effects of the UK's libel laws is that there is rather a low barrier for something not being considered private,
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/23/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
What is the on-Wiki for en.wikipedia.org enforceable policy against posting IRC logs? Just curious.
Copyright.
geni wrote:
On 5/23/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
What is the on-Wiki for en.wikipedia.org enforceable policy against posting IRC logs? Just curious.
Copyright.
You can't be serious.
-Jeff
On 5/23/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/23/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
What is the on-Wiki for en.wikipedia.org enforceable policy against posting IRC logs? Just curious.
Copyright.
You can't be serious.
Why not? No other policy is really involved unless you post it in the article namespace. Of course short extracts may be covered under fair use. However fair use text outside the article namespace is a bit of a grey area.
On 5/23/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
What is the on-Wiki for en.wikipedia.org enforceable policy against posting IRC logs? Just curious. If it is not on-Wiki, and is only say in the login process for the given IRC channel, and the IRC channels are unofficial, how/why are 3rd party service policies implemented by random people enforceable on-Wiki? Thanks!
I noted also that Hipocrite actually linked to the Freednode policies at http://freenode.net/policy.shtml which makes no reference either way to logging.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
As far as I know, all channels starting with #wikipedia- and #wikimedia- are official as agreed with freenode, and if it were needed, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts could take control over them
Also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channels specifies which channels forbid logging, which ones may be logged and which are open
On 23/05/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I know, all channels starting with #wikipedia- and #wikimedia- are official as agreed with freenode, and if it were needed, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts could take control over them
Not quite. From Freenode's side, James and Sean are the official group contacts. From the WMF's side, IRC is completely unofficial and it doesn't want anything to do with it.
So James and Sean are independent autocrats of unlimited power over the Wikimedia domain. Good thing they're sane, really.
Also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channels specifies which channels forbid logging, which ones may be logged and which are open
- d.
On 5/23/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:As far as I know, all channels starting with #wikipedia- and
#wikimedia- are official as agreed with freenode, and if it were needed, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts could take control over them
Also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channels specifies which channels forbid logging, which ones may be logged and which are open
OK. But... I'm still confused as to how 3rd party 'rules' are enforceable on-wiki. Geni's copyright claim doesn't hold water. Even if the login to the given channel says that you hold copyright on all your words, we still routinely link to copyrighted material for discussion and analysis, and easily falls under fair use.
So we're back, unfortunately, to no official en- sancitioned policy saying that you can't post IRC content... just people not wanting things posted. Is that correct?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Perhaps the foundation should just run its own IRC server or network. Then they can set whatever rules they see as appropriate. Who can join which channels, who can log, etc. Then there would be no wikilawyering about wikipedia/foundation policies vs Freenode policies.
On 26/05/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the foundation should just run its own IRC server or network. Then they can set whatever rules they see as appropriate. Who can join which channels, who can log, etc. Then there would be no wikilawyering about wikipedia/foundation policies vs Freenode policies.
Like that would stop the wikilawyers for a second.
- d.
In an ideal, money-tree world, yeah.
On 26/05/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the foundation should just run its own IRC server or network. Then they can set whatever rules they see as appropriate. Who can join which channels, who can log, etc. Then there would be no wikilawyering about wikipedia/foundation policies vs Freenode policies.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Saturday 26 May 2007 12:18, Gary Kirk wrote:
In an ideal, money-tree world, yeah.
A single server would suffice, really...just look at the traffic in the Wikimedia-related IRC channels on Freenode yeah.
The financial burden would hardly be noticeable.
If nothing else, just pay $60 a month to rent a dedicated server or colo and administer it from there.
On 26/05/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Saturday 26 May 2007 12:18, Gary Kirk wrote:
In an ideal, money-tree world, yeah.
A single server would suffice, really...just look at the traffic in the Wikimedia-related IRC channels on Freenode yeah. The financial burden would hardly be noticeable. If nothing else, just pay $60 a month to rent a dedicated server or colo and administer it from there.
The WMF has made donations to Freenode before (from one 501(c)3 to another) because (a) IRC is useful to us (even if not wanting to take control) and (b) they have the sk1llz at running a huge bastard IRC network so we don't have any wheels to reinvent from doing it ourselves for no good reason.
- d.
On 5/26/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the foundation should just run its own IRC server or network. Then they can set whatever rules they see as appropriate. Who can join which channels, who can log, etc. Then there would be no wikilawyering about wikipedia/foundation policies vs Freenode policies.
I suspect taking any reponsibility for IRC is on the list of things the Foundation plans to do on a cold day in hell.
-Matt