QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 30th September 2009, 3:14pm)
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:01am)
Not exactly an open secret, though if anyone had bothered looking hard enough, it wasn't particularly difficult to figure it out.
The particulars of this outing are nasty, though. On IRC on Tuesday night,
IronholdsÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
asked
LawÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
to move a particular article. Law wouldn't oblige, so
DanielÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
stepped in. The three of them bickered for a while (reading the logs, it was embarrassing behavior for all three). Eventually Ironholds figured out that Law was
the_undertowÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
and sent IRC logs to the Arbitration Committee.
I'm not sure about other parts of the world, but 'round here we call that kind of thing being a rat.
Can we just go back to the beginning for a moment? What exactly was the genesis of this new drama? Precisely, what article did Ironholds want moved and why didn't Law oblige? I am curious to see how the conversation devolved from "Please move this article?" to "Aha, you're a phony!" -- I can't see the logical progression there. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)
And what role, if any, did Daniel play in ratting out Law? According to
this statement, it appears tomorrow's legal eagle (by his own admission) had a finger or two in the unmasking. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)
Andrew Bonar Law.
Ironholds wanted it moved, Law didn't think it was within policy, so he refused. The Daniel almost immediately stepped in and deleted the redirect so that Ironholds could move it, which he did. Debate followed about naming conventions, Ironholds started the name-calling, referring to Law as "a bloody fool," and "dickwad," and saying that his refusal to do the move was moronic. This carried on for quite a long time. Law actually stayed pretty chill through most of it. Citing policies and pointing out he was needlessly being attacked. Ironholds also pinged him repeatedly and unnecessarily, and Law noted he didn't understand why he was being assailed, that he merely opined.
For Daniel's part, he can insinuate that he had some hand in an "investigation," but it surely couldn't have been any greater than my part in it: being questioned. In the logs ArbCom was sent by Ironholds, which I have from having been in chan (but AFK) at the time, Daniel joined in to give Law a hard time about refusing to do the move, referring to Ironholds as a worthy "sidekick" and then Ironholds correcting that it is, in fact, Daniel who is his sidekick. He also defended Ironholds name-calling to the chan mods by noting Law had called them meatpuppets, then proceeded to call Law a "tool" and made some bullshit excuse about how he was referencing how Law was using the situation as a tool... blah, blah, bullshit.
There was a continual reference to a consensus, Law pointed out you can't have a consensus of 2 on IRC and later asked what forum they thought was most appropriate for him to challenge the move. During the debate, Law stated several times that he thought it was a bad move, Daniel responded at one point that he should stop stating it was a bad move or "ill just state the opposite". This was almost immediately followed by Ironholds saying
Find an appropriate venue to discuss this and I'll chip in. And when I kick your arse up and down the wiki until you're shitting blood like Daniel after six pints of guiness, I want an apology.
Following that Law posted Google results and it turned into a series of 'NO U's, so to speak, with regard to who carried the burden of gaining consensus (that the move was good or that it was bad). So, fastforward a touch, Law quotes the original ping from Ironholds asking him to do the move, "and when i said no, this is what i get?" The two justify their behavior by telling him it wasn't that he refused to do it, it was that, according to Ironholds, "it's because your argument for justifying it was moronic, and your behaviour since then has been one of stubbornly defending an untenable position"; and according to Daniel, it's because he "continued to push the envelope".
So Law asks, "so the personal attacks were justified", and Daniel responds "oh, poor law and the personal attacks / nawwww". A few minutes pass and Law comes back to "politely ask" that the move be reversed until consensus is gained. This sets both Ironholds and Daniel off again, and it's pretty much a repeat of the back and forth before resulting in Daniel being temp-banned from the channel. Ironholds brings up wheelwarring and Law says it's only a reversion. Ironholds asks a reversion of what, and then realizes that Law reverted the move. He then calls Law a "dick" and is then temp-banned from the channel himself just after Law tells him to take it on-wiki and gain consensus.
What transpired in PM between Ironholds and Law following that is unknown to me beyond what each of them told me. But there are your cliff's notes. Anyone else with logs can confirm should anyone feel the need to deny.
As far as who was right in the discussion on the move, I neither know nor care. The way it went down was shameful.