IRC examples, let's have them please Options

[Peter Damian]

As another strand of my work for the UK Charity Commission on how well WMUK is controlling and monitoring Wikipedia, I would like recent IRC logs. The smuttier and more juvenile, the better. Extra barnstars for prominent Wikipedians involved.

Thanking you all in advance!

[Peter Damian]

Oh I missed this perfectly revolting bit out from the Reagle conversation.

Oliver Keyes on Reagle Mon Jun 27 12:48:13 2011
[13:02] <Ironholds> If you gave me a choice between doing probate work for a living and being rammed hard from behind by Joseph Reagle. My next question would be "will there be lube?"
[13:02] <quanticle> Ironholds: And if the answer is no?
[13:03] <Ironholds> quanticle: then I would choose Reaglesodomy
[13:03] <quanticle> So, if you'll choose Reaglesodomy either way, then why are you asking the question?
[13:04] <Ironholds> lube is always nice

And here is Tom Morris and Dcoetzee on Wikipedia Review

On Wikipedia Review Mon Jul 04 18:00:22 2011
[18:03] * tommorris wonders if, just by a freak quantum accident, everyone on Wikipedia Review disappeared would anyone actually care?
[18:03] <Dcoetzee> Heh. I don't want the WR people to die :-P
[18:04] <tommorris> and I know that quantum mechanics doesn't work like that. Dcoetzee: that's why I specified disappear.
[18:04] <Dcoetzee> Oh I thought you meant like corporeal vanishing.
[18:04] <tommorris> no, just they suddenly exist in a different area of space-time than the rest of us.
[18:05] <Dcoetzee> If the forum shut down for some reason I don't think anyone would care. There is room for off-site journalistic criticism of Wikipedia, but a site that did that responsibly would look very different.
[18:06] <tommorris> What I don't understand is that it's a free market: if you don't like Wikipedia, instead of wasting time on Wikipedia Review, go and make Citizendium or Knowino or fuck even Conservapedia more awesome
[18:06] <Dcoetzee> I imagine an alternate version of WR where personal attacks and outing are strictly prohibited.
[18:06] <tommorris> It's like if there were a site that spent all its time criticising Python and leaking personal information on Python programmers. Okay, big deal, you don't like Python, well, okay, Java or .NET or C++ exists, go use one of those.
[18:07] <TDJACR> Language wars are silly
[18:07] <Dcoetzee> To be fair, it's kind of hard to compete with WP due to its enormous momentum. And even if you succeed you end up fragmenting the contributors.
It's reasonable to seek to reform WP instead of replace it. WP contributors work towards policy reform all the time.
[18:08] <geniice> tommorris will a number did go to Citizendium. It didn't work out
[18:08] <tommorris> yep, exactly
[18:09] <Dcoetzee> One project I've considered which would probably fail horribly is a version of WP where all contributions are CC0.
[18:09] <KFP> Dcoetzee, tomaw: Well, there is the option of a "soft fork". Er, tommorris. Sorry tomaw.
[18:09] <tommorris> they were arseholes at Citizendium too and they couldn't stand collaboration. It was all "my way or the highway" on anything and they'd disappear after a few months.

There is tons more perfectly disgusting conversation. The PUSSY PILOT thread so revolting I cannot publish it here.

Note that Kelly's comment that it is irrelevant to Wikipedia is completely false. I ran a name count through the database and there are many administrators, and a number of Arbitrators who regularly contribute there. The top contributor, apart from the person who gave me the log, is Oliver Keyes, WMUK community liason officer. He is also consistently the most foul-mouthed and juvenile of the lot.

They also discuss and deal with blocks, exactly as I thought. And this comment

It's [i.e. Wikipedia Review is] like if there were a site that spent all its time criticising Python and leaking personal information on Python programmers.

Illustrates how stupid Wikipedians are.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: