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!

[Ottava]

Email me and I'll send you tons of logs. I already posted up once before where the Wikimedia UK people were using the IRC room for graphic sex talk in violation of Freenode policy and how no one cared because they were all made channel ops without any consent of the chatters or Wiki people (and kicked out anyone who disagreed with their behavior). A good portion of those people, like Tom Morris, have no place in anything to do with a Wiki.

[Peter Damian]

Email me and I'll send you tons of logs. I already posted up once before where the Wikimedia UK people were using the IRC room for graphic sex talk in violation of Freenode policy and how no one cared because they were all made channel ops without any consent of the chatters or Wiki people (and kicked out anyone who disagreed with their behavior). A good portion of those people, like Tom Morris, have no place in anything to do with a Wiki.

Your inbox is full and I don't know your email. Mine is edward AT logicmuseum.com.

Would be interested in any logs casting light on Wikipedia's responsible governance.

[Vigilant]

Email me and I'll send you tons of logs. I already posted up once before where the Wikimedia UK people were using the IRC room for graphic sex talk in violation of Freenode policy and how no one cared because they were all made channel ops without any consent of the chatters or Wiki people (and kicked out anyone who disagreed with their behavior). A good portion of those people, like Tom Morris, have no place in anything to do with a Wiki.

Color me shocked that you're an obsessive IRC log collector.

[EricBarbour]

Email me and I'll send you tons of logs.

Color me shocked that you're an obsessive IRC log collector.

At least someone is doing it. For whatever reason. Those IRC maunderers are helping to create/ruin history, and they're doing it in secret. Whatever Ottava saves will be the ONLY record of what really happened, because the rest of them want it hushed up.

[Kelly Martin]

The #wikipedia channel (the one that Ottava compulsively logs) has had absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia for at least six years. All the dirty secret scheming takes place in private channels that Ottava isn't allowed in. Freenode is littered with IRC trolls; they're all over the network. On another channel that I used to frequent there, we had some guy convince the channel ownership that he could "help them fight spammers". Turns out he was a spammer. A lot of these type of people are regulars at #wikipedia because the channel is so laxly policed. And there are running issues with freenode management as well.

In any case, while you can, no doubt, find lots of superficially salacious garbage trolling in that sewer, none of it is of any real value. The officialdom will just deny any connection to or control over it, and any log you use to try to prove anything about a specific individual will be deflected with the usual denials ("that log is fabricated" and "you can't prove that was me" are usually fairly early on).

[Peter Damian]

The #wikipedia channel (the one that Ottava compulsively logs) has had absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia for at least six years.

On the contrary it has many admin names that I recognise. That's all that is needed for this bit. It's one of many bits of evidence to show how the people who administer Wikipedia behave. Jeff has sent me about 6MB of logs, and a simple word count on 'fuck' and 'cunt' is a good start.

The officialdom will just deny any connection to or control over it, and any log you use to try to prove anything about a specific individual will be deflected with the usual denials ("that log is fabricated" and "you can't prove that was me" are usually fairly early on).

Good. One of my basic principles is to get people to deny things very early on, preferably in writing. Then you can forget about difficult issues about whether the thing they denied was ethical or not, and focus on the ethics of lying. This always works, although it takes time and patience.

All the dirty secret scheming takes place in private channels that Ottava isn't allowed in.

Evidence please! And logs!


This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

I rather liked this exchange (Tue Jun 28 23:37:23 2011), featuring the perpetually foul-mouthed Ironhold (Oliver Keyes, Community Liaison, Product Development for the Wikimedia Foundation)

[00:03] <Ironholds> "I found Reagle's book very interesting as an illustration of how a comparative outsider perceives Wikipedia. The problem I have with it isn't so much the content as the place the book has - it's seen as the work to emulate if you want to write about Wikipedia in an academic setting. And because it contains some inaccuracies - purely, I'm sure, as a result of being written by someone on the outside - we have a real risk of these inaccuracies being repeated"
[00:03] <Ironholds> Fluffernutter, he proposed a breaching experiment
[00:03] <Ironholds> I told him if he tried it, I'd block him; he called me out to sue for threatening him
[00:04] <Fluffernutter> Ironholds: wait, Reagle did? Was this a gendergap thing? It raises a vague memory but I can't call up the details.
[00:06] <Ironholds> Fluffernutter: yup. Plus his paper "free as in sexist" which INFURIATES me
[00:06] <Fluffernutter> oh, that's the one i reviewed i think
[00:06] <Ironholds> he is a narrow-minded beardy fuckwit who understands half of what he's talking about and can communicate maybe a quarter. If you gave me a copy of his book I would choose to eat it before I chose to read it. He thinks that the gendergap is all about gender. Fucking moron

How ironic. The naive academic Joseph Reagle writes a book about Wikipedia, saying how it is a wonderful example of open collaboration and Wikilove etc, and the Community Liaison officer says all this about it not being open and Reagle is not an insider and adds, totally gratuitously, that Reagle is a "narrow-minded beardy fuckwit". Great.

[Daniel Brandt]

The #wikipedia channel (the one that Ottava compulsively logs) has had absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia for at least six years. All the dirty secret scheming takes place in private channels that Ottava isn't allowed in. Freenode is littered with IRC trolls; they're all over the network. On another channel that I used to frequent there, we had some guy convince the channel ownership that he could "help them fight spammers". Turns out he was a spammer. A lot of these type of people are regulars at #wikipedia because the channel is so laxly policed. And there are running issues with freenode management as well.

In any case, while you can, no doubt, find lots of superficially salacious garbage trolling in that sewer, none of it is of any real value. The officialdom will just deny any connection to or control over it, and any log you use to try to prove anything about a specific individual will be deflected with the usual denials ("that log is fabricated" and "you can't prove that was me" are usually fairly early on).

IRC is a sewer, and the #wikipedia channel on Freenode stinks worse than the other Wikipedia-related channels. Nothing has changed since I stopped logging it in May 2008. My logbot kept getting blocked, and I was bored with the game of switching servers and user names. (There are searchable logs from January 2008 to May 2008 here.)

But Kelly, that is exactly why this IRC channel is worth mentioning. Just about the only thing the Wikimedia Foundation owns outright (not counting their millions in the bank) is the trademark on the name "Wikipedia" and a bunch of servers. The Foundation could shut down that channel by sending a polite note to Freenode. Why don't they do this? Because Freenode would probably shut down all Wikipedia-related channels, and the Foundation doesn't want to set up a new sewer system for IRC. Let Freenode do it.

However, the prior question is this: "Why shouldn't they? Are they just lazy?" They have enough money to set up their own IRC channels that are properly policed. And if they don't do this, then they don't deserve the public's trust. From that it follows that they don't deserve the tax benefits of nonprofit status.

[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:

[Cedric]

I rather liked this exchange (Tue Jun 28 23:37:23 2011), featuring the perpetually foul-mouthed Ironhold (Oliver Keyes, Community Liaison, Product Development for the Wikimedia Foundation)

. . .

I suspect Ironholds is just trolling. Prof. Reagle is a long-time editor (User:Reagle, since April 2004), knows practically all the Foundation bigwigs, and has spoken at several of the wiki mash-ups--hardly an outsider. Or maybe Ironholds is that much of an idiot . . . .

[Peter Damian]

I suspect Ironholds is just trolling. Prof. Reagle is a long-time editor (User:Reagle, since April 2004), knows practically all the Foundation bigwigs, and has spoken at several of the wiki mash-ups--hardly an outsider. Or maybe Ironholds is that much of an idiot . . . .

With all of 1,000 contributions in 7 years.

[Peter Damian]

A bizarre exchange going on here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:IRC . Someone is trying to publish the #admins IRC logs, and the hardcore Wikipedians (including our friend Mr Haeften) are slapping him down for reason of copyright law, of all things.

Why can't they just declare the logs 'public'?

[Peter Damian]

The laughable thing is that Fae /Haeften is the same person who complained about people canvassing on WR then showing up to vote on WP. Yet the votes on the page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:IRC are all from people who canvassed on IRC and showed up to vote. How do Wikipedians hold these contradictory ideas in their head?

[Kelly Martin]

The laughable thing is that Fae /Haeften is the same person who complained about people canvassing on WR then showing up to vote on WP. Yet the votes on the page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:IRC are all from people who canvassed on IRC and showed up to vote. How do Wikipedians hold these contradictory ideas in their head?

Are you religious, Peter?

[Peter Damian]

The laughable thing is that Fae /Haeften is the same person who complained about people canvassing on WR then showing up to vote on WP. Yet the votes on the page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:IRC are all from people who canvassed on IRC and showed up to vote. How do Wikipedians hold these contradictory ideas in their head?

Are you religious, Peter?

I have a deep and abiding interest in the psychology of religion, and of religious belief, and there are certain similarities to the present situation, yes.

Perhaps it's similar to this http://ocham.blogspot.com/2006/03/overheard-in-bar_18.html .

You have mail, Hipocrite.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Hipocrite]

Thanks for the email. I'm not sure how much pariah I've got left in me - I was expecting at least some of the world to support me before the IRCADMIN pileon.

This post has been edited by Hipocrite:

[Kelly Martin]

My first response was flippant but intended to make a point which I think Peter grokked. However, there's another reason: most of Wikipedia's editors are, intellectually and emotionally, quite immature. They just don't think about these things, because thinking is too much bother. Once they have an answer that satisfies them, that's what they're going with, even if it comes down to "Because Joe said so" (provided that Joe is someone he trusts), and even if that answer is inconsistent with the answer they selected for the last, virtually identical, situation.

Simply put, Peter, your problem is that you think too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Vigilant]

My first response was flippant but intended to make a point which I think Peter grokked. However, there's another reason: most of Wikipedia's editors are, intellectually and emotionally, quite immature. They just don't think about these things, because thinking is too much bother. Once they have an answer that satisfies them, that's what they're going with, even if it comes down to "Because Joe said so" (provided that Joe is someone he trusts), and even if that answer is inconsistent with the answer they selected for the last, virtually identical, situation.

Simply put, Peter, your problem is that you think too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

He'll never make admin now that the cat's out of the bag...

[EricBarbour]

However, there's another reason: most of Wikipedia's editors are, intellectually and emotionally, quite immature. They just don't think about these things, because thinking is too much bother. Once they have an answer that satisfies them, that's what they're going with, even if it comes down to "Because Joe said so" (provided that Joe is someone he trusts), and even if that answer is inconsistent with the answer they selected for the last, virtually identical, situation.

Simply put, Peter, your problem is that you think too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

That's the ticket. They are man-children--the exact same kind of creature that posts pics of cute puppies and kitties (or whines when they lose their job) on Reddit, or that argues (at great disturbing length) about Battlestar Galactica on Metafilter, or that calls each other "faggots" on 4chan. Joe Reagle is simply another "useful idiot" they can rely on to generate propaganda about their "project". They have to keep it going, because it's their little hole in the wall. It gives them something to do, and it has a very thin veneer of "importance" to it.

I keep telling Peter that we are dealing with utterly irrational, immature people, most of them under the age of 25, nearly all of them male, all of them the product of a hyperactive TV-and-video-game-and-sugared-cereal culture. And he keeps thinking that we've "missed something" in the analysis. Wikipedians are essentially the polar opposite of medieval philosophers--they don't sit down and cogitate, they sit down and react to things. They arm-flap.

Any group that had a shred of human decency or intellectual sophistication would have tossed out that bastard Ironholds by now. But they don't--because he's another "useful idiot". It makes them feel good to call each other (and outsiders) juvenile names on an IRC channel, so they indulge. They probably think Ironholds' putdowns are "funny".

I keep telling anyone who will listen: Wikipedia is just like the Open Directory Project, or like the KDE software project. Eventually they will drive out ALL new editors, screw everything down, and sit there and grind the database into total incoherence. But stupid college students will KEEP USING IT. Until someone invents a new "playland" for the insiders to go and trash.