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!

[EricBarbour]

This document appears to state that logging specific channels might result in on-wiki sanctions - at the very least, administrators believe that it is appropriate to sanction for log posting without the approval of all quoted absent other violations. Should the following line (or similar) be added in the policy, somewhere:

It is not a violation of en.wikipedia policies to post logs, though it may result in sanctions on IRC.

Thank you for your comments. Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Your wishing really, really hard for it An RFC cannot change the fact that publishing people's words on Wikipedia without their permissions is a copyvio, and that the posting of copyvios on Wikipedia is sanctionable on Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How do the logged channels get around this alleged copyvio problem? Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could also just state in this page that logging is permitted, and use the fact that we have authority over the channels to make it so. Hipocrite (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well first, that's not what your RFC says, now is it. And second, as we keep pointing out to you, channels like #wikipedia-en are not the property of Wikipedia, and it is not within Wikipedia's purview to declare the void the copyright of people not editing on projects covered under Wikipedia's license. I can cheerfully declare that by posting on Wikipedia, you waive the right to copyright that novel you're writing, or that technical document you're working on for your job, or that world-changing piece of art you're doing in your spare time - but sadly for my wallet, my saying it here doesn't make it true or enforceable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this condescension really necessary or helpful? Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You have a point, Salvio. I was going more for humor, since PeterSymonds and I have already explained copyvio/logs to Hipocrite multiple time up above and just repeating the same words was getting monotonous, but it came across nastier than I intended. I've struck the sarcastic bits. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Tendentious, unproductive RfC designed solely to prove a WP:POINT. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The RFC is flawed, I believe it is against the copyright policy and the WMF privacy policy based on the values that the privacy policy references (as the policy does not specifically discuss IRC). --Fæ (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose This would be a copyvio without the permission of all those in said chat. The channels are not run nor controlled by the WMF so we can't exert control over them in any way shape or form. If they have a rule of no public log posting that is up to them to decide. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Question - copyright wise, is there a difference between publishing the logs vs. "making the logs available upon request", as in if Hypocrite logs it, and then I email him for it and he sends me a transcript? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Tom and my prior comment on the matter. Killiondude (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you support the claim made in that comment with diffs?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The main issue I have with this proposal is that public logs have the potential to contain information that would be covered by oversight. This is mainly IP addresses of those without cloaks, something that can definitely be logged (my private logs contain such information). From time to time there are also other forms of personally identifiable information which people may (inadvertently or otherwise) post on IRC. Without public logging this isn't a huge problem because the information will cease to be in the public domain after a short period; however with public logging outing is significantly more likely. The potential privacy breaches that public logging on Wikipedia would mean suggests that the proposed statement would be false (as it would in fact be a violation of Wikipedia policies). --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Posting logs is a violation of copyright, it's been discussed many times in the past, it was always declined. I see no argument put forward in this RFC as to *why* releasing logs is or would be beneficial. There is no formal relation between the English Wikipedia and the irc channels in question, and not even between the WMF and the irc channels. Snowolf How can I help? 19:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
comment how many people turned up to vote here because they heard about this on IRC? Be honest. I recognise at least two regulars above. 86.168.249.27 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

...I've had this page on my watchlist for years. Perhaps people interested in IRC will have the project page on Wikipedia on their watchlists? But yes, I'm sure there will have been people who come here because it's chatter on irc. Killiondude (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

COME ON, Hipocrite, did you really expect them to be "honest" about this? "Copyvio" is just ironic Wikipedia-speak for IDONTLIKEIT. They are assholes, and you cannot expect "honesty" or "openness". The IRC server is not controlled or paid for by the WMF, and is clearly (CLEARLY) under Section 230. There is NO explicit OR implicit expectation of "copyright" or even "privacy" on IRC chat logs. You can do anything you want with chat logs.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 6th January 2012, 9:26pm