IRC Highlights

[Peter Damian]

There are individual admins that are problematic at times, just as there are individual editors that are the same. Nothing more.

So there are two schools of thought.

(1) Things are much improved from the bad old days - perhaps a few rotten apples but nothing more than that. No systemic problems apart from griping and whining of a few 'content creators'. You and Tim support this view.

(2) Things are a lot worse. While there were cabals in the bad old days, at least there was some respect for those who created content. Now there is none.

Hard to say which is correct.

[Malleus]

There are individual admins that are problematic at times, just as there are individual editors that are the same. Nothing more.

So there are two schools of thought.

(1) Things are much improved from the bad old days - perhaps a few rotten apples but nothing more than that. No systemic problems apart from griping and whining of a few 'content creators'. You and Tim support this view.

(2) Things are a lot worse. While there were cabals in the bad old days, at least there was some respect for those who created content. Now there is none.

Hard to say which is correct.

Not that hard; it's the system that's corrupt and corrupting.

[Chatson de Channel]

Sheeeoot. I promised drama and bullshit but didn't expect to get an RFAR too!

[Vigilant]

Sheeeoot. I promised drama and bullshit but didn't expect to get an RFAR too!

[Hex]

Sheeeoot. I promised drama and bullshit but didn't expect to get an RFAR too!

Great, more drama, that's just what we need.

What is it about this project that makes so many people take things so over-seriously? For every teapot a tempest.

[Malleus]

Sheeeoot. I promised drama and bullshit but didn't expect to get an RFAR too!

Great, more drama, that's just what we need.

What is it about this project that makes so many people take things so over-seriously? For every teapot a tempest.

What is it about bell ends like you, who can't see what's right in front of their noses?

[Vigilant]

Sheeeoot. I promised drama and bullshit but didn't expect to get an RFAR too!

Great, more drama, that's just what we need.

What is it about this project that makes so many people take things so over-seriously? For every teapot a tempest.

Do not reduce the drama god!

[Hex]

My only ever graphic contribution to ED:



Thanks Aubrey for lifting it without giving credit!

[Vigilant]

Okay Scott, Tim,
Serious question: Do you think that Oliver Keyes is fit to be in his current position with the WMF?

[Anroth]

Okay Scott, Tim,
Serious question: Do you think that Oliver Keyes is fit to be in his current position with the WMF?

Well thats a bit loaded.

If by 'fit' you mean 'does he fit in with the current WMF quality of employee and company culture?' - then the answer is a resounding yes.

If by 'fit' you mean, 'is he fit to work in a professional capacity for a high profile company?' - then the answer is along the lines of 'he is not fit to collect rubbish'.

[Randy from Boise]

Okay Scott, Tim,
Serious question: Do you think that Oliver Keyes is fit to be in his current position with the WMF?

Whether Oliver Keyes cashes the checks or the next person like him in the same non-position seems utterly unimportant.

WMF raising $20M a year and throwing $10M out the cargo bay of a helicopter to local "user groups" seems very important. The ineptitude of WMF developing proper WYSIWYG editing software in a timely manner and being utterly incapable of introducing it in a non-disruptive fashion seems very important.

RfB

[Vigilant]

Okay Scott, Tim,
Serious question: Do you think that Oliver Keyes is fit to be in his current position with the WMF?

Whether Oliver Keyes cashes the checks or the next person like him in the same non-position seems utterly unimportant.

WMF raising $20M a year and throwing $10M out the cargo bay of a helicopter to local "user groups" seems very important. The ineptitude of WMF developing proper WYSIWYG editing software in a timely manner and being utterly incapable of introducing it in a non-disruptive fashion seems very important.

RfB

Permission to treat the witness as hostile, your honor?

[Malleus]

Okay Scott, Tim,
Serious question: Do you think that Oliver Keyes is fit to be in his current position with the WMF?

I think he fits in very well.

[Vigilant]

Okay Scott, Tim,
Serious question: Do you think that Oliver Keyes is fit to be in his current position with the WMF?

I think he fits in very well.

That's not what I asked. ..

[Randy from Boise]

Okay Scott, Tim,
Serious question: Do you think that Oliver Keyes is fit to be in his current position with the WMF?

I think he fits in very well.

The better questions, I think, would be "what is his position, exactly?" and "should that paid position exist?"

RfB

[Malleus]

Okay Scott, Tim,
Serious question: Do you think that Oliver Keyes is fit to be in his current position with the WMF?

I think he fits in very well.

That's not what I asked. ..

The answer is no then, obviously not. But equally obviously he's among friends at the WMF, so he's safe. For now.

[tarantino]

I just wanted to congratulate you on your avatar!
Campy sci-fi movies for the win!

Haha, thanks.

I thought it was the campy food scientist Alton Brown.

[Zoloft]

I just wanted to congratulate you on your avatar!
Campy sci-fi movies for the win!

Haha, thanks.

I thought it was the campy food scientist Alton Brown.

Many Lovecraft characters are in favor of 'good eats' - sometimes accompanied by snarling sounds.

[Vigilant]

Risker, proving again that she's the dumbest thing on two legs...

Comment: Not sure what case people want us to take, as there are at least three proposed here: something about an IRC channel (see case from 2007 that went just about nowhere, and that was when Jimbo's statement was relatively current); something about child protection, although it's pretty muddled what Kiefer is getting at there, given that the channels are owned by Freenode and not by Arbcom, Wikipedia, or even the WMF; something about two users with a long history of incivility/snark/verbal nastiness/sarcasm/whatever you want to call it, who are now aiming at each other, one of whom is an admin; or whether or not admins can be uncivil/snarky/verbally nasty/sarcastic/whatever about users in semi-public off-wiki settings. I'll decline to take anything related to statements from six years ago, to IRC, or to someone's odd notions of child protection based. If there is more focus on user interaction and/or admin actions, I will consider a case. Risker (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if I can help you here.

A WMF employee and admin, in the wiki en admin channel, has admitted to making a "joke" about burning an editor to death.

[greyed.out.fields]

Sheeeoot. I promised drama and bullshit but didn't expect to get an RFAR too!

Great, more drama, that's just what we need.

What is it about this project that makes so many people take things so over-seriously? For every teapot a tempest.

What is it about bell ends like you, who can't see what's right in front of their noses?

Be nice to Hex, Malleus: he's had a recent cosplay incident.

And on the subject of bell-ends in front of noses, I'm not sure whether the, erm, "interesting aspects" of this user profile pic are intended or not...


Kimochi waru~~~i!

[Jaranda]

There are individual admins that are problematic at times, just as there are individual editors that are the same. Nothing more.

So there are two schools of thought.

(1) Things are much improved from the bad old days - perhaps a few rotten apples but nothing more than that. No systemic problems apart from griping and whining of a few 'content creators'. You and Tim support this view.

(2) Things are a lot worse. While there were cabals in the bad old days, at least there was some respect for those who created content. Now there is none.

Hard to say which is correct.

I'll say its the same, I remember the Worldtraveller, ALoan, Geogre and so forth ArbCom cases, they were among the top content contributors but treated like shit among the teenage/IRC/cabal crowds and left the project in disgrace. The issue is while all this drama was going on in Wikipolitics, new content contributors joined the project, started writing content and discovering new areas of the project and "enemies" and deja vu. As long as Wikipedia is an "open" encyclopedia, there would always be a content contributor vs. janitors/cabal/foundation issue.

[Vigilant]

There are individual admins that are problematic at times, just as there are individual editors that are the same. Nothing more.

So there are two schools of thought.

(1) Things are much improved from the bad old days - perhaps a few rotten apples but nothing more than that. No systemic problems apart from griping and whining of a few 'content creators'. You and Tim support this view.

(2) Things are a lot worse. While there were cabals in the bad old days, at least there was some respect for those who created content. Now there is none.

Hard to say which is correct.

I'll say its the same, I remember the Worldtraveller, ALoan, Geogre and so forth ArbCom cases, they were among the top content contributors but treated like shit among the teenage/IRC/cabal crowds and left the project in disgrace. The issue is while all this drama was going on in Wikipolitics, new content contributors joined the project, started writing content and discovering new areas of the project and "enemies" and deja vu. As long as Wikipedia is an "open" encyclopedia, there would always be a content contributor vs. janitors/cabal/foundation issue.

All of this stuff that we bat around stems from a systemic failure of leadership at the WMF.
They hire people they know from a pool of maladjusted, immature dicks and expect that things will magically work out.

I am awaiting the search committee's recommendations on who is to replace Sue.
It is the single most important decision that can be made with respect to wikipedia's future.

Choose an insider/quisling and the end is nigh.
Choose a heavy hitter with engineering management and a proven track record with non profits and the dream will change but survive.

[Herbert West]

Many Lovecraft characters are in favor of 'good eats' - sometimes accompanied by snarling sounds.

Fhtagn.

Risker, proving again that she's the dumbest thing on two legs...
<snip>
Let's see if I can help you here.

A WMF employee and admin, in the wiki en admin channel, has admitted to making a "joke" about burning an editor to death.

They know they're being watched. Maybe that will be incentive enough to tone down the dumbfuckery just a tad.

<Charmless> Ironholds: I am your loyal vassel apparently!
...
<Ironholds> Charmless: If by that you mean "wikipediocracy says..." the amount of shit I give is smaller than the planck length.

See my post here. Be sure to ask Charmlet how the litigation against "the unlawful use of his likeness" is going.

[Vigilant]

Oliver Keyes, your time as a WMF staffer is coming to an end.
You have only yourself to blame for the vile and indefensible comments you made about another editor on IRC.

[Malleus]

All of this stuff that we bat around stems from a systemic failure of leadership at the WMF.
They hire people they know from a pool of maladjusted, immature dicks and expect that things will magically work out.

Quite.

[Hex]

Okay Scott, Tim,
Serious question: Do you think that Oliver Keyes is fit to be in his current position with the WMF?

I don't think I'm really qualified or in a position to assess that, especially given my extremely limited interactions with and observations of him, let alone knowledge of what he does for the vast majority of his day. In fact, since I have no managerial/HR experience, I am exquisitely unqualified to pass judgment on whether anyone is fit to be in their position.

What I can say is that if you work for somewhere, you should always be aware that your comments will reflect upon it. If you work in a PR position for that somewhere, you should really be aware that your comments will reflect upon it, even if you're "off-duty"; but I seriously question the notion that anyone talking in a channel associated with the major project of their organization could be considered off-duty, or, as I've mentioned earlier, that the channel could be considered not an official part of the project just because it's hosted by Freenode. Nor that the private status of the channel - limited to those in a privileged position on the project, i.e. with tool access ("admins") - should confer upon it a "what happens here stays here" status. I've been known to be rude about people - probably mainly on here, to be honest - and I have tool access as well; but if I worked for the WMF, I would be keeping any strong personal opinions to myself.

So I think that he made a mistake by making an off-color joke in that place, with his status as a WMF employee. Should that joke cost him his job? As I said, I don't have enough information to make calls of that magnitude. If I were in charge, I would give him a severe talking-to, and probably impose some kind of condition of signing a conduct agreement for his use of IRC, allowing it to be monitored at any time. But I'm not in charge, so what I think about it really doesn't matter too much.

[eppur si muove]

Sandstein (T-C-L) is feeling in a clement mood only wanting Fram (T-C-L) warned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =563216996

Disclaimer of possible bias: I am commenting here because I recognized Ironholds's user name from a recent disagreement he and I had about a harrassment block by me which he sought to have overturned. I looked at this request to check whether there might be any connection to that disagreement. In general, I agree with Kww above:

Concerning Ironholds: In the IRC log of 26 June 2013 excerpted at [1] (there confirmed as authentic by administrator AzaToth), Ironholds used the wikipedia-en-admins channel to express his desire to rub down a named other editor with oil, and to set them aflame.
I am appalled at this. It should go without saying that it is under no circumstances acceptable to express a wish for another editor's death by burning, even as a joke. That the comments were made in a "private" channel is no excuse, because I understand that the channel is potentially accessible to all 1600+ admins, and therefore it is for most intents and purposes public.
Irrespective of whether these IRC comments are within the jurisdiction of the Committee in the same way on-wiki edits would be, the Committee should open a case to examine whether these comments are compatible with our expectations in the character and good judgment of a holder of advanced permissions. I believe they are not.
Also, the Committee should inform the HR department of the Wikimedia Foundation about this case. I would be very surprised if they believe that discussing how to burn other Wikimedians alive is part of the duties of a Foundation employee.

Concerning Kiefer.Wolfowitz: In the now revdeleted comment at [2], Kiefer.Wolfowitz threatens Ironholds with bodily harm. I do not understand why this comment did not result in an immediate and indefinite block by the first administrator who read it. There are no valid excuses for such statements, and particularly not provocations by others. I recommend reinstating the three-month block as a minimum.

Concerning Fram: I recommend considering to warn Fram that by unblocking Kiefer.Wolfowitz without community consensus, or at least without the discussion required by the policy WP:RAAA, Fram's unblock had the effect of enabling harrassing conduct. Fram's explanation at [3] shows that they acted in good faith, but, I think, mistakenly: misconduct by one person does not excuse or mitigate misconduct by another. Fram should not have lifted Kiefer.Wolfowitz's block, but should have requested sanctions against Ironholds for his offwiki conduct. Sandstein 09:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

[Hex]

I understand that the channel is potentially accessible to all 1600+ admins, and therefore it is for most intents and purposes public.

That is a good point.

[DanMurphy]

There are individual admins that are problematic at times, just as there are individual editors that are the same. Nothing more.

So there are two schools of thought.

(1) Things are much improved from the bad old days - perhaps a few rotten apples but nothing more than that. No systemic problems apart from griping and whining of a few 'content creators'. You and Tim support this view.

(2) Things are a lot worse. While there were cabals in the bad old days, at least there was some respect for those who created content. Now there is none.

Hard to say which is correct.

I'll say its the same, I remember the Worldtraveller, ALoan, Geogre and so forth ArbCom cases, they were among the top content contributors but treated like shit among the teenage/IRC/cabal crowds and left the project in disgrace. The issue is while all this drama was going on in Wikipolitics, new content contributors joined the project, started writing content and discovering new areas of the project and "enemies" and deja vu. As long as Wikipedia is an "open" encyclopedia, there would always be a content contributor vs. janitors/cabal/foundation issue.

All of this stuff that we bat around stems from a systemic failure of leadership at the WMF.
They hire people they know from a pool of maladjusted, immature dicks and expect that things will magically work out.

I am awaiting the search committee's recommendations on who is to replace Sue.
It is the single most important decision that can be made with respect to wikipedia's future.

Choose an insider/quisling and the end is nigh.
Choose a heavy hitter with engineering management and a proven track record with non profits and the dream will change but survive.

They hired a guy with Aspergers (and the weak/strange social skills that go with it) to be a community liaison. Guy with Aspergers. Community liaison job.

So he has predictably done a poor job of it (the running around telling the customers complaining about the visual editor that they were wrong was like a parody of a lousy PR person). And now there's a slim chance that the "community" he liaises with (and with which he was presumed to have good relations, hence his hiring) is going to strip him of his administrator status for joking about burning a member of that community alive.

Clearly the Wikimedia Foundation is horribly run. They hire the wrong people to spend too much money focusing on the wrong things. But the internet kiddies that send their lunch money don't know (or perhaps don't care) about it. It is the idea of Wikipedia that gives them the warm and fuzzies - the reality isn't that relevant.

The Wikipedia IRC channels need to be shut down by fiat. So of course, they won't be.

[Wer900]

There are individual admins that are problematic at times, just as there are individual editors that are the same. Nothing more.

So there are two schools of thought.

(1) Things are much improved from the bad old days - perhaps a few rotten apples but nothing more than that. No systemic problems apart from griping and whining of a few 'content creators'. You and Tim support this view.

(2) Things are a lot worse. While there were cabals in the bad old days, at least there was some respect for those who created content. Now there is none.

Hard to say which is correct.

I'll say its the same, I remember the Worldtraveller, ALoan, Geogre and so forth ArbCom cases, they were among the top content contributors but treated like shit among the teenage/IRC/cabal crowds and left the project in disgrace. The issue is while all this drama was going on in Wikipolitics, new content contributors joined the project, started writing content and discovering new areas of the project and "enemies" and deja vu. As long as Wikipedia is an "open" encyclopedia, there would always be a content contributor vs. janitors/cabal/foundation issue.

All of this stuff that we bat around stems from a systemic failure of leadership at the WMF.
They hire people they know from a pool of maladjusted, immature dicks and expect that things will magically work out.

I am awaiting the search committee's recommendations on who is to replace Sue.
It is the single most important decision that can be made with respect to wikipedia's future.

Choose an insider/quisling and the end is nigh.
Choose a heavy hitter with engineering management and a proven track record with non profits and the dream will change but survive.

They hired a guy with Aspergers (and the weak/strange social skills that go with it) to be a community liaison. Guy with Aspergers. Community liaison job.

So he has predictably done a poor job of it (the running around telling the customers complaining about the visual editor that they were wrong was like a parody of a lousy PR person). And now there's a slim chance that the "community" he liaises with (and with which he was presumed to have good relations, hence his hiring) is going to strip him of his administrator status for joking about burning a member of that community alive.

Clearly the Wikimedia Foundation is horribly run. They hire the wrong people to spend too much money focusing on the wrong things. But the internet kiddies that send their lunch money don't know (or perhaps don't care) about it. It is the idea of Wikipedia that gives them the warm and fuzzies - the reality isn't that relevant.

The Wikipedia IRC channels need to be shut down by fiat. So of course, they won't be.

They are of course useful, but as with ArbCom proceedings, at some regular interval information should be released, privacy redacted.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Oliver Keyes, your time as a WMF staffer is coming to an end.
You have only yourself to blame for the vile and indefensible comments you made about another editor on IRC.

I would be surprised if Ironholds and other staff were represented by a union, given the lumpen-libertarian leanings of "objectivist" Jimbo Wales, but if so he might have hope.

Without a union contract, Ironholds can be dismissed according to U.S. labor law, specifically its doctrine of at-will employment (T-C-L), an ill-favoured thing.

[Vigilant]

Oliver Keyes, your time as a WMF staffer is coming to an end.
You have only yourself to blame for the vile and indefensible comments you made about another editor on IRC.

I would be surprised if Ironholds and other staff were represented by a union, given the lumpen-libertarian leanings of "objectivist" Jimbo Wales, but if so he might have hope.

Without a union contract, Ironholds can be dismissed according to U.S. labor law, specifically its doctrine of at-will employment (T-C-L), an ill-favoured thing.

He's made it clear that he's a contract community liaison employee.
I'm (pretty) sure the WMF has boilerplate legal language that allows them to terminate someone who has says such things in contravention of the WMF's interests.

[Chatson de Channel]

Let's see how the contestents are getting on in the Big Admin House.

23:41 < Bsadowski1> Maybe I shouldn't discuss users in here anymore because of these leakers I've been hearing about.
23:42 < Bsadowski1> Someone in here could be an insider to some outside group even.
23:42 < Bsadowski1> WR, ED, etc
23:44 * tommorris will tell his gang about all of you.
23:44 < Bsadowski1>
23:44 < Bsadowski1> Whoever the leaker is needs to know this is a private channel. What goes in here shouldn't go elsewhere.
23:46 < tommorris> I dunno. Revealing that some Wikipedians don't like each other? Sounds like the Woodward and Bernstein of our time.
23:46 < Bsadowski1> Yeah, but whoever it may be is not trustworthy.
23:47 < Bsadowski1> (To be in this channel)
23:49 < AzaToth> tommorris: well, I dont think Woodward and Bernstein was after the dhrama
23:49 < tommorris> "LOL Nixon, we gonna get you ArbCommed"
23:49 < Dragonfly6-7> but look how much they caused
23:50 < Bsadowski1> I wonder who Chatson de Channel is.. :s

Who don't, baby. Who don't.

23:50 < tommorris> when I first became an admin, I was excited that I'd be able to access this channel, thinking I'd entered the secret cabal channel. It's frankly rather dull in comparison.
23:51 < AzaToth> tommorris: this isn't the secret cabal channel
23:51 < rschen7754> oh, there was plenty of sexual innuendos back in the day
23:51 < Risker> what day was that, rschen
23:52 < rschen7754> 2006-2007 era
23:52 < Dragonfly6-7> the days of Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin
23:53 < AzaToth> rschen7754: everything can be accused as being a sexual innuendo
23:53 < rschen7754> AzaToth: oh, they were being very explicit about it

There's a reward of ฿0.139567 to anyone who can produce logs from back then. Come at me bros.

07:41 -!- QueenOfFrance changed the topic of #wikipedia-en-admins to: Public logging is prohibited | Be careful about what you say in here as somebody has been publicily posting snippets | Join #wikipedia-en-revdel and help field revdel requests! | Heavy backlogs! Consider volunteering for OTRS - http://tinyurl.com/bov8vl9 | Wikimania 2014 is in London!

Shh....

04:34 * Guerillero thinks about saying something controversial
04:34 * Guerillero remembers this chan is logged
04:34 < Guerillero> nope not tonight

There ya have it kids - direct action works.

Chats xxx

[Herbert West]

23:44 < Bsadowski1> Whoever the leaker is needs to know this is a private channel. What goes in here shouldn't go elsewhere.

And I should be vice president of the world, but we all have our little disappointments.

[eppur si muove]

What I would be interested are signs of inconsistency between people's attitude to the IRC leaks and to Snowden, Swartz, Wikileaks etc. Any evidence of notable information-must-be-free types thinking differently when it comes to WP/WM info?

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

My comments were ordered hatted by one or more arbitrators.

Corruption at IRC: A Liability


Stealth canvassing

Administrator Nick reported that "on IRC ... administrators (are) being harassed over the refusal to revision delete KW's initial comment ... and there has been various attempts to influence various people to vote for an indefinite block. Nobody has named the administrators who were organizing this campaign. Worse, no administrator declared that they had read about my blocking discussion at IRC. Nobody has asserted that this stealth canvassing was isolated.

To provide transparency and accountability, chat rooms should be prohibited.

Administrators found canvassing should be desysopped; administrators participating in chats with canvassing and other unethical behavior should be admonished (and desysopped after a repeated failure to report unethical behavior).

Child safety

For Wikipedia editors, the percentage of 12-17 year olds was guesstimated to be 13%; regardless of age, many editors have neurological or social disabilities.

Despite the high participation of vulnerable editors, WMF and English Wikipedia lack serious standards for child-protection; in particular, neither complies with the minimum requirements of the United States Child Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA) and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which ban participation at social-networking sites by children under 13 and require parental approval for other children. Neither organization meets the benchmark set by the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts.

WMF and Wikipedia's should require training and adherence to internet-safety rules by its staff and volunteer leadership (participants in educational programs, Tea House, "Adoption Schools", IRC access, etc.). In particular, leadership roles should be limited to adults (or possibly include children 13 and over who have received permission from their parents) who have completed and agreed to adhere to safety guidelines. In particular, on IRC, private chats are grossly inappropriate when many participants are minors; such contacts violate the 2-adults present rule of Boy/Girl Scouts.

ArbCom has already communicated to Sue Gardner its concern about being overwhelmed with c. 20 cases of child protection each year. And these are cases more severe than cases that have been ignored, because of the toothless child-protection policy of Wikipedia:

• An editor tells a boy when he will visit his town.
  
  An editor tells a boy how to get around his parents' efforts to stop him emailing, and continues emailing and IMing the boy, despite the boy's objections.

Such editors' on-Wiki actions violate the child-protection codes of the Scouts and other responsible organizations, but not WMF and Wikipedia. What happens on WMF/Wikipedia's IRC, particularly in WMF/WP IRC chat-rooms?

Do ArbCom members agree to pay for civil and criminal legal-costs related to IRC from their own pockets, and so agree to refuse WMF funds or legal council?

[Triptych]

Quoted text clipped for brevity.

Let's see how the contestents are getting on in the Big Admin House.

23:44 < Bsadowski1> Whoever the leaker is needs to know this is a private channel. What goes in here shouldn't go elsewhere.
23:46 < tommorris> I dunno. Revealing that some Wikipedians don't like each other? Sounds like the Woodward and Bernstein of our time.
23:46 < Bsadowski1> Yeah, but whoever it may be is not trustworthy.
23:47 < Bsadowski1> (To be in this channel)
23:49 < AzaToth> tommorris: well, I dont think Woodward and Bernstein was after the dhrama
23:49 < tommorris> "LOL Nixon, we gonna get you ArbCommed"
23:49 < Dragonfly6-7> but look how much they caused
23:50 < Bsadowski1> I wonder who Chatson de Channel is.. :s

Who don't, baby. Who don't.

04:34 * Guerillero thinks about saying something controversial
04:34 * Guerillero remembers this chan is logged
04:34 < Guerillero> nope not tonight

There ya have it kids - direct action works.

Yes it does. You're improving their behavior. They're more guarded in their words and their actions are going to affected because of that, because there're less hasty, abusive, and bad words to act on. A couple or three months ago Wikipediocracy had a thread in which a lot of people said "oh, nobody much goes on IRC anymore." But look now, we know it's used extensively. There're arbs recusing from the request for arbitration because they're operators of the channels involved. We know others are in there too. Newyorkbrad said "block shopping" on IRC (by which he appears to mean getting on IRC and calling attention to your target) is less of a problem than it was, but I'm not so sure of that.

AzaToth was kind enough to publicly verify the accuracy of your log clip, but is mistaking drama for the point of it. The point of it is forcing them to clean up their act.

This stuff where some claim it's a "private" channel seems ludicrous to me. It's a Wikipedia admins channel, they're supposed to have some sort of responsibility in that role, it's not somewhere they go to chat about their children and pets and vacation plans.

The exchange of Ironholds and USAF member Tparis was not just some inadvertent morbid humor as Ironholds claimed but rather questionable even from the opening remark. "[Named editor] needs his rubdown." Come again? Each is on notice now, less likely to say such comments, less likely to follow up on such comments by say going off to track the editor's recent history for something to get him on. Keep shining the light!

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

The exchange of Ironholds and USAF member Tparis was not just some inadvertent morbid humor as Ironholds claimed but rather questionable even from the opening remark. "[Named editor] needs his rubdown." Come again? Each is on notice now, less likely to say such comments, less likely to follow up on such comments by say going off to track the editor's recent history for something to get him on.

TParis tried to turn Ironholds's stupidity into something harmless and ridiculous. I don't think that TParis has been replaced by a crab person from South Park.

TParis is fair and tries to do the right thing. (He's log(log(log(Sarek of Vulcan))).)

[SB_Johnny]

There ya have it kids - direct action works.

Yes it does. You're improving their behavior. They're more guarded in their words and their actions are going to affected because of that, because there're less hasty, abusive, and bad words to act on.

It's probably safe to assume that the most offensive chatter is on the genuinely private channels.

[tarantino]

23:50 < tommorris> when I first became an admin, I was excited that I'd be able to access this channel, thinking I'd entered the secret cabal channel. It's frankly rather dull in comparison.
23:51 < AzaToth> tommorris: this isn't the secret cabal channel
23:51 < rschen7754> oh, there was plenty of sexual innuendos back in the day
23:51 < Risker> what day was that, rschen
23:52 < rschen7754> 2006-2007 era
23:52 < Dragonfly6-7> the days of Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin
23:53 < AzaToth> rschen7754: everything can be accused as being a sexual innuendo
23:53 < rschen7754> AzaToth: oh, they were being very explicit about it

By the way, whatever became of Wikipediocracy global moderator Kelly Martin?

Last visited: Wed May 01, 2013 2:52 pm

Last Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:08 pm

[Vigilant]

There ya have it kids - direct action works.

Yes it does. You're improving their behavior. They're more guarded in their words and their actions are going to affected because of that, because there're less hasty, abusive, and bad words to act on.

It's probably safe to assume that the most offensive chatter is on the genuinely private channels.

Oh yes.
Until the WMF steps in (read never), this will continue to be an underground garbage fire.

[Zoloft]

23:50 < tommorris> when I first became an admin, I was excited that I'd be able to access this channel, thinking I'd entered the secret cabal channel. It's frankly rather dull in comparison.
23:51 < AzaToth> tommorris: this isn't the secret cabal channel
23:51 < rschen7754> oh, there was plenty of sexual innuendos back in the day
23:51 < Risker> what day was that, rschen
23:52 < rschen7754> 2006-2007 era
23:52 < Dragonfly6-7> the days of Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin
23:53 < AzaToth> rschen7754: everything can be accused as being a sexual innuendo
23:53 < rschen7754> AzaToth: oh, they were being very explicit about it

By the way, whatever became of Wikipediocracy global moderator Kelly Martin?

Last visited: Wed May 01, 2013 2:52 pm

Last Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:08 pm

*shrug*

One of our most harmless members.

[Wer900]

There ya have it kids - direct action works.

Yes it does. You're improving their behavior. They're more guarded in their words and their actions are going to affected because of that, because there're less hasty, abusive, and bad words to act on.

It's probably safe to assume that the most offensive chatter is on the genuinely private channels.

Oh yes.
Until the WMF steps in (read never), this will continue to be an underground garbage fire.

Hopefully Chatson can get in with some admins and log the "private" channels as well.

[EricBarbour]

23:44 < Bsadowski1> Whoever the leaker is needs to know this is a private channel. What goes in here shouldn't go elsewhere.
23:46 < tommorris> I dunno. Revealing that some Wikipedians don't like each other? Sounds like the Woodward and Bernstein of our time.
23:46 < Bsadowski1> Yeah, but whoever it may be is not trustworthy.
23:47 < Bsadowski1> (To be in this channel)
23:49 < AzaToth> tommorris: well, I dont think Woodward and Bernstein was after the dhrama
23:49 < tommorris> "LOL Nixon, we gonna get you ArbCommed"
23:49 < Dragonfly6-7> but look how much they caused
23:50 < Bsadowski1> I wonder who Chatson de Channel is.. :s

Thank you, Chat, and carry on.

Bsadowski1 is one of Wikipedia's worst administrators, period, end of discussion. He damn well should be concerned that his smug
ego might be "leaked". He does nothing except block editors for any reason, or no reason, while pretending to monitor the talkpages
of major drama-magnets like NawlinWiki. If you don't believe me, look at his block log closely. Or his stats. (Remember, he's been an
admin for only 3 years.)

[tarantino]

By the way, whatever became of Wikipediocracy global moderator Kelly Martin?

Last visited: Wed May 01, 2013 2:52 pm

Last Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:08 pm

*shrug*

One of our most harmless members.

And one of our most astute.

[Salvidrim]

I've never used IRC but I'm a big fan of total transparency. Feel free to contact me privately if you feel I may be of any assistance in any matter.

[TungstenCarbide]

By the way, whatever became of Wikipediocracy global moderator Kelly Martin?Last visited: Wed May 01, 2013 2:52 pmLast Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:08 pm

*shrug*One of our most harmless members.

And one of our most astute.

I disagree. She is smart and hard working, and also willing to 'play the game', which lead to a quick rise in the early Wikipedia culture. Whatever 'astuteness' she had was due to being connected for a time, but that didn't last; her poor impulse control led to going on admin rampages at WP over stupid shit like userboxes, or here over Tarc's questioning of missing PMs.

Kelly made a clean break from WP (I think) which is enviable, but she has trouble separating reasoning from emotion.

[Chatson de Channel]

Morning gang!

Today's "treat" is a super-dull conversation from #wikipedia-en-helpers that illustrates the petty politics of people carving themselves out tiny empires in IRC-land. "Game of Thrones" it ain't.

14:26 < GorillaWarfare> MartijnH: For the record, it's not particularly helpful to ping ops in -en when you need help in -en-help
14:27 < Technical_13> Napping
14:28 < MartijnH> GW: thanks, I thought there were a ton of cross-ops
14:28 < MartijnH> apparently not
14:29 * MartijnH generally doesn't get involved in oppy business
14:30 < GorillaWarfare> MartijnH: There are some
14:30 < GorillaWarfare> But when someone uses the stalkword, it pings us in -ops like so:
14:30 < MartijnH> ah, ok!
14:30 < MartijnH> didn't know that
14:30 < GorillaWarfare> [#wikipedia-en-help] - Technical_13 wants op attention (spammer) GorillaWarfare, QueenofFrance, ...
14:31 < MartijnH> I thought that if you weren't in -en-help, you wouldn't see the ops request. My mistake
14:31 < GorillaWarfare> Nope
14:31 < MartijnH> thanks for the clarification
14:32 < GorillaWarfare> Sure
14:34 -!- TBloemink is now known as TB|Away
14:46 * MartijnH votes for declaring Huon as additional op for -en-help
14:50 < GorillaWarfare> You'll have to talk to QoF about that
14:50 < GorillaWarfare> But I think the decision was no more ops
14:50 < MartijnH> ah, ok
15:17 -!- Rcsprinter [~sendak@wikipedia/Rcsprinter123] has joined #wikipedia-en-helpers
15:19 -!- JustBerry [~8fe4a001@unaffiliated/justberry] has joined #wikipedia-en-helpers
15:21 < ferry|AFK> MartijnH, seconded - perhaps we can operate by consensus rather than decision
15:21 -!- ferry|AFK is now known as nonsenseferret
15:22 * MartijnH gave his opnion and stays out of it from there on
15:23 < GorillaWarfare> Heh
15:23 < GorillaWarfare> The decision-making process with regards to IRC ops is.. controversial
15:23 < nonsenseferret> MartijnH, it is not the first time that exact comment has been made here, i would say I get the impression there is a very strong consensus for that 15:24 < nonsenseferret> GorillaWarfare, yes wasn't Charmlet recently an op
15:25 < GorillaWarfare> Recently-ish
15:25 < GorillaWarfare> Why?
15:25 < nonsenseferret> well so that was the appropriate number of ops then, and charmlet is no longer an op, that does suggest there is a reasonable case for Huon
15:26 < GorillaWarfare> You mean we should maintain the number?
15:26 < nonsenseferret> oh yes i think that would be very reasonable GorillaWarfare - you wouldn't personally object would you
15:26 < GorillaWarfare> Well, I started opping here after Charmlet was removed as an op
15:26 < GorillaWarfare> So the number has stayed the same
15:26 < nonsenseferret> oh that is interesting
15:26 < nonsenseferret> how did you apply
15:27 < GorillaWarfare> I didn't
15:27 < nonsenseferret> oh right, so how did it come about exactly
15:27 < GorillaWarfare> I was opped a long time ago; they used to op all admins here
15:27 < GorillaWarfare> I just didn't know it until a month or two ago
15:27 < nonsenseferret> oh so you were an op
15:27 < nonsenseferret> so the numbers have changed then
15:27 < nonsenseferret> that makes it much clearer
15:27 < GorillaWarfare> Is an op who does not know she's an op still an op?
15:28 < nonsenseferret> you don't really need to ask that do you GorillaWarfare
15:28 < nonsenseferret> why do you object to the suggestion?
15:28 < GorillaWarfare> It seems like a reasonable question
15:28 < GorillaWarfare> If someone came here and was trolling, I looked for an op to deal with them because I couldn't do it myself
15:28 -!- Nathan2055|busy [~chatzilla@wikipedia/Nathan2055] has joined #wikipedia-en-helpers
15:29 < nonsenseferret> yes I can't see that there isn't a lot of support for this, who could possibly object?
15:29 < MartijnH> I'm generally cool with 'if we don't need any more ops, there is no need in handing out more ops'. But when we have an active troll, no active ops, and active trusted editors around who could have fixed it, I'm all for giving them ops, even if it is relatively rare. Huon (and nonsenseferret too for that matter) are here often, and are trusted - so that's a 'why not' IMO
15:29 * GorillaWarfare shrugs
15:29 < GorillaWarfare> Like I said, not my decision to make
15:30 < nonsenseferret> if the 'decision making' process stands in the way of consensus - i think we have really got to start asking very serious questions about the decision making process
15:30 < GorillaWarfare> nonsenseferret: Good luck with that
15:30 < nonsenseferret> do i have your support GorillaWarfare
15:30 < GorillaWarfare> nonsenseferret: Kind of hard for me to give support to something that vague
15:30 < nonsenseferret> do you think Huon is an appropriate choice of op
15:31 * GorillaWarfare shrugs
15:31 < GorillaWarfare> Yeah, I guess so
15:31 < nonsenseferret> thats great, thanks, we'll count on your support then
15:31 < MartijnH> as an aside, I don't think we can bombard people with ops without having discussed it with them first, even if the outcome isn't clear yet
15:31 < GorillaWarfare> nonsenseferret: Haha, it seems like you're twisting my words here.
15:31 < nonsenseferret> well if you object GorillaWarfare say so
15:32 < nonsenseferret> lets be open and honest with each other
15:32 < GorillaWarfare> I will be clear: If the decision is made to op somebody, I would accept Huon as that choice.
15:33 -!- mabdul [5dd340f8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.93.211.64.248] has joined #wikipedia-en-helpers
15:33 < Helpmebot> Hello mabdul. Apparently you haven't identified yourself to nickserv since you're missing your cloak and seeing this message. If you are looking for help, please go to #wikipedia-en-help and ask your question.
15:33 < MartijnH> !notify QueenOfFrance
15:33 < Helpmebot> I'll send you a private message when someone with nickname QueenOfFrance joins a channel I'm in
15:33 < MartijnH> o/ mabdul
15:33 < mabdul> here i am
15:34 * mabdul is busy in learning for the linux exam on tuesday ;-)
15:34 < mabdul> @MartijnH join #wikipedia-en-afc
15:34 < GorillaWarfare> mabdul: What's that channel?
15:34 < mabdul> guess
15:35 < GorillaWarfare> I'll rephrase: who created that channel, when, and why?
15:35 < mabdul> ages ago (years ago); for afc related stuff
15:35 < mabdul> bbmainly for afch now
15:36 < mabdul> *mainly
15:36 < GorillaWarfare> Oh, for afch?
15:36 < mabdul> as it is not used for other stuff ^^^
15:36 * GorillaWarfare nods
15:36 < GorillaWarfare> I was worried it was a "send all users looking for help with AfC to this channel" thing again
15:37 < mabdul> please not
15:40 -!- thineantiquepen is now known as TAP|away
15:44 -!- popples|away4 is now known as purplepopple
15:46 -!- Nathan2055|busy is now known as Nathan2055
15:50 -!- thineantiquepen [~thineanti@wikipedia/Thine-Antique-Pen] has joined #wikipedia-en-helpers
15:57 -!- AlexJFox_ is now known as AlexJFox
15:58 -!- AlexJFox [uid7798@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-popdzwebcwszgjbd] has quit [Changing host]
15:58 -!- AlexJFox [uid7798@wikipedia/AlexJFox] has joined #wikipedia-en-helpers
16:02 -!- thineantiquepen [~thineanti@wikipedia/Thine-Antique-Pen] has quit [Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi]
16:12 < QueenOfFrance> MartijnH: that won't work because I already am in here [Note: QueenOfFrance is Snowolf's IRC name - CdC]
16:13 < MartijnH> ah, true
16:13 < MartijnH> on the other hand
16:13 < MartijnH> apparently it worked brilliantly
16:16 < QueenOfFrance> Anyway, other thank stalking me, was there anything that was needed of me?
16:18 < MartijnH> oh, I assumed you read that. I was hoping for one or two additional ops in here. Is the policy still no more ops?
16:19 < QueenOfFrance> MartijnH: well I undertook a review of the matter a few weeks ago and found that no ops call went unanswered in over a month
16:20 < QueenOfFrance> or rather, two went: both were not something I would have acted on, and most ops would have just ignored them without saying anything, which is what I've done in those situations in the past
16:20 < MartijnH> there was one earlier today. They're rare, but when they happen, and we do have trusted people who could have prevented problems, I figured that would be one of those 'whi not' situations
16:21 < MartijnH> or rather 'why not' for those among us who can actually type
16:21 < QueenOfFrance> oh I thought the "whi" was intentional
16:21 < MartijnH> nah, I just can't type
16:22 < nonsenseferret> i think the way it stands is there seems to be quite a reasonable amount of support to propose Huon as a new op, why would anyone object to that?
16:22 < MartijnH> so I was figured, why not appoint Huon and/or nonsenseferret to the job. They're here very often, and probably pretty trusted
16:23 < MartijnH> s/was//
16:23 < QueenOfFrance> MartijnH: because op has to do with a lot of things, not just trust.
16:23 < nonsenseferret> MartijnH, i think you for the mention, but my support is fully behind Huon - he is head and shoulders above all else
16:23 -!- purplepopple [~laura@wikipedia/LauraHale] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
16:23 < nonsenseferret> QueenOfFrance, Charmlet was an op recently wasn't he
16:23 < QueenOfFrance> nonsenseferret: he was at some point, yes.
16:23 < nonsenseferret> so he isn't any more, therefore doesn't that mean the numbers have reduced for some reason?
16:24 < QueenOfFrance> nonsenseferret: not really because GorillaWarfare started becoming active since
16:24 < nonsenseferret> why was it reasonable to op Charmlet, but not Huon now
16:24 < QueenOfFrance> and has been doing most of the work
16:24 < nonsenseferret> GorillaWarfare, was always an op
16:24 < QueenOfFrance> But didn't know about it until we told her
16:24 < nonsenseferret> why do you object to this proposal QueenOfFrance
16:24 < nonsenseferret> lets have a sensible discussion about it
16:24 < QueenOfFrance> nonsenseferret: to what proposal?
16:25 < nonsenseferret> we propose that Huon be opped
16:25 < QueenOfFrance> Let him email me if he wants it, and I can forward the proposal around
16:25 < nonsenseferret> so nobody that helps in here has any say?
16:25 < nonsenseferret> there seems to be a lot of support QueenOfFrance - emailng things around behind the scenes doesn't seem open
16:26 < QueenOfFrance> IRC isn't open.
16:26 < nonsenseferret> that is no answer at all QueenOfFrance it is open if you want it to be
16:26 < GorillaWarfare> nonsenseferret: IRC does not operate in the same way as Wikipedia
16:27 < nonsenseferret> it can be open and accountable
16:27 < nonsenseferret> can anyone provide a sensible reason why it should not be
16:27 < MartijnH> I think "he cam mail, and it can be discussed" is a fairly reasonable opnion
16:27 < nonsenseferret> MartijnH, but does not take into account the strong support there is
16:28 -!- TB|Away [~TB@wikimedia/tbloemink] has quit [Quit: So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Operator from a pure heart.]
16:28 < GorillaWarfare> nonsenseferret: Strong support from... you and Martijn?
16:28 < nonsenseferret> you did not object to it either GorillaWarfare - it is not the first time that the suggestion has been made in here
16:28 < QueenOfFrance> nonsenseferret: so let Huon email me if he wants it
16:29 < nonsenseferret> openness, accountability QueenOfFrance ?
16:29 < QueenOfFrance> nonsenseferret: no such thing. Also, if he doesn't want it, we surely won't make him one.
16:29 < nonsenseferret> so you are clear you dont think openness and accountability is important in wikipedia matters
16:29 < nonsenseferret> can we quote you on that?
16:29 < QueenOfFrance> This is not a wikipedia matter.
16:29 < nonsenseferret> i disagree
16:29 < GorillaWarfare> nonsenseferret: Again with the twisting of words.
16:29 < QueenOfFrance> So let's try not to misquote me.
16:31 -!- Matty007 [d92a8e71@wikipedia/Matty-007] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
16:32 < nonsenseferret> why shouldn't there be more openness and accountabilty, i can't understand why you would possible be arguing against it
16:32 < QueenOfFrance> In any case, as I stated before, Huon can get in touch with me if he feels he wants to be an op in -en-help, and I will obviously pass it on and give it the most serious consideration. This is not because I'm a jerk, but because an IRC op has sadly little to do with being a good helper, which a lot of people in here could teach me about, and a lot to do with understanding the technical and policy side of IRC, meaning of IPs, etc
16:33 < nonsenseferret> this isn't an attempt to personally get at you QueenOfFrance i hope you understand there isn't any ill feeling
16:33 < QueenOfFrance> nonsenseferret: of course
16:33 < nonsenseferret> but i think there are some values that are important
16:33 < GorillaWarfare> nonsenseferret: Quite frankly, you're being surprisingly accusatory
16:34 < nonsenseferret> what is my accusation GorillaWarfare ?
16:34 < GorillaWarfare> 09:28 < nonsenseferret> so you are clear you dont think openness and accountability is important in wikipedia matters
16:34 < nonsenseferret> is this process open and accountable GorillaWarfare ?
16:34 < GorillaWarfare> That's not what you were accusing
16:35 < GorillaWarfare> IRC is not a "Wikipedia matter"
[conversation ends]

That was fucking boring and I like my pancakes with DRAMAH. So here's some more yummy goodness

22:31 < Demiurge1000> if you think it's better than start class, rate it C
22:31 < Firefly67> By myself?
22:31 < Demiurge1000> I would.
22:32 < Firefly67> Oh, I thought that was disallowed. So I'm allowed to give my own articles lower grades but not higher grades like GA?
22:32 < Firefly67> *not allowed
22:32 < Huon> Firefly67, B-class and up tend to have review processes
22:33 < Firefly67> OK, I see
22:33 < Huon> GA and up definitely have, and I wouldn't do that on my own article
22:33 * Demiurge1000 wasn't aware of a B class review process.
22:34 < Demiurge1000> GA, A (where applicable) and FA have review processes though
22:34 < Huon> Demiurge1000, at least it has definite criteria that can be checked
22:34 < Demiurge1000> well, the others do too, in theory
22:34 < Demiurge1000> If you're Kiefer.Wolfowitz you can rate your own articles A-class

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

That was fucking boring and I like my pancakes with DRAMAH. So here's some more yummy goodness

22:31 < Demiurge1000> if you think it's better than start class, rate it C
22:31 < Firefly67> By myself?
22:31 < Demiurge1000> I would.
22:32 < Firefly67> Oh, I thought that was disallowed. So I'm allowed to give my own articles lower grades but not higher grades like GA?
22:32 < Firefly67> *not allowed
22:32 < Huon> Firefly67, B-class and up tend to have review processes
22:33 < Firefly67> OK, I see
22:33 < Huon> GA and up definitely have, and I wouldn't do that on my own article
22:33 * Demiurge1000 wasn't aware of a B class review process.
22:34 < Demiurge1000> GA, A (where applicable) and FA have review processes though
22:34 < Huon> Demiurge1000, at least it has definite criteria that can be checked
22:34 < Demiurge1000> well, the others do too, in theory
22:34 < Demiurge1000> If you're Kiefer.Wolfowitz you can rate your own articles A-class

If you are Demiurge1000, you can do nothing.

The Shapley-Folkman lemma (T-H-L)'s good-article review led to extensive improvements and a suggestion that it be nominated soon for featured article status. Per process, the nomination for A-class was made on the economics and mathematics projects' pages, and received no concerns. Waiting two months rather than 2 weeks, the standard process, I changed the status to A-class, following a consultation with at least one of the leaders of one of the projects. Nominated for featured article status, it had support until "brilliant prose" concerns led to its withdrawal.... A simplified translation has featured article status on the Russian-language Wikipedia.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

The importance of genital images for children and why COPPA's age-restrictions are dumb and ineffective and don't apply to Wikipedia
2012/wikipedia-en.08-12

20:00 < Tony_Sidaway> Why no genitals?
20:00 < norbit> Guess who!?!?!
20:01 < Frood> Fox News.
20:01 < norbit> Tony_Sidaway: because we're not commons.
20:01 < Pharos> well, they're ok if the article is about genitals
20:01 < Frood> "Wikipedia a porn site? Why your kids should never use Wikipedia, at 11"
20:01 < Frood> also, I doubt the community would allow that.
20:02 < Pharos> Wikipedia is not a porn site, unless you want it to be!
20:02 < Frood> there are /lots/ of younger kids (10-12ish) who use Wikipedia
20:02 < Frood> and seeing dicks on the main page
20:02 < Frood> might be bad
20:02 < Pharos> it was
20:02 < Pharos> i don't think anyone ever noticed tho
20:04 < BlastHardcheese> as we know, people don't grow penises or boobies until the day they turn 18
20:05 < Pharos> i remember, it was very hard to urinate as a kid
20:05 < Tony_Sidaway> There are pictures of genitals in appropriate places on Wikipedia. And we shouldn't forget that, for many kids, encyclopedias are their only legitimate and reliable source of information about their own sexuality.
20:05 < Sven_Manguard (T-C-L)> BlastHardcheese: also swear words are never uttered in middle school
20:06 < Frood> and in high school, teachers swear at you
20:06 < Guerillero (T-C-L)> yes
20:07 < Tony_Sidaway> We should really be _promoting_ the uncensored status of Wikipedia rather than trying to conceal it.
20:07 < norbit> Frood: My elementary teachers swore :O
20:07 -!- Fluffernutter (T-C-L) is now known as Fluff|sleep
20:07 < Pharos> my teaching were very well-behaved
20:07 < Tony_Sidaway> In the early days as I recall this was very much the case.
20:07 < Pharos> most of the time
20:08 < Tony_Sidaway> Most places a kid goes, they're lied to. Wikipedia is different.
20:09 < Tony_Sidaway> Here they can learn about sex and other sensitive topics.
20:09 < norbit> Isarra: so you don't get mad, this is me.
20:09 < norbit> this is me until sept 31st
20:09 < Frood> ...kids don't need to see a grown man's penis
20:09 < Frood> that won't teach them about sex
20:09 < Isarra> Who?
20:10 < Pharos> me
20:10 < Isarra> Ah.
20:10 < Isarra> Hello, little Pharos.
20:10 * Isarra pats norbit on the head.
20:10 * norbit is splatted, by Isarra
20:10 < Frood> learning about sex by seeing picture of genitals is about as likely as learning how to replace an engine by looking at a car
20:10 * norbit is unsplatted
20:11 < Pharos> I'm so proud of mini-me
20:11 < Isarra> Don't kids ever use locker rooms at public pools these days?
20:11 < Frood> and yeah, sometimes you need to lie to kids about that stuff
20:11 < Isarra> See plenty of genitals there.
20:11 < Frood> Isarra: and this is why i don't go to the pool
20:11 < Isarra> And that's the places where the pools themselves don't have visible genitals.
20:12 * Isarra pats Frood on the head.
20:12 < Frood> it's always old people
20:12 < Frood> not even the "if i were gay they'd be attractive" people.
20:12 < Frood> no, ths old 70 year old man
20:13 < Pharos> ok
20:14 -!- GorillaWarfare [~GorillaWa@wikipedia/GorillaWarfare] has quit [Quit: GorillaWarfare]
20:14 < Pharos> that is one perspective
20:15 -!- localhost [~chris@cpe-76-188-161-222.neo.res.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:15 -!- Matthew_ [~matthewrb@wikipedia/matthewrbowker] has joined #wikipedia-en
20:15 -!- localhost [~chris@cpe-76-188-161-222.neo.res.rr.com] has joined #wikipedia-en
20:15 < GabrielF> sven_manguard: you around?
20:18 < Tony_Sidaway> No you don't need to lie to kids about sex. And certainly an encyclopedia shouldn't let them down if they're stuck with stupid or mendacious parents.
20:19 -!- TY is now known as ty
20:21 < NyanChat> Frood: what's this about wp being porno?
20:21 -!- aezop [~aezop@unaffiliated/aezop] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
20:21 < NyanChat> Are the kids prevented from registering, if under 13, due to COPPA laws?
20:21 < Tony_Sidaway> I think Larry Sanger made a thing about this the other day.
20:22 -!- aezop [~aezop@unaffiliated/aezop] has joined #wikipedia-en
20:23 < Demiurge1000 (T-C-L)> Anyone under the age of 16, cannot sign up to an adult account on Wikipedia. Cunningly, no-one over the age of 16 can do so either.
20:24 < Tony_Sidaway> There seem to be many Americans who equate all depiction of genitals with porn.
20:25 < Tony_Sidaway> Lots of people in other nations too, but Americans seem to be most widely prone to this.
20:25 < Frood> NyanChat: No.
20:29 < NyanChat> So why isn't COPPA enforced on WM sites?
20:29 < Frood> doesn't have to be
20:29 < Frood> they don't require personal info
20:29 < Frood> you can remain completely anonymous on WP
20:29 < Frood> no email required
20:29 < NyanChat> o...kay.
20:29 < Frood> no name required
20:30 < NyanChat> So we probably get gradeschoolers here all the time, about 2/5ths of them vandals.
20:30 < Guerillero> COPPA only works if you require personal info
20:30 < Frood> it's very hard to enforce, too.
20:30 -!- pianista|away [~katelante@wikipedia/La-Pianista] has quit [Quit: <3]
20:30 < Frood> see: facebook
20:30 < NyanChat> no kidding. many like to lie because kids haven't yet learned the patience to wait to age 13
...
20:35 < Demiurge1000> NyanChat, there seems to be a misunderstanding. The minimum age to use Wikipedia is NOT 13.
20:35 -!- Keegan_ [~chatzilla@wikimedia/Keegan] has joined #wikipedia-en
20:35 < Frood> it's "old enough to use a computer?
20:35 < Frood> s/?/"/
20:36 < NyanChat> I got on my Dad's Amiga for the first time at 5, but spilled Coke on it at 7...
20:36 < NyanChat> Dad should've invested in a membrane cover.
20:36 < Frood> anyway, bed.
20:36 -!- Frood is now known as Froodaway
20:37 < Demiurge1000> gradeschoolers who add "Fred is gay" are very easy to deal with - usually they are dealt with by other gradeschoolers. Adults who indulge in years-long defamation campaigns against living people are harder to deal with... gradeschoolers also help in dealing with them.
20:37 < NyanChat> Demi, you referring to [[Fred Figglehorn]] ( [[Lucas Cruikshank]]?)
20:37 < Demiurge1000> I'm not.
20:38 < Demiurge1000> I might be referring to [[Ronn Torrossian]], but I'm not sure I can spell it.

Mass-creating articles with bots (vandalism?), courtesy of Riley (T-C-L).

22:27 < Riley> Is there a policy about mass editing ?
22:27 < Riley (T-C-L)> And when I say "mass" I mean fast (AKA flooding)
22:29 < Guerillero (T-C-L)> yes
22:29 < Demiurge1000 (T-C-L)> There is WP:MASSCREATION
22:29 < Guerillero> WP:BOTPOL
22:29 < Guerillero> whats up?
22:29 < Demiurge1000> and also WP:MASTURBATION
22:29 * Isarra hits Demiurge1000 with a frying pan.
22:29 < Isarra> WP:BEANS, man.
22:29 < Demiurge1000> mmm, bacon
22:29 < Guerillero> There is Demiurge?
22:30 < Demiurge1000> There is always Demiurge.
22:30 * Peter-C pulls Guerillero’s beard
22:30 -!- Lydia_WMDE [~lydia@wikimedia/Lydia-Pintscher-WMDE] has joined #wikipedia-en
22:30 < Demiurge1000> Kind of like the poor, if you're into Abrahamic religions.
22:30 < Guerillero>
22:30 < Riley> WP:MASSCREATION is about creating articles tho?
22:31 < Guerillero> PM me the link if you would like
22:31 < Riley> It's nothing serious
22:31 < Guerillero> ok
22:32 < Riley> I am just looking for a policy that states not to edit fast
22:32 < Guerillero> at one time there were vandals that were bots
22:32 -!- Seddon [~chatzilla@cpc1-cdif6-0-0-cust25.5-1.cable.virginmedia.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
22:33 * Isarra suddenly gets an urge to make a mass of typo fixes all at once.
22:33 < Riley> Can someone get blocked for editing fast?:P
22:33 < Guerillero> look at the Rich Farmbrough arbcom case