User talk:Geogre/Blug

What does "the editing patterns of another user are such that revealing personal information is justified" refer to? Or perhaps I should not ask... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate that I have to mention it. I hate that I cannot be precise. However, it's part of what I'm complaining about. IRC logs cannot be posted publically, and they are not evidence on Wikipedia. This fact has licensed some people to use an "invitation only" IRC channel to say some horrible things about other users and to plan...actually plan...on "getting rid" of people. I can't prove it, but the guilty know what they've said, and far too many members of ArbCom have been there and seen such talk. I can no longer argue with trolls who say that there is a backslapping group of admins abusing users, because I have seen some of these folks slapping each others' backs over abusing users. The channel shouldn't exist or shouldn't be "invitation only" (I prefer the former), but what makes it germane here is that on-wiki strategy was plotted there and then carried out here. Geogre 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You "have seen"? What, you joined the IRC channel, or someone forwarded you a log? Or something else? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I don't want to say. Because it's "invitation only," and because the people believed that they had no one who would second-guess them, they were saying awful things. Now, I could have seen them by being forwarded logs (several) or by using a cloak and joining (several times), or perhaps some of those there weren't as gung ho to destroy others as they thought and forwarded out of conscience, but I can't say. That's what's so offensive. Geogre 20:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add to which that there are non-admins who post there too, so it's not an admins' channel; it seems to be for people who will go along with whatever the mob is saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

I pretty much agree with everything you're saying, Geogre. I wonder if you (or anyone else watching this) has any thoughts on WP:OOB. Friday (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my first thought. --Irpen 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a first step, Friday. People have said, before, that IRC is a good place for blowing off steam and getting ideas. It is. The question, it seems to me, is always "what is it that you're talking about doing?" The more irreversible, more damaging, and more widespread what you're contemplating is, the more you need input. So, if you're going to indefinitely block username:CootieButt, you post it on AN/I and let the next person pull the trigger. If you're going to delete Jesus Christ and move it to Jesus of Nazareth, then you'd better have a ton of conversation on wiki beforehand. So, if people want to have private chats about little things here and there, it's probably, as you say, "not helpful." If you're going to block an established user, the full IRC would be wrong. The arbcom mailing list would be wrong. Anything other than full discussion on a noticeboard would be wrong unless it's an emergency, and then you'd act solo (not because your like-minded buddies told you). I think there is a scale, a continuum. Geogre 21:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ready?

It seems ready, to me. Given how frantically some people have been posting to the Workshop, any consideration I might have of putting the "summary" and "remedies" on the workshop page instead of the evidence page are out the window. One might as well spit in the ocean. If I get no dissent on this, I'm going to post it to the evidence page. It's a sad, sorry affair that could have been avoided so very easily if some people didn't believe that they knew better than everyone else, or if they didn't act on that belief. Geogre 03:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. please, it's not ready. Sorry. I've only checked as far as I've made changes. Please wait. Oh, no, it shouldn't be on the workshop page, indeed, but on Evidence. But Evidence means diffs are even more urgent, you know--and you don't want to give people any trivial errors to divert attention to--I hope tomorrow will do. Sorry it's taking so long. Bishonen | talk 03:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, take your time. I am maintaining perfect happiness by retaining perfect ignorance of what others are saying on the Workshop and Evidence pages. The temptation to rebut and engage leads to trouble, and huge messes, and many hurt feelings. Since I don't want to play with messes or have my feelings hurt, I'll say what I have to say and be done. Geogre 11:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ready. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Posted. Of course, reporting what people have said on IRC but not posting the logs is now "incivility." This allows for a free pass to go on IRC and plan whatever one wishes: total invisibility and invincibility. Geogre 20:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre, to the best of my knowledge, you are allowed to repeat what was said on IRC. You're just not allowed to repost the logs (or rather, you're allowed to do it, of course, but someone may decide to ban you from IRC if you do). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, my quotation marks, without attribution to a file, is as close as one can get? That's what I figured. Geogre 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff

I read this on the evidence page over at the RfArb, and it is great stuff. I would heartily recommend incorporating some of this (specifically the downsides of IRC groups mentioned in the summary) into WP:OOB if Georgre would agree to that happening. Oh, and you were right not to put it on the Workshop page, but the Evidence page is probably not as visible. I don't check the activity there very often. Carcharoth 00:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at OOB, I think, but I have no objection. I can write a much more neutral description of the phonemenon that leads to some of our headbutting contests. This particular one was generated by my seeing some really, really, really vile things being said by Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway (and other persons) on the channel. It was the sort of thing that, were it actually to be posted, would lead to a much larger hue and cry. However, posting it is against the rules, and I do tend to obey the rules. Without quoting, I can tell you that, about this very RFAR, the two suggested that they'd do "penance for a week" and then go back to their previous practices. About the users involved, they planned for ways to ban. About their own misdeeds, their reaction was, "If they don't have diffs, fuck 'em!" That was not the worst of it. They now say, and have been telling those who don't go there, that nothing happens there, that it's all just good fun. It's hard for the victims of a planned ban to believe that, I'm afraid. This is in addition to Kelly Martin having checkuser status and how he used that knowledge. Geogre 01:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]