Down with Ironholds?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:46 pm

I look forward to clarification about the relationship of IRC to En-WP. One of the most important aspects of the reform of Wikipedia's administrative culture is blowing up the little IRC clique and forcing WP business onto WP. The result of this case might be a baby step in this direction; at the least we will all know how things stand and what might be a plausible next step.

I hope that my friend KW doesn't get whacked too hard. When the diffs are posted up and the lynch mob goes "rabblerabblerabble," it's not going to be easy for him. I reckon the question will be whether there are multiple admonishments or whether the "enough is enough" gong will be struck...

ArbCom are bored, they don't have a big, messy case to play with over the summer, so this will be their entertainment.

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:10 am

Randy from Boise wrote:I look forward to clarification about the relationship of IRC to En-WP. One of the most important aspects of the reform of Wikipedia's administrative culture is blowing up the little IRC clique and forcing WP business onto WP. The result of this case might be a baby step in this direction; at the least we will all know how things stand and what might be a plausible next step.

I hope that my friend KW doesn't get whacked too hard. When the diffs are posted up and the lynch mob goes "rabblerabblerabble," it's not going to be easy for him. I reckon the question will be whether there are multiple admonishments or whether the "enough is enough" gong will be struck...

ArbCom are bored, they don't have a big, messy case to play with over the summer, so this will be their entertainment.

RfB

Well, they don't have fuck all else to do since they keep declining the cases that come to them.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:13 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I look forward to clarification about the relationship of IRC to En-WP. One of the most important aspects of the reform of Wikipedia's administrative culture is blowing up the little IRC clique and forcing WP business onto WP. The result of this case might be a baby step in this direction; at the least we will all know how things stand and what might be a plausible next step.

I hope that my friend KW doesn't get whacked too hard. When the diffs are posted up and the lynch mob goes "rabblerabblerabble," it's not going to be easy for him. I reckon the question will be whether there are multiple admonishments or whether the "enough is enough" gong will be struck...

ArbCom are bored, they don't have a big, messy case to play with over the summer, so this will be their entertainment.

RfB

The only Arbcom worthy aspect of Arsten's request was the status of IRC, which Salvio seems to understand is problematic. The other Arbs keep repeating the Party Line that Wikipedia cannot do anything about IRC....

ArbCom changed the name of the case to "Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds" and they've written new rules of evidence. Not worth my time.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:34 pm

This link was provided to me by Xerofox, who is unable to respond to your request.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:44 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I look forward to clarification about the relationship of IRC to En-WP. One of the most important aspects of the reform of Wikipedia's administrative culture is blowing up the little IRC clique and forcing WP business onto WP. The result of this case might be a baby step in this direction; at the least we will all know how things stand and what might be a plausible next step.

I hope that my friend KW doesn't get whacked too hard. When the diffs are posted up and the lynch mob goes "rabblerabblerabble," it's not going to be easy for him. I reckon the question will be whether there are multiple admonishments or whether the "enough is enough" gong will be struck...

ArbCom are bored, they don't have a big, messy case to play with over the summer, so this will be their entertainment.

RfB
The only Arbcom worthy aspect of Arsten's request was the status of IRC, which Salvio seems to understand is problematic. The other Arbs keep repeating the Party Line that Wikipedia cannot do anything about IRC....

ArbCom changed the name of the case to "Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds" and they've written new rules of evidence. Not worth my time.

Get ready for a new round of "Fuck the editor, let the admin off" game show!!!

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:15 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I look forward to clarification about the relationship of IRC to En-WP. One of the most important aspects of the reform of Wikipedia's administrative culture is blowing up the little IRC clique and forcing WP business onto WP. The result of this case might be a baby step in this direction; at the least we will all know how things stand and what might be a plausible next step.

I hope that my friend KW doesn't get whacked too hard. When the diffs are posted up and the lynch mob goes "rabblerabblerabble," it's not going to be easy for him. I reckon the question will be whether there are multiple admonishments or whether the "enough is enough" gong will be struck...

ArbCom are bored, they don't have a big, messy case to play with over the summer, so this will be their entertainment.

RfB
The only Arbcom worthy aspect of Arsten's request was the status of IRC, which Salvio seems to understand is problematic. The other Arbs keep repeating the Party Line that Wikipedia cannot do anything about IRC....

ArbCom changed the name of the case to "Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds" and they've written new rules of evidence. Not worth my time.
Get ready for a new round of "Fuck the editor, let the admin off" game show!!!

Do we really feel this is going to go any other way? Kiefer will be given a 1-year ban, Ironholds a warning (maybe even a sternly-worded one), and the question of IRC will be kicked to Meta as it is outside of en.wiki's remit.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:18 pm

Tarc wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I look forward to clarification about the relationship of IRC to En-WP. One of the most important aspects of the reform of Wikipedia's administrative culture is blowing up the little IRC clique and forcing WP business onto WP. The result of this case might be a baby step in this direction; at the least we will all know how things stand and what might be a plausible next step.

I hope that my friend KW doesn't get whacked too hard. When the diffs are posted up and the lynch mob goes "rabblerabblerabble," it's not going to be easy for him. I reckon the question will be whether there are multiple admonishments or whether the "enough is enough" gong will be struck...

ArbCom are bored, they don't have a big, messy case to play with over the summer, so this will be their entertainment.

RfB
The only Arbcom worthy aspect of Arsten's request was the status of IRC, which Salvio seems to understand is problematic. The other Arbs keep repeating the Party Line that Wikipedia cannot do anything about IRC....

ArbCom changed the name of the case to "Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds" and they've written new rules of evidence. Not worth my time.
Get ready for a new round of "Fuck the editor, let the admin off" game show!!!
Do we really feel this is going to go any other way? Kiefer will be given a 1-year ban, Ironholds a warning (maybe even a sternly-worded one), and the question of IRC will be kicked to Meta as it is outside of en.wiki's remit.

While I dislike agreeing with someone who sports Allan West's face as an avatar, I can find no way to disagree with this.

Kiefer might make it out with an equally sternly worded warning if he grovels, but that doesn't seem too likely.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:36 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: The only Arbcom worthy aspect of Arsten's request was the status of IRC, which Salvio seems to understand is problematic. The other Arbs keep repeating the Party Line that Wikipedia cannot do anything about IRC....

Same old same old. But at least this time it doesn't involve David Gerard.

See you in 6 years for another repeat performance.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:44 pm

mac wrote:This link was provided to me by Xerofox, who is unable to respond to your request.

That is a useful site and an eye-raising quotation from IRC. I quote a boring part, which mentions Courcelles (T-C-L) along with FlufferNutter (T-C-L) and Ironholds (T-C-L) /Oliver Keyes / Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L):

20:00:54 < tyw7 (T-C-L)> what would your wives/husband say? or are you single?
20:01:02 < Fluff|laptop> we're single
20:01:19 < Ironholds (T-C-L)> tyw7: dude, I'm TWENTY
20:01:22 < Fluff|laptop> haha
20:01:23 < Ironholds> I'm not married
20:01:34 < Fluff|laptop> he's not married, he's just a babydaddy
20:01:39 < tyw7> Ironholds: really? I'm 18!
20:01:46 < tyw7> how old are you Fluff|laptop
20:01:49 < Ironholds> tyw7: well, nobody's perfect
20:01:50 * Fluff|laptop grins
20:01:52 * Courcelles never knows what is serious in this channel. Ever.

So Courcelles (T-C-L) was known as tyw7 on IRC? Perhaps other conversations explain the unexplained recusal by arbitrator Courcelles.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:34 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
mac wrote:This link was provided to me by Xerofox, who is unable to respond to your request.
That is a useful site and an eye-raising quotation from IRC. I quote a boring part, which mentions Courcelles (T-C-L) along with FlufferNutter (T-C-L) and Ironholds (T-C-L) /Oliver Keyes / Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L):
20:00:54 < tyw7 (T-C-L)> what would your wives/husband say? or are you single?
20:01:02 < Fluff|laptop> we're single
20:01:19 < Ironholds (T-C-L)> tyw7: dude, I'm TWENTY
20:01:22 < Fluff|laptop> haha
20:01:23 < Ironholds> I'm not married
20:01:34 < Fluff|laptop> he's not married, he's just a babydaddy
20:01:39 < tyw7> Ironholds: really? I'm 18!
20:01:46 < tyw7> how old are you Fluff|laptop
20:01:49 < Ironholds> tyw7: well, nobody's perfect
20:01:50 * Fluff|laptop grins
20:01:52 * Courcelles never knows what is serious in this channel. Ever.
So Courcelles (T-C-L) was known as tyw7 on IRC? Perhaps other conversations explain the unexplained recusal by arbitrator Courcelles.

That Webcitation.org link returns the following message at the moment:

Warning: mysql_pconnect() [function.mysql-pconnect]: Too many connections in /home/webcita/public_html/lib/adodb/drivers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 367

... so Xerofox asked me to paste the text here. I hope this is okay:

==Evidence presented by [[User:Badmachine]]==
===Ironholds has (or has had) a sexual relationship with Fluffernutter===
Ironholds and Fluffernutter have had or are currently in a sexual relationship that precludes either of them from being objective about the administrative actions of the other. Evidence follows:
<pre>
19:57:22 < tyw7> Ironholds: I think Fluffernutter_ is currently afk
19:57:27 < tyw7> see Fluff|laptop instead
19:57:49 < Ironholds> tyw7: she's sitting next to me and I just slapped her arse
19:57:51 < Fluff|laptop> yeah, he's talking to the wrong me
19:57:51 < Ironholds> trust me, I know
19:57:57 < Fluff|laptop> no he didn't
19:58:00 < Fluff|laptop> he has terrible aim
19:58:03 < Fluff|laptop> he poked me in the hip
19:58:12 < Fluff|laptop> and now he just pinched my ass
19:58:19 < Peter-C> O_O
19:59:11 < Fluff|laptop> you'd think he'd have figured hiow to slap asses by now, but nooo
19:59:51 < tyw7> why is he slapping your ass?
20:00:00 < Ironholds> tyw7: we're fucking
20:00:02 < Fluff|laptop> why not? we DID say we're bored
20:00:06 < tyw7> O_o
20:00:12 < Ironholds> I mean, we're not fucking right now
20:00:15 < tyw7> Ironholds: you are fucking Fluff|laptop
20:00:16 < Fluff|laptop> Ironholds, see, no one believes you when you say that
20:00:17 < Ironholds> but as a general principle, we fuck
20:00:24 < Ironholds> tyw7: jeremyb didn't believe me either
20:00:29 < Ironholds> and we kissed in front of him and everythign
20:00:30 < Fluff|laptop> jeremyb practically rolled his eyes
20:00:33 < tyw7> you two are married?
20:00:37 < Fluff|laptop> baahaha
20:00:37 < Ironholds> tyw7: no, we just fuck
20:00:51 < Fluff|laptop> marry me, darling. we can drive each other insane for eternity
20:00:54 < tyw7> what would your wives/husband say? or are you single?
20:01:02 < Fluff|laptop> we're single
20:01:05 < Logan_> omai
20:01:19 < Ironholds> tyw7: dude, I'm TWENTY
20:01:22 < Fluff|laptop> haha
20:01:23 < Ironholds> I'm not married
20:01:27 Resfirestar is now known as res|starcraft
20:01:34 < Fluff|laptop> he's not married, he's just a babydaddy
20:01:39 < tyw7> Ironholds: really? I'm 18!
20:01:46 < tyw7> how old are you Fluff|laptop
20:01:49 < Ironholds> tyw7: well, nobody's perfect
20:01:50 * Fluff|laptop grins
20:01:52 * Courcelles never knows what is erious in this channel. Ever.
20:01:58 < Logan_> erious?
20:02:00 * Fluff|laptop is far too old to be sleeping with Ironholds, let's just say
20:02:39 < Ironholds> Courcelles: we are actually being serious
20:02:47 < Ironholds> oh dear GOD THIS PRESENTATION IS DULL
20:02:53 < Ironholds> fuck this, I'm going for a smoke
20:02:56 < ^3^> You could leave?
20:02:59 < ^3^> Oh, nvm
20:03:06 < Fluff|laptop> Ironholds: do you think it will move them along if i make a show of falling asleep on your shoulder?
20:03:10 < Logan_> Ironholds: I thought you quit
20:03:16 < Ironholds> Logan_: quit what?
20:03:19 < Logan_> smoking
20:03:25 < Ironholds> Fluff|laptop: try going BOOOO! GET OFF THE STAGE!
20:03:29 < Peter-C> OMG Ironholds and Fluff|laptop need to get an apartment >:(
20:03:34 * Fluff|laptop looks shifty, suddenly decides she's a smoker if it means i can get out of here for ten minutes
20:03:36 < ^3^> Or a motel.
20:03:36 < Ironholds> Logan_: then I applied for a WMF job and tripled my stress levels
20:03:40 < Logan_> heh.
20:03:41 < Ironholds> Peter-C: we've GOT one. It's hers.
20:03:44 < Fluff|laptop> ^
20:03:49 < Peter-C> :O
20:03:50 < Fluff|laptop> brb
20:03:59 < Peter-C> Fluff|laptop has the dominant role in this relationship
20:04:09 < Logan_> you could have the marriage at the WMF headquarters
20:04:30 < tyw7> Ironholds: are you typing while in the meeting?
20:04:34 < tyw7> Say hi to Jimbo for me
20:04:35 < Peter-C> Logan_ - Jimbo could be the priest!
20:04:39 < Logan_> haha
20:04:52 < Nascar1996> ...
20:05:00 < Logan_> I declare you WikiHusband and WikiWife.
20:06:40 < tyw7> Ironholds: say hi to all the wikipedians for me ;)
20:10:26 < Ironholds> back
20:10:29 < Fluff|laptop> Peter-C: oh, if only you knew
20:10:37 < Fluff|laptop> Ironholds: we should photograph my bruises
20:10:41 < tyw7> Ironholds: who else is there at the meeting?
20:10:49 < tyw7> Fluff|laptop: and make it public domain?
20:10:51 < Fluff|laptop> lol
20:11:02 < Fluff|laptop> i have a rather spectacular one on my forearm
20:11:29 < NA_0> Bruises? What did I miss?
20:11:40 < tyw7> NA_0: Ironholds pinching and slapping Fluff|laptop
20:11:41 < Fluff|laptop> <_<
20:11:49 < Fluff|laptop> there's been very little pinching
20:12:11 < Fluff|laptop> or slapping, for that matter
20:12:29 < tyw7> and romping... :D
20:13:05 < Ironholds> romping, lots of that
20:13:08 < Fluff|laptop> hee
20:13:10 < Ironholds> Fluffernutter looks like she has hypothermia
20:13:16 < Fluff|laptop> ...?
20:13:37 < Ironholds> all blue
20:13:46 < Fluff|laptop> most of them are yellow and purple at this point
20:13:50 < Fluff|laptop> you've fallen behind
20:13:58 < tyw7> how can you romp in a Wikipedian meeting?
20:14:17 < Fluff|laptop> tyw7: you don't want to know what he just suggested to me in pm
20:14:36 * tyw7 fluffs Fluff|laptop
20:14:43 < Fluff|laptop> ew
20:14:46 < Fluff|laptop> hands off
20:15:05 < Ironholds> tyw7: blowjob in the stairwell
20:15:13 < Fluff|laptop> i said he didn't want to know, dude
20:15:24 < tyw7> lol O_o
20:15:27 < p858snake|l_> ironholds has alot of experience in that dept >.>
20:15:43 < Fluff|laptop> the stairwell is very creaky
20:15:56 < Peter-C> p858snake|l_ - giving or reciving?
20:16:08 < Fluff|laptop> also i kissed him on our way up the stairs and he was all "omg why are you touching me ew"
20:16:48 < p858snake|l_> Peter-C: I don't think it matters when you are talking about Ironholds <.<
20:16:53 < Fluff|laptop> lol
20:16:55 < Fluff|laptop> so true
</pre>

===The sockpuppetry "investigation"===
{{u|Uhaercny}}, a seven contrib account, is a sock thrown together in order to get me blocked, and I believe that this sock belongs to Ironholds or Fluffernutter.

===Despite their sexual relationship, Fluffernutter declined my unblock request===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Badmachine/Archive_1#unblock_request_june_6_2012 Fluffernutter declined my unblock] request, despite her current or past sexual relationship with Ironholds. Furthermore, her unblock decline reason did not address the reason for the block (supposedly sockpuppetry). She stated:
<blockquote>
In combination with the behavioral evidence, the technical alignment the CU states they've found puts this over the line of probable cause. Unfortunately, your denial doesn't hold much water - much like the boy who cried wolf, you've borderline-trolled, supported trolling, or outright trolled too often to earn much in the way of belief from us when you claim that this one time, this is totally a hatchet job and you're the victim of coincidence. Either you're socking, or you're recruiting meatpuppets that act like socks from among people who share technical data closely related to yours; as far as we're concerned, whichever it is, you're not supposed to be doing it. You were on your last chance as it was after the ANI a week or two ago, and I'm disappointed to see that you chose to go this direction, especially after Alison stood up for you so vocally. Please, please give serious thought to whether Wikipedia is anything to you except a venue for lulz. If it is, you need to show us that by editing like someone who respects the 'pedia. If it's not, you need to consider finding a new place to hang out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)</blockquote>

despite the block at that time being for identifying by name the rapist who molested me at age 11, which {{u|Qwyrxian}} describing as "Repeated, continued, self-admitted trolling"; and which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive753#Block_review_of_User:Badmachine overturned at ANI]. The man's name was redacted, and my userpage was restored. As for her claim that I failed to reveal the names of my doppelganger accounts, those were self-disclosed at the February SPI case, which she clearly failed to review.

===User:Deskana===
{{u|Deskana}}, one of Ironholds' IRC buddies, revoked my talkpage access because I stated that my next unblock request would include a description of the problems inherent in my unblock request being declined by Ironholds current or past girlfriend.

===Subsequent unblock requests were also declined by Ironholds' IRC buddies===
Subsequent unblock requests were declined by Ironholds' IRC buddies, {{u|Shirik}} and {{u|Seraphimblade}}. Neither addressed the reason for the block

===ArbCom was not helpful===
I attempted to get help from ArbCom. After eight months of waiting for a response, I wrote in, only to be told by {{u|SilkTork}} that the Arbitration Committee had no plans on responding to me at all, and to paraphrase, they thought I would 'forget about it and move on'.

===Ironholds personally abused me in a public chatroom===
This exchange took place in #wikipedia-en-help or #wikipedia-en-unblock and as you can see, Ironholds told me to 'shut my pie hole' about the sexual relationship between him and Fluffernutter, who declined the first of my unblock requests:
<pre>
�01[20:13] <badmachine> hello
�01[20:13] <badmachine> i seem to be banned atm
�01[20:14] <badmachine> by a user who is sexually involved with the declining sysop
�01[20:14] <badmachine> what do i do
�01[20:14] <badmachine> imo, this is abuse by Okeyes (WMF)
�01[20:14] <badmachine> aka Ironholds
�03[20:14] * Tim1357 (~Adium@jaxnetairpat1.jax.org) has joined #wikipedia-en-help
�02[20:14] * Tim1357 (~Adium@jaxnetairpat1.jax.org) Quit (Changing host�)
�03[20:14] * Tim1357 (~Adium@Wikipedia/Tim1357) has joined #wikipedia-en-help
[20:16] <+Dcoetzee> badmachine: Username please
�01[20:16] <badmachine> badmachine
�01[20:17] <badmachine> i wouldnt mind so much if i had done anything wrong
�01[20:18] <badmachine> ive read several interesting items on this guy
�01[20:18] <badmachine> i wont post them here
�01[20:18] <badmachine> but it seems that wmf has a potential problem
[20:18] <+Dcoetzee> You were blocked as a sock of Sparklerainbow87. There was consensus at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Badmachine/Archive that the evidence establishes you are in fact a sock.
[20:19] <+Dcoetzee> He just did the block.
�01[20:19] <badmachine> the unblock req was declined by fluffernutter
�01[20:19] <badmachine> and the user who opened the spi said
�01[20:19] <badmachine> its on there somewhere, he said there wasnt enough evidence
�01[20:20] <badmachine> they are acquainted, ironholds and fluffernutter
�01[20:20] <badmachine> to put it mildly
[20:20] <+Dcoetzee> That's unimportant in this case. Uhaercny and deskana also thought you were a sock.
�01[20:20] <badmachine> uharcheny said there was not enouhg evidence
�01[20:20] <badmachine> its there on my page
�01[20:20] <badmachine> want the diff?
�01[20:20] <badmachine> i can find it
�01[20:21] <badmachine> ok, hang on
[20:21] <+Dcoetzee> In the 06 June nom his conclusion was "If not a sock, a meatpuppet"
�01[20:21] <badmachine> sigh
�01[20:21] <badmachine> ya, but later he said
�01[20:21] <badmachine> lemme find it
�01[20:21] <badmachine> ty Dcoetzee
�01[20:21] <badmachine> As the user who originally filed the SPI, I also believe it was closed prematurely with a lack of evidence against Badmachine. Uhaercny (talk) 8:37 pm, 7 June 2012, last Thursday (3 days ago) (UTC−7)
�02[20:21] * +k (~Logan@wikimedia/Logan) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer�)
�01[20:22] <badmachine> thats the last thing uhaercny said
�01[20:22] <badmachine> on the seventh
�01[20:22] <badmachine> nobody else seems to want to listen Dcoetzee
�03[20:22] * Ironholds (~f@wikipedia/Ironholds) has joined #wikipedia-en-help
�03[20:22] * ChanServ sets mode: +v Ironholds
[20:22] <+Ironholds> badmachine, I'm not in any kind of relationship with the declining sysop. Shut your pie-hole.
�01[20:22] <badmachine> lol
[20:22] <+Ironholds> indeed, for the longest of times she wanted to break my neck
�01[20:23] <badmachine> what a thing for the community liaison to say
[20:23] <+Ironholds> I'm here in a personal role
�01[20:23] <badmachine> congrats
[20:23] <+Pine> badmachine you can appeal to BASC if you wish, if Dcoetzee doesn't agree with you. Ironholds, can you please be quiet so that you aren't accused of interfering? I think it would be wise.
�01[20:23] <badmachine> what is basg
[20:23] <+Pine> Ban Appeals Subcommittee
�01[20:23] <badmachine> ok
�01[20:23] <badmachine> i will shut my pie hole
[20:23] <+Pine> I am not here to defend you, just give you an option.
[20:24] <+Pine> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BASC#BASC
�01[20:24] <badmachine> i know
�01[20:24] <badmachine> ok, lemme look
�01[20:24] <badmachine> ok, ty
[20:24] <+Pine> you're welcome.
�01[20:25] <badmachine> interesting
[20:25] <+Dcoetzee> badmachine: I don't think there's a COI, but if you're not in fact a sock and can offer evidence of that, that would motivate an unblock.
�01[20:26] <badmachine> how can i offer evidence that im NOT a sock
�01[20:26] <badmachine> how do you prove a negative
�01[20:26] <badmachine> and i just re-read what Pine said. ty for that... i thought it was directed at me
�01[20:26] <badmachine> i need new bifocals
�01[20:27] <badmachine> Dcoetzee: how can i prove it?
[20:27] <+Dcoetzee> Evidently the standing evidence is enough to consider you a sock/meatpuppet, so you would need more evidence to the contrary if you wish to overturn it. For example, if you could point at diffs of the two users that show very different behaviour.
[20:28] <+Dcoetzee> Or if you could point at diffs where you displayed an interest in subjects the other user didn't.
�01[20:28] <badmachine> ok, so look thru the diffs of the other user?
�01[20:28] <badmachine> omg
�01[20:28] <badmachine> i have like 4k edits
[20:28] <+Dcoetzee> Yup
�01[20:28] <badmachine> all over wikipedia
[20:28] <+Dcoetzee> My contribution surveyor may be helpful
�01[20:28] <badmachine> link plz?
�01[20:28] <badmachine> ty Dcoetzee
[20:28] <+Dcoetzee> http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/contributionsurveyor/
�01[20:28] <badmachine> ty. lots
�01[20:28] <badmachine> ok, brb
�01[20:29] <badmachine> it says copyvios
[20:29] <+Dcoetzee> That was original intention
�01[20:29] <badmachine> oic
�03[20:29] * +Ironholds (~f@wikipedia/Ironholds) has left #wikipedia-en-help
�01[20:29] <badmachine> ok, brb
�01[20:30] <badmachine> if i understand this tool correctly, i enter my own name in the toolserver field, then let it scan, then run the other users name thru?
�01[20:30] <badmachine> Dcoetzee
[20:31] <+Dcoetzee> Yup
�01[20:31] <badmachine> ok, ty
�03[20:31] * ABDUL (3a1b9652@gateway/web/freenode/ip.58.27.150.82) has joined #wikipedia-en-help
[20:31] <+Helpmebot> Hi ABDUL, welcome to #wikipedia-en-help, the help channel for the English Wikipedia! Type your question in the white area at the bottom of the screen and press Enter, and a helper should be around shortly to answer your questions. If your question is about a particular page please make sure your question includes the URL or name of the page in question.
[20:31] <+Ryan_Vesey> http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/editorinteract.cgi?user1=Badmachine&user2=Sparklerainbow87&user3=&user4=&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=&ns=none&startdate=&enddate=
�01[20:31] <badmachine> oic
[20:31] <+Ryan_Vesey> ^Could be useful
�01[20:31] <badmachine> ok, brb
�03[20:31] * ABDUL is now known as Guest4913
�01[20:31] <badmachine> wtf
[20:31] <+Ryan_Vesey> although, it only shows similarities
�01[20:32] <badmachine> idgi
�01[20:32] <badmachine> it shows we share an interest in my little pony and ani
�01[20:33] <badmachine> ok, so to prove that i am not a sock, i need to learn this tool, that returns results in an arcane way
�01[20:33] <badmachine> none of this makes any sense to the average joe
[20:34] <+Ryan_Vesey> I was just pointing you to a tool
�01[20:34] <badmachine> i mean
�01[20:34] <badmachine> ty for that
[20:34] <+Ryan_Vesey> I have no clue how you can prove that you are not a sock
�01[20:34] <badmachine> ok, Dcoetzee do you have any further advi ce?
�01[20:35] <badmachine> anyone?
[20:35] <+Pine> badmachine, BASC.
�01[20:35] <badmachine> im not sure what im seeing here
�01[20:35] <badmachine> ok basc.
�01[20:35] <badmachine> i will read it, i dont understand the significance of the tool
[20:35] <+Dcoetzee> badmachine: The only other advice I have is to please avoid accusing admins and stick to the facts of the case. I don't think abuse is happening here.
�01[20:35] <badmachine> i will not accuse any more. the facts speak for themselves.
[20:36] <+Dcoetzee> Okay great.
�01[20:36] <badmachine> ty guys.
[20:36] <+Pine> you're welcome, thank you for being civil here.
�01[20:36] <badmachine> one more question: is this list im posting to ...is this public?
�01[20:36] <badmachine> i need to know before posting to it
[20:36] <+Pine> This is not supposed to be publicly logged, so don't re-post.
�01[20:36] <badmachine> no, i wont
�01[20:36] <badmachine> i mean the mailing list
�01[20:36] <badmachine> is that public
[20:36] <+Pine> oh, BASC?
�01[20:37] <badmachine> yes
[20:37] <Guest4913> WHO IS REALY ABDUL MANAN THE INDIVIDUAL WHO CARIED THAT NAME AROUND. COULD IT BE THAT HE'S SOMEONE ELSE? WHY HE HD TO DO SO?
[20:37] <+Dcoetzee> Pine: Kick Guest4913?
�01[20:37] <badmachine> the basc list: is it public
[20:37] <+Pine> I'm pretty sure the BASC list is restricted to BASC members
�01[20:37] <badmachine> okay
�01[20:37] <badmachine> thanks
</pre>

===Other abusive behavior by Ironholds in IRC===
Ironholds has been abusive to other editors in WP:IRC, and I have documented these. If this information is needed, you may email me at iLvadeL@diLdomaiL.com. Yes, that is my real email address, feel free to correspond with me via that email address.

====Conclusion===
Ironholds used IRC as a bully pulpit to solicit the help of others, in order to block editors that he needs to disappear. He is well connected with Deskana, Fluffernutter (obviously), Shirik, Seraphimblade, and members of ArbCom, and utilizes these connections to give the appearance that several people have looked into a matter, when in fact, these are only meatpuppets gathered up from IRC to assist in doing things he can not do on his own, like re-block me, even after the consensus at ANI was to unblock me.

I do not know whether to sign this, so I will sign it two ways:

*''[[user talk:badmachine|badmachine]]'' ~~~~~
*~~~~

[edited to disable smilies and auto URL parsing, and edited again to include the WebCite error message]

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:15 pm

Tarc wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I look forward to clarification about the relationship of IRC to En-WP. One of the most important aspects of the reform of Wikipedia's administrative culture is blowing up the little IRC clique and forcing WP business onto WP. The result of this case might be a baby step in this direction; at the least we will all know how things stand and what might be a plausible next step.

I hope that my friend KW doesn't get whacked too hard. When the diffs are posted up and the lynch mob goes "rabblerabblerabble," it's not going to be easy for him. I reckon the question will be whether there are multiple admonishments or whether the "enough is enough" gong will be struck...

ArbCom are bored, they don't have a big, messy case to play with over the summer, so this will be their entertainment.

RfB
The only Arbcom worthy aspect of Arsten's request was the status of IRC, which Salvio seems to understand is problematic. The other Arbs keep repeating the Party Line that Wikipedia cannot do anything about IRC....

ArbCom changed the name of the case to "Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds" and they've written new rules of evidence. Not worth my time.
Get ready for a new round of "Fuck the editor, let the admin off" game show!!!
Do we really feel this is going to go any other way? Kiefer will be given a 1-year ban, Ironholds a warning (maybe even a sternly-worded one), and the question of IRC will be kicked to Meta as it is outside of en.wiki's remit.

I think that's a quite likely outcome. And of course the ban will be reviewed after the year is up and transmuted into a permanent ban if ever a request is made to review it, as is ArbCom's general MO.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:36 pm

I did like this jab by KW

If ArbCom does not use the 2011 RfC, then they should reject the case, since Kww, Fram, and I have barely discussed the block. (I have never objected to a reasonable block for daring to insult an administrator discussing lighting me on fire. I know my place....)

This case couldn't be more relevant today.
The WMF's internal docs show that their number one issue is editor retention and moving them into being long term editors.

If you're going to fuck over a content producer to cover the ass of a prolific and persistent IRC shitheel, then we know that you guys are full of shit about protecting ordinary editors.

Nothing KW did should have EVER provoked that response from Oliver Keyes on the WIKIPEDIA ADMIN CHANNEL.
Oliver Keyes has no sense that he's done another person wrong.
His statement to ARBCOM was the most condescending thing I've seen on wikipedia.
He refuses to apologize in any meaningful way.
He continues to play the victim.

He is an administrator.
Similar to police officers, when you look the other way for a bad cop, it makes you a bad cop.

For the love of god, for once, do the right thing.

Or not ... and give WO the best weapon we'll have had for years.
Make us look like savants.

Your move, ARBCOM douchenozzles.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:02 pm

Well, I, for one, am thankful that Oliver Keyes is so worried about IRC logs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... s/Evidence

If the evidence is IRC-related and includes logs, there's a standard (most of the time) around not posting logs on-wiki. Sorry if this comes off as an attempt to chill; I have no issue with you flinging them directly to arbcom privately, which is pretty common for evidence. There are parties in the wider world, however, who particularly enjoy eking out drama wherever they can, and I have no wish to see a good-faith attempt to provide clarity descend into 'list of things that malicious users can use to try and hurt people'.
(If it's not log-related, ignore the above ;p.) Ironholds (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Most people have SUCH a hard time EKING drama out of Oliver Keyes.
Because when you start looking around, it seems that he's being a wannabe hardcase advocating being violent everywhere on IRC

[19:54] <Bullzeye> I almost punched somebody out in college class today.
[19:54] <DanielB> lol
[19:54] <Ironholds> I have done that twice.
[19:54] <Cream> lol
[19:54] <Ironholds> Punched out, not almost punched out.

Hmmm... He's quite the fighter.
I wonder just how tough he is...

[19:58] <Ironholds> I would have done something different, but I admire the effort.
[19:58] <Mifter> so what happened next
[19:58] * MindstormsKid would have cheered Bullzeye on
[19:58] <Ironholds> You should however have instead taken your pen, punched a hole in her windpipe and looked on as her attempts to wave for help got increasingly feeble.

Well, that's certainly the type of person I want representing MY online encyclopedia!

Perhaps it's just a coincidence...
Perhaps all of the IRC logs wherein he's a hard talking chav are coincidences...

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:08 pm

Isn't that just a kid bragging to his mates?

... but having said that, there's certainly a disturbing pattern beginning to emerge, one that WP and the WMF will no doubt do their best to cover up.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:26 pm

Well, well, well...Let's just take a quick walk through this morass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =563996393

I was going to say "I'm going to try and keep this brief, and fail", but since I know I'm likely to fail it seems silly to make promises I can't realistically keep. I've split things into 2 sections, instead. It is not (and for this I apologise) the structure of a normal evidence section - more of an extended statement. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

An apology to ARBCOM/the clerk. Odd.

On Kiefer Wolfowitz, and the "dispute"

What we've got here is commonly reported in one of two ways - either as a two-stage problem (I made a thoroughly inappropriate joke, Kiefer struck back, we ended up at the Arbitration Committee) or as some long-running battle. This is not how I understand the situation, so I'm going to try and explain it from my point of view.

That's a fair way of stating the most current situation.
It does not explain your historic foulness.

I have no particular liking for Kiefer - to be blunt, he strikes me as someone who delights in drama. But I don't have a long-running dispute with him, either - we don't even encounter each other most of the time. The relationship could probably be summarised best as mutual annoyance without, at my end, any particular desire to cause harm.

You are an administrator on wikipedia and an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation in the role of Community Liaison.
Your personal dislikes must be subordinated to your job or you're not fit to hold that position.
It may be hard for someone like you to hear this, but it's not Kiefer's job to avoid offending you.
He is your FUCKING CUSTOMER.

Inasmuch as this dispute can be said to have been a series of back-and-forths, my inappropriate joke on IRC was me airing my frustrations at some, frankly, vile accusations that Kiefer made about me. The transcripts of these have been provided to the Arbitration Committee privately. The accusations struck me as thoroughly offensive and without merit - moreover, they struck me as comments deliberately intended to cause harm. Frustrated by those accusations, I made my comment on IRC. Kiefer responded on-wiki, and the rest is history.

Oh good, private evidence.
Perfect.
Private evidence in an ARBCOM case where there exists an evidence page for just this type of material.
Do you think that it won't look like you're getting special dispensation?
Do you think that it won't put ARBCOM members in a tight spot?
P.S. No apology to Kiefer yet. We'll move on as it's a recurring theme here.

I have no particular desire to associate with Kiefer. Not out of a feud, or anything else, but simply because his recent actions strike me as those maximised to cause drama while allowing for an escape clause. I have avoided commenting on him, I have even nixed attempts by other users to discuss the case with me.

You, of all people, accusing someone of fostering drama?!
After your interminable and puerile career on IRC?!
After making a "joke" about burning another person alive because you were peeved?!
"It's all such a burden," simpered the whiny child.

Fuck. You.

Kiefer writes above that the current situation "suffices for peace." I would genuinely like to believe that Kiefer's indication here - that he will stay away from me, and cease making the sort of assertions that kicked off this dispute - is a true one. That he genuinely intends to avoid me, and avoid commenting on me. Unfortunately he continues to pursue me, even after his statement here. Again, I have provided the evidence to the Arbitration Committee privately - and again, I dearly wish for him to stop.

"Oh, poor me, " he artfully sniveled while looking out between his fingers.
Oh good, more private evidence.
Still no apology to Kiefer for his "joke".

On my actions

I've noted already that my joke was inappropriate, but I'd like to expand on that. My comment was completely unacceptable; whether Kiefer annoys me or not, whether he has made offensive statements or not, it is inappropriate for me to air my annoyances. I don't think there's anyone amongst us who isn't frustrated by other users, on occasion, but there's a line that has to be drawn between being frustrated and airing that frustration. That I aired my frustrations in a private venue is secondary to the fact that I did so in front of other editors.

wikipedia-en-admins is NOT a private channel. Stop saying stupid shit, Oliver.
All I could think of was this clip from Bull Durham...

I've been on IRC since I was around 17, I think - possibly earlier. I'd like to think I've changed a lot over the last few years, and that comments I made back then in the naivety of youth aren't comments I'd make today. It remains clear, however, that I still have some progress to make around how I conduct myself. Until I have resolved those issues and grown to the point where others are comfortable with my approach, I have voluntarily withdrawn from wikipedia-related IRC channels, save those I am involved in due to my work duties.

You are still a callow dickbag.
You are what we aspire to have never been.
You remind me most of young King Joffrey.

Still no apology to Kiefer.

More than offending Kiefer, however, it's become clear from comments made by users at this RfAr that I've offended a lot of other people, too - people who, outside occasional disagreements, I very much respect. Wehwalt, Dennis Brown - In airing my temporary frustrations in such a cavalier manner, I've caused permanent damage. All I can do at the moment is apologise for that, and assure you that I am working to improve. If any user has been offended by my commentary and is not willing to post as such publicly, please do email me. I will not bite: I will apologise, and I will move forward.

If only this had remained private ... like the good old days.
Please note that Oliver Keyes apologizes to virtually everyone EXCEPT the guy he "joked" about wanting to burn alive.

Make it a good, grovelly type of apology.
You know, the ones that administrators require of the indef blocked.
Say you're' sorry, realize what you did was wrong, promise to never, ever, ever do it again.
That type of grovelly shit.

In the end analysis, you are unfit to hold advanced permissions on this project.
Further, you are an complete mismatch for the role of community liaison and should be removed immediately.
Perhaps the WMF can find a position for you that does not involve customer contact.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:37 pm

<Ironholds> You should however have instead taken your pen, punched a hole in her windpipe and looked on as her attempts to wave for help got increasingly feeble.

When exactly did Oliver Keyes, community liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation, write this? (One of the frustrating things with this IRC logs for me at least is they don't indicate year and date).

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:46 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
<Ironholds> You should however have instead taken your pen, punched a hole in her windpipe and looked on as her attempts to wave for help got increasingly feeble.
When exactly did Oliver Keyes, community liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation, write this? (One of the frustrating things with this IRC logs for me at least is they don't indicate year and date).

March 2009 according to my source.

Here's a funny timeline courtesy of ED
#1 December 2007 - FAIL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ip/O_Keyes
#2 March 2008 - FAIL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... /O_Keyes_2
#3 June 2008 - FAIL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... /Ironholds
#4 October 2008 - FAIL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ronholds_2
#5 March 2009 - FAIL (Same as our punching windpipes IRC comment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ronholds_3
#6 January 2010 - FAIL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ronholds_4
#7 January 2011 - GREAT SUCCESS!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ronholds_5

Doesn't it seem obvious, like taking a driving test too many times obvious, that if you can't pass in three tries, the job might not be for you?

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:17 pm

Vigilant wrote: In the end analysis, you are unfit to hold advanced permissions on this project.
Further, you are an complete mismatch for the role of community liaison and should be removed immediately.
Perhaps the WMF can find a position for you that does not involve customer contact.

That is indeed the bottom line.

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:22 am

DanMurphy wrote:
<Ironholds> You should however have instead taken your pen, punched a hole in her windpipe and looked on as her attempts to wave for help got increasingly feeble.
When exactly did Oliver Keyes, community liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation, write this? (One of the frustrating things with this IRC logs for me at least is they don't indicate year and date).

Right here, on Thursday, Mar 5th, 2009 at 7:58pm;

http://www.gnaa.eu/browser/trollforge/i ... 090305.txt

I read through the logs just now to see if the context helps in any possible way. It doesn't. Of all the stuff I've seen him write on IRC, this has to be one of the most chilling. Trivialize violence towards women much?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:27 am

Alison wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
<Ironholds> You should however have instead taken your pen, punched a hole in her windpipe and looked on as her attempts to wave for help got increasingly feeble.
When exactly did Oliver Keyes, community liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation, write this? (One of the frustrating things with this IRC logs for me at least is they don't indicate year and date).
Right here, on Thursday, Mar 5th, 2009 at 7:58pm;

http://www.gnaa.eu/browser/trollforge/i ... 090305.txt

I read through the logs just now to see if the context helps in any possible way. It doesn't. Of all the stuff I've seen him write on IRC, this has to be one of the most chilling. Trivialize violence towards women much?

You don't have to dig that hard to find this stuff.
It's all over the place.

If I had to guess, I'd say that Oliver Keyes threatens/reports on his own violence in about 1 in 4 IRC logs.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:37 am

Alison wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
<Ironholds> You should however have instead taken your pen, punched a hole in her windpipe and looked on as her attempts to wave for help got increasingly feeble.
When exactly did Oliver Keyes, community liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation, write this? (One of the frustrating things with this IRC logs for me at least is they don't indicate year and date).
Right here, on Thursday, Mar 5th, 2009 at 7:58pm;

http://www.gnaa.eu/browser/trollforge/i ... 090305.txt

I read through the logs just now to see if the context helps in any possible way. It doesn't. Of all the stuff I've seen him write on IRC, this has to be one of the most chilling. Trivialize violence towards women much?

When taken in context with fluffernutter's bruises and the demeaning manner in which he framed her contributions to their relationship, I'd say it does more than just trivialise it.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:40 am

Alison wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
<Ironholds> You should however have instead taken your pen, punched a hole in her windpipe and looked on as her attempts to wave for help got increasingly feeble.
When exactly did Oliver Keyes, community liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation, write this? (One of the frustrating things with this IRC logs for me at least is they don't indicate year and date).
Right here, on Thursday, Mar 5th, 2009 at 7:58pm;

http://www.gnaa.eu/browser/trollforge/i ... 090305.txt

I read through the logs just now to see if the context helps in any possible way. It doesn't. Of all the stuff I've seen him write on IRC, this has to be one of the most chilling. Trivialize violence towards women much?

It's hard to see any humour in that, I agree. My understanding though is that he's claiming that comments such as those were childish indiscretions, which hardly explains why he was talking about setting fire to Kiefer Wolfowitz only the other day.

Several things are very disturbing about this, not least of which is that no other admins pulled him up on his violent language. The other of course is that ArbCom will refuse to accept the case and he'll walk away a free man. Whereas I get blocked for a month by an asshole for calling an asshole an asshole. I think it's very easy to see what the WMF's priorities are.

Unread post by **Smiley** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:51 am

Malleus wrote:Several things are very disturbing about this, not least of which is that no other admons pulled him up on his violent language. The other of course is that ArbCom will refuse to accept the case and he'll walk away a free man. Whereas I get blocked for a month for calling an ashole an asshole. I think it's very easy to see what the WMF's priorities are.

I think admins most are worried about being "thwapped" by old Ironballs..

It's very early days, here, but given the overwhelming consensus I'd strongly suggest nobody unblock unless they want to get thwapped. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:01 am

The new name for the case and rigidly limited rules of evidence make this very, very clear that the actual intent of ArbCom is slowly basting K-Wolf in petroleum and then lighting a lighter. There is absolutely no other plausible outcome other than "KW must go for serial surliness and making a pain in the ass of himself."

KW is not going to be able to make a legitimate presentation of serial Ironholds douchery on IRC, since that will involve "non-parties" to the case.

KW will get an indef with a minimum time before reapplying. Low end the 3 Months of the original block, high end one year, accompanied by an appropriate display of servility.

-----

There will be collateral effects, however.

1. Ironholds will probably find himself looking for work in the nearish future. The "I can't stand Jimmy Wales" bit plus this will not end well for him. Just a prediction...

2. ArbCom is going to have to make SOME SORT of a formal determination about IRC. Is it part of En-WP or outside their purview? If it is held to be a non-WMF entity, as it now appears to me to be, this is going to have some very major implications.

A. There can be no on-wiki consequences for real life identification of IRC handles (as opposed to Wikipedia names).

B. There can be no on-wiki consequences for linking pseudonymous WP user names with pseudonymous IRC handles.

C. There can be no on-wiki consequences for logging and publicizing IRC conversations.

In short, the effectiveness of IRC as an entity for coordination of the cabal will be lessened at a minimum and mortally damaged at the outside.

Of course, if ArbCom rules that IRC is within its purview, that's another matter altogether. But reading tea leaves left by the ArbCommers in their opening statements, I feel this to be an extremely unlikely result.

So there is something of interest in this case, try as ArbCom might to make it a good, clean legal lynching...

-----

Finally, a note to KW: There is nothing you can do in this case other than to MAKE SURE that ArbCom makes a formal statement as to whether IRC is part of En-WP or an outside entity. Don't let them hedge, force them to rule one way or the other. If it IS part of WP, then cabal-participants can be beat up for abusing the resource. If it is NOT part of WP, then cabal-participants can be identified and publicly monitored. Either outcome is positive for the cause of transparency and restraint of administrators. Don't let them hedge, make them choose.

tim

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:17 am

I'm really tempted to just chime in the evidence page with:

I won't mention the site's name (much less link to it), but if the committee really wants to see "evidence", the name of the thread is "Down with Ironholds?"

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:22 am

SB_Johnny wrote:I'm really tempted to just chime in the evidence page with:

I won't mention the site's name (much less link to it), but if the committee really wants to see "evidence", the name of the thread is "Down with Ironholds?"

Do you, or anyone else, really believe that ArbCom is now or has ever been interested in evidence?

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:31 am

Malleus wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:I'm really tempted to just chime in the evidence page with:

I won't mention the site's name (much less link to it), but if the committee really wants to see "evidence", the name of the thread is "Down with Ironholds?"
Do you, or anyone else, really believe that ArbCom is now or has ever been interested in evidence?

Well, even if the horse doesn't drink, you can't say you tried if you don't bother leading it to the water.

(whatever happened to horsey, anyway?)

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:37 am

SB_Johnny wrote:
Malleus wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:I'm really tempted to just chime in the evidence page with:

I won't mention the site's name (much less link to it), but if the committee really wants to see "evidence", the name of the thread is "Down with Ironholds?"
Do you, or anyone else, really believe that ArbCom is now or has ever been interested in evidence?
Well, even if the horse doesn't drink, you can't say you tried if you don't bother leading it to the water.

(whatever happened to horsey, anyway?)

Horsey is probably doing whatever it is he wants to do, if anything, under a new alias.

I have a distinct recollection though of one arbitrator stating quite explicitly that the most important of their functions was to steer the WP ship into quiet waters, no matter what the rights or wrongs of any individual case might be. How much clearer a statement does there need to be that evidence is irelevant?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:55 am

Malleus wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:I'm really tempted to just chime in the evidence page with:

I won't mention the site's name (much less link to it), but if the committee really wants to see "evidence", the name of the thread is "Down with Ironholds?"
Do you, or anyone else, really believe that ArbCom is now or has ever been interested in evidence?

I think ARBCOM looks at evidence.
I just don't think that some of them let it get in the way of what they were going to do anyway.

If nothing else, this thread breaks the fourth wall and speaks directly to the lurking masses.

If they do what they've always done then that can't be good for editor retention, a primary WMF goal from their slides.
Interesting times.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:11 am

Vigilant wrote:
Malleus wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:I'm really tempted to just chime in the evidence page with:

I won't mention the site's name (much less link to it), but if the committee really wants to see "evidence", the name of the thread is "Down with Ironholds?"
Do you, or anyone else, really believe that ArbCom is now or has ever been interested in evidence?
I think ARBCOM looks at evidence.
I just don't think that some of them let it get in the way of what they were going to do anyway.

That's pretty much what I meant, but you said it better than I did.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:10 am

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Alison wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
<Ironholds> You should however have instead taken your pen, punched a hole in her windpipe and looked on as her attempts to wave for help got increasingly feeble.
When exactly did Oliver Keyes, community liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation, write this? (One of the frustrating things with this IRC logs for me at least is they don't indicate year and date).
Right here, on Thursday, Mar 5th, 2009 at 7:58pm;

http://www.gnaa.eu/browser/trollforge/i ... 090305.txt

I read through the logs just now to see if the context helps in any possible way. It doesn't. Of all the stuff I've seen him write on IRC, this has to be one of the most chilling. Trivialize violence towards women much?
In the same thread Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) (Ironholds (T-C-L)) discusses his wishes to shoot the Pope (T-H-L), Sharon Osbourne, (T-H-L) Jennifer Aniston (T-H-L), etc.) and braggs about his gleeful success at frustrating others:
340 [20:16] <Bullzeye> People like this would be euthanised in a truly just society.
342 [20:17] <Cream> Geniune Sharon Osbourne quote: "Martha Stewart can lick my scrotum, do i have a scrotum"
347 [20:17] <Ironholds> I maintain a list of people to be lined up against a wall and shot when I come to power.
349 [20:17] <Ironholds> Osbourne is on it.
350 [20:17] <Ironholds> As is Jennifer Aniston.
351 [20:17] <Ironholds> And anyone associated with scientology.
352 [20:17] <Ironholds> And the pope, just to prove I can.
359 [20:18] <Ironholds> The only reason the pope is on it is because I think it'd be highly amusing to top the pope, wait for them to go through the whole election rigmarole and then top the new one as soon as he steps out into public.
360 [20:19] <Ironholds> Basically I just like making other people waste their time.
361 [20:20] <Ironholds> Hence why I bought an album off amazon because it was the last one they had.
365 [20:22] <Bullzeye> seriously? You bought an album of Amazon just because it was the last one? lawl
366 [20:22] <Ironholds> Well I also wanted it.
367 [20:22] <Ironholds> But my decision to order it immediately on the spot so on so forth was because they wouldn't get another one for five weeks.
368 [20:22] <Ironholds> How soon I get it doesn't matter, I already downloaded it.
369 [20:22] <Ironholds> But frustrating people=great fun for a londoner.
Does anybody have the DSM V handy? Please look up "sociopath (T-H-L)".

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:51 pm

369 [20:22] <Ironholds> But frustrating people=great fun for a londoner.

I can relate to that, to a milder extent; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (band) (T-H-L)

I rather enjoy bursting those sorts of wiki-bubbles.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:59 pm

Zoloft wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
mac wrote:Clicking on the links brings up a "403 Forbidden" error. Copying then pasting the link brings up the site. :blink:
Hahahaha -- if the referring website is WO, you're blocked.

Hi Oliver! :wave:

(just highlight the link in the url bar and hit enter again)
That's an unfriendly, pathetic, and useless thing to do with a website.

Odd, I recall members of this forum defending Daniel Brandt when he null-routed hyperlinks from Wikipedia to NameBase.

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:01 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
mac wrote:Clicking on the links brings up a "403 Forbidden" error. Copying then pasting the link brings up the site.
Hahahaha -- if the referring website is WO, you're blocked.

Hi Oliver!

(just highlight the link in the url bar and hit enter again)
That's an unfriendly, pathetic, and useless thing to do with a website.
Odd, I recall members of this forum defending Daniel Brandt when he null-routed hyperlinks from Wikipedia to NameBase.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So long as you're not a troll.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:15 pm

Proving, once again, that she's the dumbest thing on two legs, Risker tries to raise that particular bar. The dipshit champion for our age!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =564117447

Latest revision as of 16:29, 13 July 2013 (view source)
Risker (talk | contribs)
(→‎Evidence presented by Kiefer.Wolfowitz: removing these sections, which are sourced to a location known to host "faked" IRC logs. If you have the actual logs, email them to arbcom)

You think that anyone has the inclination or effort to go through and systematically fake a log from March of 2009?!?!

I always knew you were dumb Anne, but this is a new low.

You could always ask the "alleged" author if he wrote that stuff.

Edit:
Surely, this is an isolated incident ... surely...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =563797598

Revision as of 11:05, 11 July 2013 (edit) (undo)
Risker (talk | contribs)
(‎Scientology: you know what? use your normal account if you are going to post on this page. I've had enough of this silly buggers.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =563797772

Revision as of 11:07, 11 July 2013 (edit) (undo)
Risker (talk | contribs)
(Same with this. If you're not blocked, use your real account. If you're blocked, this isn't the place to violate your block.)

Poor Someone_not_using_his_real_name (T-C-L), I barely knew ya!
Here's some free advice:
* Many of the higher ups on wikipedia are profoundly stupid.
* Choosing a clever username makes them feel bad about themselves and this makes them lash out.
* Choose a dumber username next time so you can fit in.

You're welcome

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:28 pm

Vigilant wrote:You could always ask the "alleged" author if he wrote that stuff.

That would involve a little bit of effort though.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:33 pm

As far as I'm aware, "Someone not using his real name" is actually a sensible user.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:34 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:As far as I'm aware, "Someone not using his real name" is actually a sensible user.

How far are you aware?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:37 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:As far as I'm aware, "Someone not using his real name" is actually a sensible user.

That is the point.
Anne Clin aka Risker is one of the dumbest people I've ever run across online.
And yet, she's on the most powerful deliberative body the wikipedia has.

In either case, she could have exercised a modicum of judgement and reserve and avoided looking like a complete fool.
If this happened rarely, you could assume she had some sort of brain fart.
Sadly, no. This woman is all brain fart.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:41 pm

Gentle reader,
Please note the level to which Risker biases the playing field against Kiefer.

If you have the actual logs, email them to arbcom)

However, keeping IRC logs has long been considered a blockable offense.

To ask him for them now ...

Risker's only option at this point is to recuse on the grounds of stupidity.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:57 pm

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =564126096

Latest revision as of 17:26, 13 July 2013 (view source)
Risker (talk | contribs)
(→‎Requesting permission to exceed word/citation limit: hint: if it's blacklisted, you probably shouldn't be posting it here. If it is necessary, email to arbcom)

Kiefer, don't link to Wikipediocracy for any IRC logs, as they're not a reliable or trustworthy source for them. If you have the actual logs, email them to Arbcom. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing wikipediocracy links to <redacted link> because it's blacklisted?!
Are we to re-litigate BADSITES for an Nth time here?
Can you point to some place where wikipediocracy.com links are officially blacklisted?

You are so very dumb, Anne.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:36 pm

Excellent!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =564137004

Kiefer, don't link to Wikipediocracy for any IRC logs, as they're not a reliable or trustworthy source for them. If you have the actual logs, email them to Arbcom. Risker (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Risker:,
Link a discussion supporting your claims about Wikipediocracy or IRC logs or both.
Does Ironholds deny making the statements quoted? Or does he claim that some nemesis has been fabricating IRC logs over the years?
What does FlufferNutter (talk · contribs) say? Were the logs forged? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, they're not permitted here. Period. This is not a subject for debate. If you have logs, email them and explain their provenance. Risker (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Now appearing for the prosecution, Risker!

The entire case is hinges on the dumb and violent stuff that Oliver Keyes says on IRC and now this dumb, dumb woman is saying that logs from non-Risker approved sources are forbidden.

What sources should these logs be pulled from, you dimwit?
Does the ARBCOM have a list of approved wikipedia-en-admin logging locations?

Are you really this dumb or are you just pulling our collective legs?
Haven't you heard that you should never go full retard?

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:45 pm

Vigilant wrote:Excellent!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =564137004
Kiefer, don't link to Wikipediocracy for any IRC logs, as they're not a reliable or trustworthy source for them. If you have the actual logs, email them to Arbcom. Risker (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Risker:,
Link a discussion supporting your claims about Wikipediocracy or IRC logs or both.
Does Ironholds deny making the statements quoted? Or does he claim that some nemesis has been fabricating IRC logs over the years?
What does FlufferNutter (talk · contribs) say? Were the logs forged? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, they're not permitted here. Period. This is not a subject for debate. If you have logs, email them and explain their provenance. Risker (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Now appearing for the prosecution, Risker!

The entire case is hinges on the dumb and violent stuff that Oliver Keyes says on IRC and now this dumb, dumb woman is saying that logs from non-Risker approaved sources are forbidden.

What sources should these logs be pulled from, you dimwit?
Does the ARBCOM have a list of approved wikipedia-en-admin logging locations?

Are you really this dumb or are you just pulling our collective legs?
Haven't you heard that you should never go full retard?

ArbCom now looks inquisitorial rather than adversarial. That's not good.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:59 pm

Vigilant wrote:Excellent!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =564137004
Kiefer, don't link to Wikipediocracy for any IRC logs, as they're not a reliable or trustworthy source for them. If you have the actual logs, email them to Arbcom. Risker (T-C-L) (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Risker (T-C-L):,
Link a discussion supporting your claims about Wikipediocracy or IRC logs or both.
Does Ironholds (T-C-L) deny making the statements quoted? Or does he claim that some nemesis has been fabricating IRC logs over the years?
What does Fluffernutter (T-C-L) (talk · contribs) say? Were the logs forged?Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L), they're not permitted here. Period. This is not a subject for debate. If you have logs, email them and explain their provenance. Risker (T-C-L) (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Now appearing for the prosecution, Risker (T-C-L)!

The entire case is hinges on the dumb and violent stuff that Oliver Keyes says on IRC and now this dumb, dumb woman is saying that logs from non-Risker approaved sources are forbidden.

Risker (T-C-L) must think that she's the Pope (T-H-L) speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals!

If so, Pope Risker would be on the "list of people to be lined up against a wall and shot when I come to power" of Oliver Keyes (Ironholds (T-C-L) Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L)).

Run, Risker! Run!

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:23 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Excellent!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =564137004
Kiefer, don't link to Wikipediocracy for any IRC logs, as they're not a reliable or trustworthy source for them. If you have the actual logs, email them to Arbcom. Risker (T-C-L) (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Risker (T-C-L):,
Link a discussion supporting your claims about Wikipediocracy or IRC logs or both.
Does Ironholds (T-C-L) deny making the statements quoted? Or does he claim that some nemesis has been fabricating IRC logs over the years?
What does Fluffernutter (T-C-L) (talk · contribs) say? Were the logs forged?Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L), they're not permitted here. Period. This is not a subject for debate. If you have logs, email them and explain their provenance. Risker (T-C-L) (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Now appearing for the prosecution, Risker (T-C-L)!

The entire case is hinges on the dumb and violent stuff that Oliver Keyes says on IRC and now this dumb, dumb woman is saying that logs from non-Risker approaved sources are forbidden.
Risker (T-C-L) must think that she's the Pope (T-H-L) speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals!

If so, Pope Risker would be on the "list of people to be lined up against a wall and shot when I come to power" of Oliver Keyes (Ironholds (T-C-L) Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L)).

Run, Risker! Run!

Remember wikikiddies, links to this place of vile nastiness are verbotten in ARBCOM cases.

Hi Anne.

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:09 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Excellent!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =564137004
Kiefer, don't link to Wikipediocracy for any IRC logs, as they're not a reliable or trustworthy source for them. If you have the actual logs, email them to Arbcom. Risker (T-C-L) (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Risker (T-C-L):,
Link a discussion supporting your claims about Wikipediocracy or IRC logs or both.
Does Ironholds (T-C-L) deny making the statements quoted? Or does he claim that some nemesis has been fabricating IRC logs over the years?
What does Fluffernutter (T-C-L) (talk · contribs) say? Were the logs forged?Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L), they're not permitted here. Period. This is not a subject for debate. If you have logs, email them and explain their provenance. Risker (T-C-L) (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Now appearing for the prosecution, Risker (T-C-L)!

The entire case is hinges on the dumb and violent stuff that Oliver Keyes says on IRC and now this dumb, dumb woman is saying that logs from non-Risker approaved sources are forbidden.
Risker (T-C-L) must think that she's the Pope (T-H-L) speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals!

If so, Pope Risker would be on the "list of people to be lined up against a wall and shot when I come to power" of Oliver Keyes (Ironholds (T-C-L) Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L)).

Run, Risker! Run!
Remember wikikiddies, links to this place of vile nastiness are verbotten in ARBCOM cases.

Hi Anne.

So now Oliver Keyes will be allowed to fabricate chatlogs and say they're reliable? Heck, why aren't all the channels logged by ArbCom? They should have the power to order discovery of records.

OKeyes should be sanctioned for contempt or ArbCom, and Risker for abetting it.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:16 pm

Wer900 wrote:OKeyes should be sanctioned for contempt or ArbCom, and Risker for abetting it.

And what do you estimate the chances of that are?

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:21 pm

Malleus wrote:
Wer900 wrote:OKeyes should be sanctioned for contempt or ArbCom, and Risker for abetting it.
And what do you estimate the chances of that are?

I made a moral recommendation, not an actual proposal. We could actially implement something more sweeping if major content writers were to all go on strike, aided by friendly admins to block all the strikers for a month. Members of Teh Communitah™ would have no option but to accept. Plus, if we did it this year it would be the 2300th anniversary of the last Secessio plebis (T-H-L)doubtless symbolic of our struggle.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:27 pm

Wer900 wrote:
Malleus wrote:
Wer900 wrote:OKeyes should be sanctioned for contempt or ArbCom, and Risker for abetting it.
And what do you estimate the chances of that are?
I made a moral recommendation, not an actual proposal. We could actially implement something more sweeping if major content writers were to all go on strike, aided by friendly admins to block all the strikers for a month. Members of Teh Communitah™ would have no option but to accept. Plus, if we did it this year it would be the 2300th anniversary of the last Secessio plebis (T-H-L)doubtless symbolic of our struggle.

In other words zero. History has surely taught us that the only way to wrench power from the aristos is either to kill them or to make them an irrelevant anachronism.

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:31 pm

Malleus wrote:
Wer900 wrote:
Malleus wrote:
Wer900 wrote:OKeyes should be sanctioned for contempt or ArbCom, and Risker for abetting it.
And what do you estimate the chances of that are?
I made a moral recommendation, not an actual proposal. We could actially implement something more sweeping if major content writers were to all go on strike, aided by friendly admins to block all the strikers for a month. Members of Teh Communitah™ would have no option but to accept. Plus, if we did it this year it would be the 2300th anniversary of the last Secessio plebis (T-H-L)doubtless symbolic of our struggle.
In other words zero. History has surely taught us that the only way to wrench power from the aristos is either to kill them or to make them an irrelevant anachronism.

Like I said, incite all the content contributors to go on strike for a month or two. The very system guarantees success, as their likely penalty of blocks for "disruption" will force content contributors off anyway. Once we stop bearing the weight of Wikipedia's obese power structures, the Wikipediots will learn their lesson.