Down with Ironholds?

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:36 pm

Wer900 wrote:
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.

That would never work. The entrenched admin hierarchy are largely of the opinion that the job is done, the encyclopedia is finished. What other explanation could there be for the declining number of editors other than that there's nothing left to write about?

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:40 pm

Malleus wrote:
Wer900 wrote:
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.
That would never work. The entrenched admin hierarchy are largely of the opinion that the job is done, the encyclopedia is finished. What other explanation could there be for the declining number of editors other than that there's nothing left to write about?

At the least, article quality would take a massive plunge and the press would report on our struggle for freedom from serfdom. Edit wars would consume all. Sometimes, strong antibiotics like vancomycin are necessary to cure extremely advanced infections.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:44 pm

Wer900 wrote:At the least, article quality would take a massive plunge and the press would report on our struggle for freedom from serfdom. Edit wars would consume all. Sometimes, strong antibiotics like vancomycin are necessary to cure extremely advanced infections.

I think we're well beyond the point of bandaids and antibiotics. What's needed now is amputations, starting with the admins.

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:06 pm

Malleus wrote:
Wer900 wrote:At the least, article quality would take a massive plunge and the press would report on our struggle for freedom from serfdom. Edit wars would consume all. Sometimes, strong antibiotics like vancomycin are necessary to cure extremely advanced infections.
I think we're well beyond the point of bandaids and antibiotics. What's needed now is amputations, starting with the admins.

Perhaps we should replace the main site with a personal appeal TO Jimmy Wales for a few days. Also, the strike idea may allow power players to see the truth, that the whole BS about "no more content to write" is a patent lie.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:20 pm

Wer900 wrote:
Malleus wrote:
Wer900 wrote:At the least, article quality would take a massive plunge and the press would report on our struggle for freedom from serfdom. Edit wars would consume all. Sometimes, strong antibiotics like vancomycin are necessary to cure extremely advanced infections.
I think we're well beyond the point of bandaids and antibiotics. What's needed now is amputations, starting with the admins.
Perhaps we should replace the main site with a personal appeal TO Jimmy Wales for a few days. Also, the strike idea may allow power players to see the truth, that the whole BS about "no more content to write" is a patent lie.

Jimmy Wales has no more power than you or I do to anything; for him WP is a gravy train on the speaking circuit.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:21 am

Alison wrote: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 is a shocking and disgusting thing to say, and it would be equally bad if said about a man.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:53 am

I don't care if I never look through another IRC log again in my life. Here are some of the better snippets from May, 2011

May 01 20:19:32 * Ironholds is now known as IH|porkin

May 01 23:54:54 <Sunderland06> Fluff|away: Ironholds is still at yours?

May 01 23:55:18 <Fluff|away> Sunderland06: he goes home tomorrow night

May 02 02:27:49 * Ironholds (s@ool-44c70697.dyn.optonline.net) has joined #wikipedia-
en
May 02 02:27:50 * Ironholds has quit (Changing host)
May 02 02:27:50 * Ironholds (s@wikipedia/Ironholds) has joined #wikipedia-en

May 02 02:56:39 <Fluffernutter> Peter-C: do you really want me to go poke IH and have him
tell you all about whether i have balls or not? because i'm thinking you don't need that
sort of trauma in your life

May 02 02:57:56 <Fluffernutter> i like having the nuclear option available
May 02 02:57:58 <Fluffernutter> it shuts him up quickly
May 02 02:58:27 <Ironholds> the nuclear option would surely be an mp4 of us doing the
nasty

May 02 03:12:46 * Fluffernutter torpedoes sonia's RFA hopes and dreams with
incriminating video of That Thing You Did
May 02 03:13:13 <sonia> you told me you'd destroyed the tape of that when I handed over the money
May 02 03:13:25 * Sven_Manguard secretly swapped out that video with That Thing
Fluffernutter Did With Ironholds

May 02 03:13:39 * Lokshmi is now known as DamselInADress
May 02 03:13:42 <Gfoley4> O_O
May 02 03:13:53 <Fluffernutter> <_<

May 02 03:14:10 * Sven_Manguard does the "Went There" dance

May 02 03:14:21 <Fluffernutter> surely that will only increase my chances of acquiring
phenomenal wiki power

May 02 03:18:40 * Fluffernutter grins. Ironholds just wandered past me. "Oh hey,
anything good happening on the internets?" I look at Sven_Manguard's comment, look back at
him. "Nope, nothing."

I would post them on Wikipedia, but I've run out of socks, and they've rangeblocked me. :(

[edit: fixed spacing]
[edit adding the following:]

The more I dig, the more I want to vomit:

May 05 08:38:32 <Ironholds> ...you've been talking to my ex, haven't you? ;p
May 05 08:39:16 * sonia neither confirms nor denies this.
May 05 08:39:34 * gde33|2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
May 05 08:40:00 <Ironholds> well, if you have, tell her she's a bitch and I hope she gets cat AIDS
May 05 08:41:16 <Ironholds> and if you have not, avoid her
May 05 08:41:24 <Ironholds> she's a despicable human being, and that's ME saying that
May 05 08:43:10 * QuinnBee (ldjfjf@app7.chatmosphere.org) has joined #wikipedia-en
May 05 08:43:10 * QuinnBee has quit (Client Quit)
May 05 08:43:31 * sonia backs away slowly.
May 05 08:44:18 * gde33 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
May 05 08:45:41 <Ironholds> sonia: what?
May 05 08:46:37 <Ironholds> sonia: we dated for five years, from the age of 15. High-school sweethearts, as it were. Then I found out she'd spent those five years cheating on me, lying to me, being jealous of my female friends without ever telling me anything, the whole kit and kaboodle. And I was the one left fucked up. I think I'm fairly justified to wish harm upon her.
May 05 08:46:47 <sonia> ...wow.
May 05 08:47:38 <Ironholds> and when I say "lying to me"
May 05 08:47:58 <Ironholds> I mean "when things went bad, she assured me that we'd try our best to fix stuff, then spent 5 months planning how to dump me without saying a word"
May 05 08:48:25 <Ironholds> it finally came to a head when we were out on a date one day and I went "things are getting better, right?" and she turned to me and went "yup. You know I'm still dumping you, right?"
May 05 08:48:29 <sonia> that... really sucks.
May 05 08:48:44 <Ironholds> tiny bit
May 05 08:48:59 <Ironholds> suprisingly enough, the list of people I trust in the world numbers 3
May 05 08:49:12 <Ironholds> and the list of people I respect, 7. She kinda screwed me over.
May 05 08:51:33 * Irish_Eddy_ (~chatzilla@86-41-205-212-dynamic.b-ras1.lmk.limerick.eircom.net) has joined #wikipedia-en
May 05 08:52:01 <Ironholds> but hey, water under the bridge

[edit: removed the "vomit" smiley, I forgot smileys are disabled for this post]
[editing YET again to add Keyes' view on checkuser:]

May 05 14:08:50 * Ironholds (s@wikipedia/Ironholds) has joined #wikipedia-en
May 05 14:08:51 <closedmouth> we don't use checkuser to prove innocence
May 05 14:11:14 * albel727 (~albel727@unaffiliated/albel727) has joined #wikipedia-en
May 05 14:13:17 <Qcoder00> Oh :(
May 05 14:13:20 <Qcoder00> Sorry
May 05 14:13:35 <Ironholds> Qcoder00: mainly because it's...improbable.
May 05 14:14:01 <Qcoder00> SirShill: Perhaps you should encourage the person that keeps reverting you to explain why?
May 05 14:14:10 <Ironholds> think of checkuser as rolling a set of dice. You can put probabiity on certain results, but you can't ever rule *out* any

Is checkuser really like rolling dice?

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:20 pm

I just noticed Ironholds was nominated by BarkingFish (T-C-L), who apparently got caught as a sockpuppeteer. BarkingFish had this to say at the SPI:

I have no need to defend myself against something I have admitted already is perfectly true. I've proxied into wikipedia through holes you'll never find, I've committed very tiny pieces of vandalism over a period of quite a long time, most of it before the Abuse filter was active on here, so a lot of it was missed, and had more than 20 throwaway accounts from multiple ISPs. I think i've covered everything. Smell ya later. FishBarking? 00:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking over his RfA, the supporters are mostly IRC people and sockpuppets. There were only seven oppose votes*, which strikes me as odd.

*Let's call a spade a spade

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:27 pm

One of the opposes comes from Colonel Warden, who I can never quite tell if they're a perma-troll, or just have a very weird set of standards and way of talking to people.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:50 pm

Mod. note: Some high-testosterone posts removed.

Unread post by **Smiley** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:25 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:One of the opposes comes from Colonel Warden, who I can never quite tell if they're a perma-troll, or just have a very weird set of standards and way of talking to people.

Ahh, yes.. The dear Colonel is totally inscrutable. He thwapped my cuntybaws recently and didn't bat an eyelid.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he actually was a Colonel once, but he's definitely not a troll.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:32 pm

A Wikipedia editor goes to the "Administrators noticeboard/Incidents," a place where loving and thoughtful Wikipedians are advised to seek advice and help from "admins." His concern is how to request libelous or "outing" material be deleted from the visible database without drawing more attention to the libel/"outing."

A Wikipedia administrator (senior manager/editor) responds:

It's possible to ask for revdel on irc://irc.freenode.org/#wikipedia-en-revdel →AzaToth 14:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I point this out because the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee (its elected and only court) insist that IRC is nothing to do with them, outside their jurisdiction, etc. etc...

The linked "discussion" is also instructive as to whether asserting a person has sex with animals or linking a real identity with a Wikipedia pseudonym is a bigger crime:

Well, there's a difference between libel and outing. If it's outing, then we don't want to draw more attention to the info that needs to be oversighted by posting it on one of the most highly watched pages on this site, as that is a person's real-life identity and violates their privacy. The directions at the top of this page explain this as well. --Rschen7754 4:33 pm, Today (UTC+7)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where the privacy of pseudonymous editors is more important than preventing the spread of libellous allegations of bestiality. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:49 pm

DanMurphy wrote:I point this out because the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee (its elected and only court) insist that IRC is nothing to do with them, outside their jurisdiction, etc. etc...

They are lying, of course. Wikipedia and Freenode have an informal agreement; any channel with 'wikipedia' in the name is controlled by wikipedia people. James Forrester for example used to be the top of the food chain for the admins channel years ago, even before being hired by the WMF. Then there's this.

If someone wanted to do a good deed over at Wikipedia, they could insist that the freenode-wikipedia hierarchy and relationship be fully documented, especially since there are now WMF employees in the mix. Any resistance would demonstrate that these people are hiding from responsibility and accountability, and is further evidence that it needs to be done.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:40 pm

mac wrote:I just noticed Ironholds was nominated by BarkingFish (T-C-L), who apparently got caught as a sockpuppeteer. BarkingFish had this to say at the SPI:

I have no need to defend myself against something I have admitted already is perfectly true. I've proxied into wikipedia through holes you'll never find, I've committed very tiny pieces of vandalism over a period of quite a long time, most of it before the Abuse filter was active on here, so a lot of it was missed, and had more than 20 throwaway accounts from multiple ISPs. I think i've covered everything. Smell ya later. FishBarking? 00:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking over his RfA, the supporters are mostly IRC people and sockpuppets. There were only seven oppose votes*, which strikes me as odd.

*Let's call a spade a spade

That one even got a rare "support" from Malleus:

Malleus Fatuorum wrote:#Support. Sven Manguard's comment above (that I asked the question I did because I was looking for a reason to oppose) is very far from the truth. In fact I've found Ironholds very easy to get on with and very helpful when we've interacted at GAN, but I have a general disquiet about the difficulty of removing any administrator short of any offence less severe than mass murder. Absent a proper system of checks and balances it has to boil down to trust, and I have no reason to distrust Ironholds. Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:41 pm

So strange. If the case name is Kiefer and Ironholds, why is Kurtis' evidence all RfA stuff where neither party has mentioned the other?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _by_Kurtis

Can the ARBCOM be so biased as to let that stand?
Can anyone just come in and start banging on any pot they please?

Scott5114 · Unread post by **Scott5114** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:53 pm

Wer900 wrote:Heck, why aren't all the channels logged by ArbCom? They should have the power to order discovery of records.

They have actually done this before. During the only arbitration case I was involved in, one of the active arbitrators appeared in the IRC channel for the WikiProject it concerned. She responded politely when someone addressed her but didn't speak other than that. It was clear that she was there to observe the goings-on, especially since she quietly disappeared a couple of weeks after the case ended.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:51 pm

Vigilant wrote:So strange. If the case name is Kiefer and Ironholds, why is Kurtis' evidence all RfA stuff where neither party has mentioned the other?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _by_Kurtis

Can the ARBCOM be so biased as to let that stand?
Can anyone just come in and start banging on any pot they please?

The rules are set up so that I cannot defend myself. The usual ArbCom rules are that it is important that parties participate, so that they have a chance to defend themselves. quote unquote. Except in my case....

If somebody wants to be useful, a hero could give diffs where I was thanked by editors for my RfA analysis. "In the RfA of {NambyPamby}, Kiefer.Wolfowitz's analysis was thankfully acknowledged by {Smart.User.1}, {Noble.User.2},...."

Kurtis (T-C-L) (formerly Master&Servant (T-C-L)) is just a distraction; PinkAmpersand (T-C-L) (formerly Francophonie&Androphilie (T-C-L)) an apologist for feminine self-hatred, which reminds me of a P!nk song:

The disease is growing, it's epidemic
I'm scared that there ain't a cure
The world believes it and I'm going crazy
I cannot take anymore
I'm so glad that I'll never fit in
That will never be me
Outcasts and girls with ambition
That's what I wanna see

Maybe if I act like that
That guy will call me back
Want a paparazzi girl?
I don't wanna be a stupid girl

Pretty "will you fuck me?" girl
Silly "I'm so lucky!" girl
"Pull my hair! I'll suck it!" girl
Stupid Girls (T-H-L)!

Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:47 pm

DanMurphy wrote:A Wikipedia editor goes to the "Administrators noticeboard/Incidents," a place where loving and thoughtful Wikipedians are advised to seek advice and help from "admins." His concern is how to request libelous or "outing" material be deleted from the visible database without drawing more attention to the libel/"outing."

A Wikipedia administrator (senior manager/editor) responds:

It's possible to ask for revdel on irc://irc.freenode.org/#wikipedia-en-revdel →AzaToth 14:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I point this out because the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee (its elected and only court) insist that IRC is nothing to do with them, outside their jurisdiction, etc. etc...

The linked "discussion" is also instructive as to whether asserting a person has sex with animals or linking a real identity with a Wikipedia pseudonym is a bigger crime:

Well, there's a difference between libel and outing. If it's outing, then we don't want to draw more attention to the info that needs to be oversighted by posting it on one of the most highly watched pages on this site, as that is a person's real-life identity and violates their privacy. The directions at the top of this page explain this as well. --Rschen7754 4:33 pm, Today (UTC+7)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where the privacy of pseudonymous editors is more important than preventing the spread of libellous allegations of bestiality. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick! Screenshot it before it is revdeleted! (I'm only half joking here.)

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:57 pm

DanMurphy wrote:I point this out because the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee (its elected and only court) insist that IRC is nothing to do with them, outside their jurisdiction, etc. etc...

I asked Freenode administrators if they kept traffic statistics of any kind for their IRC system.
They responded with "We do not keep logs of the channels". (That's NOT what I asked.)

So I asked again: do you at least keep raw figures of total daily traffic in bytes?
The response was "No, we have no idea how much traffic we handle".

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:39 am

Does this mean they're now taking the entire case offline? On-wiki evidence sections have already begun.

Arbitration Committee Mailing List
Please note that, due to several members of the Arbitration Committee recusing on this case, the Committee will be restricting discussion of this matter to the arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org mailing list. If anyone, including parties to this case, has any information that should be submitted privately, please send it to this email address. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

link

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:49 am

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: The rules are set up so that I cannot defend myself. The usual ArbCom rules are that it is important that parties participate, so that they have a chance to defend themselves. quote unquote. Except in my case....

Correct. You are merely going to be basted and burned, KW, you are a dead man walking — figuratively speaking, of course.

The ONLY thing you can do in this case is force Arbcom to rule as to whether IRC is or is not part of En-WP. Whichever way they rule on this question is good, as I have theorized above, the worst outcome (excluding your inevitable long block) is for them to dodge the issue.

DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO DODGE THE ISSUE. FORCE THEM TO RULE ON THE MATTER.

tim

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:50 am

Tarc wrote:Does this mean they're now taking the entire case offline? On-wiki evidence sections have already begun.

Arbitration Committee Mailing List
Please note that, due to several members of the Arbitration Committee recusing on this case, the Committee will be restricting discussion of this matter to the arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org mailing list. If anyone, including parties to this case, has any information that should be submitted privately, please send it to this email address. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

link

Ohhh... I LOVE these movies. Will Robert Morley be in this one?

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:28 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: The rules are set up so that I cannot defend myself. The usual ArbCom rules are that it is important that parties participate, so that they have a chance to defend themselves. quote unquote. Except in my case....
Correct. You are merely going to be basted and burned, KW, you are a dead man walking — figuratively speaking, of course.

The ONLY thing you can do in this case is force Arbcom to rule as to whether IRC is or is not part of En-WP. Whichever way they rule on this question is good, as I have theorized above, the worst outcome (excluding your inevitable long block) is for them to dodge the issue.

DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO DODGE THE ISSUE. FORCE THEM TO RULE ON THE MATTER.

tim

Before any more substantive talk I would like to acknowledge the immense pain and derision that Kiefer.Wolfowitz has endured until now, and his willingness to selflessly go before an unforgiving ArbCom for a cause greater than himself. None of the above is hyperbole, nor is it meant to be.

Thank you, Kiefer. So help you God.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:31 am

Wer900 wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: The rules are set up so that I cannot defend myself. The usual ArbCom rules are that it is important that parties participate, so that they have a chance to defend themselves. quote unquote. Except in my case....
Correct. You are merely going to be basted and burned, KW, you are a dead man walking — figuratively speaking, of course.

The ONLY thing you can do in this case is force Arbcom to rule as to whether IRC is or is not part of En-WP. Whichever way they rule on this question is good, as I have theorized above, the worst outcome (excluding your inevitable long block) is for them to dodge the issue.

DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO DODGE THE ISSUE. FORCE THEM TO RULE ON THE MATTER.

tim
Before any more substantive talk I would like to acknowledge the immense pain and derision that Kiefer.Wolfowitz has endured until now, and his willingness to selflessly go before an unforgiving ArbCom for a cause greater than himself. None of the above is hyperbole, nor is it meant to be.

Thank you, Kiefer. So help you God.

KW did almost all of this to himself. For a political animal (and I love him for it) he is sometimes really bad at politics...

Running onto WP to make a half-assed, joking, vaguely phrased threat was stupid. The same thing could have been said here, more vigorously, without consequences.

RfB

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:45 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Wer900 wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: The rules are set up so that I cannot defend myself. The usual ArbCom rules are that it is important that parties participate, so that they have a chance to defend themselves. quote unquote. Except in my case....
Correct. You are merely going to be basted and burned, KW, you are a dead man walking — figuratively speaking, of course.

The ONLY thing you can do in this case is force Arbcom to rule as to whether IRC is or is not part of En-WP. Whichever way they rule on this question is good, as I have theorized above, the worst outcome (excluding your inevitable long block) is for them to dodge the issue.

DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO DODGE THE ISSUE. FORCE THEM TO RULE ON THE MATTER.

tim
Before any more substantive talk I would like to acknowledge the immense pain and derision that Kiefer.Wolfowitz has endured until now, and his willingness to selflessly go before an unforgiving ArbCom for a cause greater than himself. None of the above is hyperbole, nor is it meant to be.

Thank you, Kiefer. So help you God.
KW did almost all of this to himself. For a political animal (and I love him for it) he is sometimes really bad at politics...

Running onto WP to make a half-assed, joking, vaguely phrased threat was stupid. The same thing could have been said here, more vigorously, without consequences.

RfB

Even if he invited it on himself, I'm glad he was willing to serve as a scapegoat. Few have that kind of courage.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:07 am

OK,

It's clear how this is going to turn out now.

I have replied on the evidence talk page; anyway, exceptions are granted when a person has something to say which cannot be condensed in a given number of words. Word limits are there to prevent people from posting walls of text that nobody would read, but when it's impossibile strike a balance between conciseness and completeness, then a party is authorised to exceed them (which is in our interest as well: it's much better for us if the diffs are explained, so that we can understand immediately what happened, rather than seeing "A behaved inappropriately" and then a list of fifteen diffs). In your case, to answer your second question, it depends: can you not shorten your evidence without having to exclude important details? If that's the case, granting you the exception would be inappropriate. Finally, the focus of the case is on Kiefer's conduct and on Ironholds' and not only on this specific incident, so everything they've done is relevant to the case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This case started when Oliver Keyes made a "joke" about burning Kiefer alive on IRC and has now metastasized into a "fuck Kiefer" party.

Every single time from here on out when you wikipediots scream about getting "outted", I'm going to think back to July 14th and chuckle.

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:16 am

Vigilant wrote:OK,

It's clear how this is going to turn out now.

I have replied on the evidence talk page; anyway, exceptions are granted when a person has something to say which cannot be condensed in a given number of words. Word limits are there to prevent people from posting walls of text that nobody would read, but when it's impossibile strike a balance between conciseness and completeness, then a party is authorised to exceed them (which is in our interest as well: it's much better for us if the diffs are explained, so that we can understand immediately what happened, rather than seeing "A behaved inappropriately" and then a list of fifteen diffs). In your case, to answer your second question, it depends: can you not shorten your evidence without having to exclude important details? If that's the case, granting you the exception would be inappropriate. Finally, the focus of the case is on Kiefer's conduct and on Ironholds' and not only on this specific incident, so everything they've done is relevant to the case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This case started when Oliver Keyes made a "joke" about burning Kiefer alive on IRC and has now metastasized into a "fuck Kiefer" party.

Every single time from here on out when you wikipediots scream about getting "outted", I'm going to think back to July 14th and chuckle.

As Carrite just said, force through a motion on the nature of IRC. The USSC only takes cases when there are legal implications; that's what ceritorari is for. Force them to use their ceritorari wisely.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:40 pm

Wow. You gutless fucks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... l_evidence

Requesting additional evidence

Thanks to the parties for evidence submitted thus far. In reading what's already posted (or been posted and removed) I would like to ask for the parties to submit any additional evidence they have on the following topics:

Are there examples of Ironholds making personal attacks or inappropriate remarks on the English Wikipedia?
(Specifically regarding Kurtis' evidence) Are there examples of recent violations of copyright policies, personal attacks, etc. since the 2011 RfC (specifically outside of evidence presented about RfA?)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:30 pm

Vigilant wrote:Wow. You gutless fucks.

Gutless fucks indeed, but to be fair I suppose they have no real control over a WMF employee's off-wiki behaviour, and obviously the WMF operates in some kind of moral vacuum.

But on the other hand many organisations have clauses in their contracts about bringing the organisation into disrepute, which Keyes has clearly done with his IRC comments. So I can see no reason other than sheer cowardice why ArbCom would not pursue that path and desysop him toute de suite.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:51 pm

Malleus wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Wow. You gutless fucks.
Gutless fucks indeed, but to be fair I suppose they have no real control over a WMF employee's off-wiki behaviour, and obviously the WMF operates in some kind of moral vacuum.

But on the other hand many organisations have clauses in their contracts about bringing the organisation into disrepute, which Keyes has clearly done with his IRC comments. So I can see no reason other than sheer cowardice why ArbCom would not pursue that path and desysop him toute de suite.

Interesting case here with the WMF/employment issue getting mixed up with a Wikipedia/volunteer admin/arbcom issue.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:25 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Malleus wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Wow. You gutless fucks.
Gutless fucks indeed, but to be fair I suppose they have no real control over a WMF employee's off-wiki behaviour, and obviously the WMF operates in some kind of moral vacuum.

But on the other hand many organisations have clauses in their contracts about bringing the organisation into disrepute, which Keyes has clearly done with his IRC comments. So I can see no reason other than sheer cowardice why ArbCom would not pursue that path and desysop him toute de suite.
Interesting case here with the WMF/employment issue getting mixed up with a Wikipedia/volunteer admin/arbcom issue.

ArbCom will be too scared to venture into the WMF/employment issue, but could very easily take a line on an admin bringing Wikipedia into disrepute by off-wiki postings. Doesn't look like they're going to have the courage to do that though.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:41 pm

Malleus wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Wow. You gutless fucks.
Gutless fucks indeed, but to be fair I suppose they have no real control over a WMF employee's off-wiki behaviour, and obviously the WMF operates in some kind of moral vacuum.

But on the other hand many organisations have clauses in their contracts about bringing the organisation into disrepute, which Keyes has clearly done with his IRC comments. So I can see no reason other than sheer cowardice why ArbCom would not pursue that path and desysop him toute de suite.

Somebody quoted Ironholds bragging about trolling me on IRC. Can anybody locate that log?

IRC logs of sociopathic behavior (bragging about trolling) combined with a few on-Wiki diffs should result in his being desyssoped and having his job title changed as well as being banned from IRC by his employer, if he keeps some kind of WMF job.

Encyclopedia Dramatica quotes an oversighted user page that lists neurological disorders, which would explain why he would be prone to impulse control and cluelessness. However, he controls himself on Wiki. The alternative explanation that Ironholds is a misogynistic socipath is favored by Occam's law.

SandyGeorgia (T-C-L) suggested starting a petition to get rid of him as a WMF employee. The petition should call for a reasonable IRC policy, again highlighting issues with Child Protection and misogyny.

Keyes should be the poster boy for this petition. A picture of him with quotes on the side would get attention.

(The current IRC-policy, log quotes are allowed only if ArbCom approves them in advance and they have to be secret, was discussed by 2 people in an ArbCom RfC 2 years ago. )

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:49 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:(The current IRC-policy, log quotes are allowed only if ArbCom approves them in advance and they have to be secret, was discussed by 2 people in an ArbCom RfC 2 years ago. )

Something doesn't smell right there. Logs from an IRC channel that only Wikipedia administrators are allowed to join can only be presented secretly in the course of an ArbCom case if the administrators who make up ArbCom agree that they can? Or have I misunderstood something, and this is the best of all possible worlds?

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:51 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:IRC logs of sociopathic behavior (bragging about trolling) combined with a few on-Wiki diffs should result in his being desyssoped and having his job title changed as well as being banned from IRC by his employer, if he keeps some kind of WMF job.

I hope it's as a janitor.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:53 pm

Wer900 wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:IRC logs of sociopathic behavior (bragging about trolling) combined with a few on-Wiki diffs should result in his being desyssoped and having his job title changed as well as being banned from IRC by his employer, if he keeps some kind of WMF job.
I hope it's as a janitor.

With a real mop, not one of those silly pretend things admins are so fond of banging on and on about.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:54 pm

Malleus wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:(The current IRC-policy, log quotes are allowed only if ArbCom approves them in advance and they have to be secret, was discussed by 2 people in an ArbCom RfC 2 years ago. )
Something doesn't smell right there. Logs from an IRC channel that only Wikipedia administrators are allowed to join can only be presented secretly in the course of an ArbCom case if the administrators who make up ArbCom agree that they can? Or have I misunderstood something, and this is the best of all possible worlds?

It's rotten to the core.
The wikipedia run IRC channels are a playground for the worst of wikipedia to slander/libel/hound/plot against those they find to be suppressive persons.

It's like they fossilized usenet for their own purposes and then hid it behind the flimsiest of ratty curtains.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:05 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Malleus wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:(The current IRC-policy, log quotes are allowed only if ArbCom approves them in advance and they have to be secret, was discussed by 2 people in an ArbCom RfC 2 years ago. )
Something doesn't smell right there. Logs from an IRC channel that only Wikipedia administrators are allowed to join can only be presented secretly in the course of an ArbCom case if the administrators who make up ArbCom agree that they can? Or have I misunderstood something, and this is the best of all possible worlds?
It's rotten to the core.
The wikipedia run IRC channels are a playground for the worst of wikipedia to slander/libel/hound/plot against those they find to be suppressive persons.

It's like they fossilized usenet for their own purposes and then hid it behind the flimsiest of ratty curtains.

It does seem like that. One of the biggest problems ArbCom has I think is that it's completely gutless, and that's in no small part due to the fact that only administrators can be elected to ArbCom, and as RfA is nothing more than a popularity contest only the most anodyne can ever be elected. And the most anodyne have clearly never exhibited any courage in standing up for what's right.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:58 pm

Malleus wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:(The current IRC-policy, log quotes are allowed only if ArbCom approves them in advance and they have to be secret, was discussed by 2 people in an ArbCom RfC 2 years ago. )
Something doesn't smell right there. Logs from an IRC channel that only Wikipedia administrators are allowed to join can only be presented secretly in the course of an ArbCom case if the administrators who make up ArbCom agree that they can? Or have I misunderstood something, and this is the best of all possible worlds?

"Evidence based on private communications (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, IRC logs, email correspondence) is admissible only by prior consent of the Committee and only in exceptional circumstances."

When the current policy was proposed (along with many many changes), arbitrator Roger Davies (T-C-L) made the only argument for the policy:

"ArbCom is well aware of the potential for forgery in IRC logs, emails and so forth - as well as the potential for disclosing intensely personal information - and therefore treats each instance on its merits. This, incidentally, is precisely the reason why editors should not be able to post logs and emails automatically as part of a case and why discretion about public disclosure rests with ArbCom

Acknowledgement: Thryduulf (T-C-L) located the 2-person discussion of this policy change, which was buried in a massive RfC, which was rubberstamped by administrators and IRC jockeys.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:03 pm

This definition of "private communications" is laughable.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:08 pm

DanMurphy wrote:This definition of "private communications" is laughable.

As is ArbCom, so a pretty good match really.

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:23 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Malleus wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:(The current IRC-policy, log quotes are allowed only if ArbCom approves them in advance and they have to be secret, was discussed by 2 people in an ArbCom RfC 2 years ago. )
Something doesn't smell right there. Logs from an IRC channel that only Wikipedia administrators are allowed to join can only be presented secretly in the course of an ArbCom case if the administrators who make up ArbCom agree that they can? Or have I misunderstood something, and this is the best of all possible worlds?

"Evidence based on private communications (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, IRC logs, email correspondence) is admissible only by prior consent of the Committee and only in exceptional circumstances."
When the current policy was proposed (along with many many changes), arbitrator Roger Davies (T-C-L) made the only argument for the policy:
"ArbCom is well aware of the potential for forgery in IRC logs, emails and so forth - as well as the potential for disclosing intensely personal information - and therefore treats each instance on its merits. This, incidentally, is precisely the reason why editors should not be able to post logs and emails automatically as part of a case and why discretion about public disclosure rests with ArbCom
Acknowledgement: Thryduulf (T-C-L) located the 2-person discussion of this policy change, which was buried in a massive RfC, which was rubberstamped by administrators and IRC jockeys.

We need to force a ruling on the validity of the RfC. A two-person discussion that is subsequently rubber-stamped is not at all legitimate, and that would open the door to a proper ArbCom ruling on the nature of IRC.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:44 pm

Wer900 wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Malleus wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:(The current IRC-policy, log quotes are allowed only if ArbCom approves them in advance and they have to be secret, was discussed by 2 people in an ArbCom RfC 2 years ago. )
Something doesn't smell right there. Logs from an IRC channel that only Wikipedia administrators are allowed to join can only be presented secretly in the course of an ArbCom case if the administrators who make up ArbCom agree that they can? Or have I misunderstood something, and this is the best of all possible worlds?

"Evidence based on private communications (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, IRC logs, email correspondence) is admissible only by prior consent of the Committee and only in exceptional circumstances."
When the current policy was proposed (along with many many changes), arbitrator Roger Davies (T-C-L) made the only argument for the policy:
"ArbCom is well aware of the potential for forgery in IRC logs, emails and so forth - as well as the potential for disclosing intensely personal information - and therefore treats each instance on its merits. This, incidentally, is precisely the reason why editors should not be able to post logs and emails automatically as part of a case and why discretion about public disclosure rests with ArbCom
Acknowledgement: Thryduulf (T-C-L) located the 2-person discussion of this policy change, which was buried in a massive RfC, which was rubberstamped by administrators and IRC jockeys.
We need to force a ruling on the validity of the RfC. A two-person discussion that is subsequently rubber-stamped is not at all legitimate, and that would open the door to a proper ArbCom ruling on the nature of IRC.

It's not legitimate. There should be an RfC, and the ArbCom case should pause.

I would suggest language like

When using IRC channels with the Wikipedia name, editors are expected to avoid any actions which would bring disrepute on Wikipedia or which are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. WMF employees and other WMF/Wikipedia officers should be especially careful to protect the reputation of Wikipedia.

Disreputable or prohibited actions have resulted in candidates losing RfAs, their administrative priviliges, and being blocked or banned from editing. To allow due process and protect privacy, only short excerpts of IRC logs should be quoted on Wikipedia (with inessential names and comments excised). Only quotations relevant to violations of WP or WMF policies should be given. The full discussion generally should be linked.

In cases of minors or risk of life or severe injury, posting should be especially cautious. Parties quoted should be given an opportunity to object to the posting and discuss concerns about fabrications or alterations.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:47 pm

Wer900 wrote:We need to force a ruling on the validity of the RfC. A two-person discussion that is subsequently rubber-stamped is not at all legitimate, and that would open the door to a proper ArbCom ruling on the nature of IRC.

I don't see your contributions on those pages...

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:49 pm

You guys are deluded, if you think Arbcom's going to revisit this.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:55 pm

EricBarbour wrote:You guys are deluded, if you think Arbcom's going to revisit this.

I don't think anyone believes ArbCom will revisit this, even though they should. It would be difficult to imagine more cringingly cowardice than that exhibited by ArbCom for the sake of a quiet life for them.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:56 pm

EricBarbour wrote:You guys are deluded, if you think Arbcom's going to revisit this.

Indeed, they've made it pretty clear that they aren't. Something about "remit" and such, though I suppose the legalese might be a bit less than usual since NYB is apparently recused.

The real kicker about how they're approaching this lies in how differently it's being viewed compared to the absolutely inane and nasty crap said "on-wiki" about members of this forum by Fae and Prioryman. :irony:

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:01 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:The real kicker about how they're approaching this lies in how differently it's being viewed compared to the absolutely inane and nasty crap said "on-wiki" about members of this forum by Fae and Prioryman.

That's far too subtle a point to gain any "traction" on Wikipedia.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:03 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Somebody quoted Ironholds bragging about trolling me on IRC. Can anybody locate that log?

Oh, you mean this:

Tarc wrote:
thekohser wrote:We all knew this block on Wikipedia was coming. Question is, when is the block on Commons going to be handed out? And then, when does the global lock go into effect?
Who exactly is going to initiate a ban of a bureaucrat, though, with any chance of seeing it carried out? It'll be a stalemate discussion at best, with one of the cronies (e.g. odder) sitting out of the discussion so they are free to close it. Commons is rigged all-around.

Btw, IRC Funniez from earlier today, Russavia getsa lashing from Ironholds.

[09:48] <russavia> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia#Blocked -- i've just been indefinitely blocked!!!!
[09:51] <Ironholds> russavia: again!
[10:04] <russavia> this is what you get for creating content on teh wiki i am afraid
[10:05] <Ironholds> russavia: I've got 13 pieces of featured content, 90 GAs and around 170 DYKs. And no blocks.
[10:05] <Ironholds> sod off trying to make it out to be some "oh, it's because we're CONTENT CONTRIBUTORS, we're VICTIMISED".
[10:05] <Ironholds> you were shit-stirring and have been appropriately beaten around the head for it.
[10:05] <Ironholds> take responsibility for your behaviour, for /once/.
[10:05] <russavia> i haven't shit-stirred anyone
[10:07] <Charmlet> russavia: erm, I'm going to agree with Ironholds on the whole "bc i is content" argument being a complete non-truth
[10:07] <Ironholds> and if Charmlet and I are agreeing something is terribly wrong.
[10:07] <Charmlet> >.>
[10:07] <Charmlet> what are we mortal enemies now?
[10:07] <Ironholds> no, no, I mean.
[10:08] <Charmlet> "I have removed your editing rights"
[10:08] <Ironholds> it's like me and DGG coming to the same conclusion at AfD; we represent such different perspectives on a lot of issues that if we've both come to the same conclusion, it's probably the right one.
[10:08] <Charmlet> that's the best block coment ever.
[10:08] * PROMOSPAM eagerly awaits the resulting explosion of the planet.
[10:08] <Charmlet> PROMOSPAM: there's also an explosion of people wanting me banninated from WO just because I won't conform to their (non-proveable) opinions, but instead refute their "evidence"
[10:09] <GorillaWarfare> Oh no, not banned from WO... /s
[10:09] <Charmlet> meh, I'd like it.
[10:09] <PROMOSPAM> Charmlet: I don't know why you're even bothering to talk reply to that thread.
[10:09] <Charmlet> to talk reply? Hmm.. I'm replying because they're making baseless accusations about me. I'll probably stop if they continue.
[10:09] <PROMOSPAM> In fact, by replying to it as you are, you're kind of proving their point. Which I suspect is the reason they're enjoying it so much.
[10:10] <PROMOSPAM> Anyway, that's all I have to say on that. Back to work.
[10:10] <Charmlet> :D work! Or D: work...
[10:10] <Charmlet> depends on what work :P
[10:10] <Ironholds> heh
[10:10] <Ironholds> see, back on WR, there was one contributor I used to have great fun trolling.
[10:11] <Ironholds> he was incredibly angry and couldn't spell. And pointing out he couldn't spell would make him angrier, and less grammatical.
[10:11] <russavia> ahhh malick shabazz -- how nice to see EEML's pal there
[10:11] <Fluffernutter> the thing about trying to counter-troll trolls is that generally, the trolls are better at it
[10:11] <Ironholds> So every time he posted I'd reply with nothing but a string of spelling corrections. He'd get pissed. He'd eff and blind at me. He'd do so using terrible prose. I'd reply with nothing... ;p
[10:11] <Ironholds> russavia: again, take responsibility for your actions.
[10:12] <Ironholds> every time you get slapped your response is "oh woe is me, I'm being victimised by the establishment!" or "there's a conspiracy!"
[10:12] <russavia> what actions? pray tell what are my actions here?
[10:12] <russavia> because only a few know the full story
[10:12] <Ironholds> oh? tell me the full story, then.
[10:13] <Charmlet> Ironholds: I feel like if I'm going to be banned I should troll them all.
[10:13] <russavia> nah, i'm keeping it quite close -- to watch the bad faith accusations, etc
[10:13] <Charmlet> any ideas?
[10:13] <GorillaWarfare> Charmlet: Good luck with that.
[10:13] <Ironholds> russavia: so what you're saying is you have the opportunity to immediately solve for the situation, set the record straight and get things dealt with, and you're refusing to because you like watching everyone in a tizzy?
[10:13] <Charmlet> GorillaWarfare: It was a joke, I'm not a troll like some people.
[10:14] <Charmlet> #wikipedia-en-drama
[10:14] <Ironholds> russavia: that's drama-mongering. If you can't understand that, you shouldn't be contributing anyway.
[10:14] <russavia> ummm, well ironholds, to be honest, i love everyone throwing all this bad faith shit at me -- it goes to show just how bad the projects are for such things
[10:15] <Ironholds> rrrrright.
[10:15] <Ironholds> I'm going to do something more productive, like write a while loop that references Captain Beefheart.
[10:15] <russavia> well i can't set the record straight -- i'm topic banned now too, so i can't explain a fucking thing
[10:15] <Ironholds> toodle-oo
[10:15] <Charmlet> Ironholds: or talk to me about visualeditor!
[10:15] <Ironholds> you have talkpage access. explain the full thing or shut the hell up.
[10:15] <Charmlet> and how it's good (but needs to not break account creation)
[10:15] <Ironholds> Charmlet: email me or drop a note on my talkpage.
[10:15] <PROMOSPAM> Charmlet: Or you could do something productive instead of trying to get banned, which actually is the point they're making in the thread about you. Getting yourself banned would leave you satisfied with the ban and them satisfied that you've proved them right.
[10:16] * GorillaWarfare goes to make more coffee
[10:16] <Charmlet> so i either get banned, and prove my point, or dont get banned, and have to change my opinion willy nilly with theirs.
[10:17] <PROMOSPAM> Charmlet: If you think their opinion is wrong, then ignore it and them. Problem solved.
[10:17] <Charmlet> hmmph, good idea.
[10:17] <PROMOSPAM> Charmlet: The fact you feel the need to engage them constantly shows quite a bit of immaturity which, again, is their point.
[10:18] <Charmlet> Hmm.
[10:24] <Bradford> ty:
[10:24] <Bradford> :P
[10:25] <TheDruId> o/

Courtesy of Tarc. Hope this helps.

[edited: Ohhh, trolling you. My mistake.]

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:04 pm

Malleus wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:The real kicker about how they're approaching this lies in how differently it's being viewed compared to the absolutely inane and nasty crap said "on-wiki" about members of this forum by Fae and Prioryman.
That's far too subtle a point to gain any "traction" on Wikipedia.

Don't worry, I wouldn't bother posting something about it on WP, for just that reason.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:22 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:
Malleus wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:The real kicker about how they're approaching this lies in how differently it's being viewed compared to the absolutely inane and nasty crap said "on-wiki" about members of this forum by Fae and Prioryman.
That's far too subtle a point to gain any "traction" on Wikipedia.
Don't worry, I wouldn't bother posting something about it on WP, for just that reason.

There's a fundamental dishonesty at the heart of Wikipedia, but I'm uncertain what it is that maintains it and feeds it.