Down with Ironholds?

[Randy from Boise]

I don't think that GW went out, looking for a journalist in order to plant a story! This conspiracy talk, as if the existence of the gender gap was invented at Wikipedia meetups, is ludicrous. Look at the research on editors and gender on Wikipedia, it exists.

You're missing one thing. The Atlantic doesn't sit around their office dreaming up a piece on the WP gender gap (which, by the way, anyone and everyone should agree is a real thing). Either a freelancer or a staffer that somebody knows is given a
"pssst, I've got a juicy story for ya about a guy that called a woman a 'cunt' to her face and there was a trial about it and it was her (!!!!) who got banned by a mostly male jury — and now Wikipedia has a huge gender gap that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to fix and the guy got off scot free!"

And the journalist goes, "hey, wow, that's a great story — I'll work on that."

And, in this case, it turned out to be a fairly crappy story, not really exactly the way in was outlined and difficult to explain to a general audience. But, hey, expense vouchers were filed and the boss expects something out of the investment of time and money, so eventually here's that piece that was being worked on back in August.

It's not much and its sloughed off onto the website rather than front-and-center in the mag.

That's how a glossy magazine like The Atlantic works. Somebody fed them the original story. (Note that I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a gender gap or that EC was anything less than an ass and a buffoon for making the original "If you don't wanna be treated like a cunt, don't act like one" comment...)

Hell, I'm 100% positive that there are people at WPO who have fed anti-Wikipedia stories to the media, they can vouch for what I say.

Now, who fed the story to the magazine is an open question. I would look first at those who are quoted who are not GW. Any journalist working on the story is gonna reach out to GW on their own... Nor would she drop the false telling of the tale on the journalist to get their ears perked up, because she knows the actual truth of the situation.

I won't play the guessing game myself because there's no way to really solve the puzzle without somebody admitting that they did it. Maybe somebody will do the equivalent of bragging in a bar with an uncareful word in a public place, but that's about the only way the mystery will be solved.

But PLEASE K-Wolf, drop the accusations that GW did anything of the sort. If she said she didn't, she didn't — I could give you ten better candidates.

RfB

[Moral Hazard]

But PLEASE K-Wolf, drop the accusations that GW did anything of the sort.
RfB

Clarification has been added above (with notice), and it is worth quoting GW here:

When talking to the journalist, they focused too much on one individual, Eric Corbett, and not enough on generalities.

This is a bit of a bold statement, unless you're somehow privy to the actual interviews that we gave.
GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) 20:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =687474749

Apparently she later issued a denial, which was quoted above.

[Randy from Boise]

But PLEASE K-Wolf, drop the accusations that GW did anything of the sort.
RfB

Clarification has been added above (with notice), and it is worth quoting GW here:

When talking to the journalist, they focused too much on one individual, Eric Corbett, and not enough on generalities.

This is a bit of a bold statement, unless you're somehow privy to the actual interviews that we gave.
GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) 20:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =687474749

Apparently she later issued a denial, which was quoted above.

Well, it's obvious that they were interviewed for the piece, isn't it? I do see how you could read that phrasing in a harsh light, like "we corralled the journo and did a series of interviews with them."

That's a pretty doubtful scenario.

So GW, exactly what date did you talk to the journalist? Do you have a way of figuring that out?

RfB

[thekohser]

Hell, I'm 100% positive that there are people at WPO who have fed anti-Wikipedia stories to the media, they can vouch for what I say.

I prefer the word "presented" rather than "fed".

[Randy from Boise]

Hell, I'm 100% positive that there are people at WPO who have fed anti-Wikipedia stories to the media, they can vouch for what I say.

I prefer the word "presented" rather than "fed".

You always were a stickler for semantics...

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Hey neat, I was just Googling ERIC + CORBETT + CUNT to make sure I got his quote right and an attack page targeting me written by one of the Gender Gap loons was right near the top of my results...

linkhttps://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... for-women/[/link]

The departure of Andreas Kolbe (HRIP7/Jayen466) from Wikipediocracy’s admin corps seems to have signaled a sea change in Wikipediocracy’s treatment (or perhaps mistreatment) of women. Not surprisingly, it was long-time misogynist and creep Tim Davenport who lead the charge against safe spaces. Davenport, aka Randy from Boise, aka Carrite, was last seen around women’s projects when he was ejected from the gender gap mailing list after making snide remarks about safe space policies there. But Davenport is no longer alone; at Wikipediocracy he has backup from such stanch moral allies as Eric Corbett, who opined about a photo, “At least they’ve got the gender balance right there though, two women and one man. Even better if they’d managed to get rid of the man I suppose.” Because, you know, expecting men not to make rape threats and death threats is just the same as getting rid of them altogether.

So what else is Davenport up to these days? Oh, a little paid editing, from Upwork, formerly oDesk, the same outfit that Sarah Striech (sic.) was working with when she got such grief from the WMF over it. So how do men like Tim Davenport and Morning 277 of Wiki-PR openly do paid editing when women can’t get away with it? I’ll leave that as an exercise in deduction for the reader.

Ummmm, maybe it was the fact that I followed WP procedure to the letter and paid editing isn't banned; whereas Sarah Stierch didn't do adequate disclosure and subsequently lost her job because she had the misfortune to be working for a bunch of phony bureaucratic asskissers that threw her under the bus as a public gesture rather than admit that they had a dreaded paid editor in their midst. Hockey assist credited to Jimmy Wales.

But hey, that's just my take, I'm biased.

Of course, some erudite scholars might think the real reason that I skated for my one paid article while SS got burned for her one or two is that I piss standing up instead of sitting down and this is no more than yet another obvious manifestation of male privilege.

The GGTF/GG-l/Friendly Spacers are lunatics — fully half of that crew, including of course both genders.

RfB <------- "long-time misogynist and creep"



P.S. Thank god I'm no longer alone — me and my best buddy Eric, ruling the Wikipediocracy!!!

[eagle]

Wikipedia needs real leadership, which is it certainly not getting from Mr. Wales or from Arbcom.

Wikipedia should make clear that the group must move past both cronyism and "bending the rules" to "make women feel welcome." While Ironhold's inappropriate remarks about women should not be tolerated, the Gender Gap Task Force and the people who literally try to build their wiki-careers as professional victims should not be tolerated either.

This is all an incredible waste of time. Because there is no accepted "community" leaders and no accepted structure that carries accountability, this will all continue without any positive resolution until every serious contributor is banned or blocked.

[Poetlister]

socked to humiliate Ottava Rima

I've seen many things on this site, but I never expected to see Vigilant sticking up for Ottava.

[Vigilant]

socked to humiliate Ottava Rima

I've seen many things on this site, but I never expected to see Vigilant sticking up for Ottava.

It's just a shitty move.

He is a WMF employee, was a community liaison at the time, and was an en.wp admin and he logged out to take a sucker punch at an irascible insane man from behind an IP address.
To be honest, it doesn't really matter who the target of his ire was, it was an asshole move.

How many things are wrong with that?

Edit:
Fixed verb tense. Yeah, it bugged me.

[GorillaWarfare]

GorillaWarfare is currenting running a multimedia campaign targetting Eric Corbett, because he has used the word cunt in the British sense. The latest attacks were launched via "The Atlantic".

As I've said elsewhere, I did not mention Eric at all in my interview. The closest I came was my answer to the following, which does not appear to have been used at all in the finished article:

8. Multiple sources have brought to my attention "The Untouchables" or the editors who are able to behave however they want because no complaints against them will stick. How large do you think this group is, and what effect to they have on Wikipedia's environment and content?

There is definitely a group of editors who are well known on Wikipedia, generally for the quality of their work and for their tenure. This recognition also means that they enjoy some level of impunity from behavioral policies, because there are people who feel that allowing them to continue editing is much more important than ensuring they follow behavioral policies. I would not say this is a large group, but they certainly do contribute to the hostile environment, not to mention cause all sorts of drama when they do behave poorly. I think that they are less a class of their own, and more an example of a broader, insular culture on Wikipedia: those who have been around the longest, edited the most, or hold more user privileges on the website are often held to less of a strict standard or judged less harshly for the same behavior as a newer editor.

When she postures as a feminist, it is useful to remember how she apologized for Ironholds when he was bragging about punching students and offering advice on killing women on Wikipedia's IRC. GorillaWarfare could have simply stood aside and let Ironholds deal with the consequences of his years of misogyny. Instead, she actively campaigned for him, repeatedly stating that his behavior was not a big deal, and stating that he was pretty progressive on gender issues. Molly White had a chance to walk the walk.

Mm, nope. As I've said elsewhere (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5860&p=124947#p124947, viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5860&p=124958#p124958, viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5860&p=125075#p125075), I do not and have not apologized for Ironholds making those comments, and I certainly did not campaign for him.

So we are agreed that
1. Gorllia Warfare/Molly White vouched for the feminist credentials of Oliver Keyes, after documentation of years of misogyny and violence were published on Wikipediocracy, and that
Molly's credentials as a feminist are tarnished by her willingness to sacrifice women's safety for Keyes's editing privileges.
2. Molly's contributions to arbcom cases have been flawed by being ideological (based on her personal political posing) than based on Wikipedia policy and evidence.

Damn, my Feminist Badge is all rusty...

I can agree that other phrasing would have been preferable. However, the following facts are self-evident, and they imply the conclusion that Gorilla Warfare/Molly White has been attacking Eric Corbett in multiple media.
Molly White has been active on Wikipedia trying to ban Eric Corbett.
Molly White has been badmouthing Eric Corbett to The Atlantic "journalist". (See her exchange with Giano in which GorillaWarfare takes responsibility for attacking Eric.)

My exchange with Giano explicitly saying that I did not mention Eric Corbett when I talked to the Atlantic journalist?

So GW, exactly what date did you talk to the journalist? Do you have a way of figuring that out?

She contacted me to ask for the interview on August 17. I responded, and she sent me a list of questions. I gave my responses on August 19.

[Randy from Boise]

So GW, exactly what date did you talk to the journalist? Do you have a way of figuring that out?

She contacted me to ask for the interview on August 17. I responded, and she sent me a list of questions. I gave my responses on August 19.

Thanks.

It looks like that piece sat for nearly 2 months.

t

[CoffeeCrumbs]

My favorite part of the whole thing is Gamaliel thinking the Atlantic piece was a major exposé that has the world on the edge of its seats, eagerly awaiting to see how Wikipedia responds to the questions. In actuality, it's an issue that nobody who doesn't follow Wikidrama actually has ever cared about. Even if the article had turned out be a good one, it's too limited-interest to run in the magazine. As a working journalist, an article like this, sat on for two months and written by an obscure non-staff writer just smells to me like a "Whatever, we already paid the freelancer the 1500, burn it during the mid-week doldrums if there's nothing clickbaity going on in politics" type of piece.

Gamaliel's belief that if Wikipedia doesn't fix the problem "society will" is just batty nonsense given that the number of people in society that have ever given a single thought as to Wikipedia governance, let alone any specific issue of sexual configuration of Wikipedia editors, is probably about 1/100th that of the number of people demanding new episodes of Firefly. Hell, there has been far more reporting in major publications about "Is a Hot Dog a Sandwich?" Search for "Wikipedia Gender Gap" and half the results are from wikipedia and by the end of the second page, you've already used up all the big media sources and are now on blogs of Sue Gardner or GorillaWarfare.

[Randy from Boise]

Welcome to WPO, Coffee Crumbs!

Snorting around on Meta this morning to keep my eye on Kevin Gorman's political machinations (thread forthcoming at the appropriate juncture), I observed that the first notice of the Atlantic piece posted to the WikiWomen User Group's talk page on Meta (linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wi ... User_Group[/link]) was unsigned.

Wow, I thought, what a great way to figure out who fed the story to The Atlantic. The master of marionettes would be the same person first publicizing the story to their pals... I dug into the history...

It turns out it was posted by a commercial Los Angeles IP that was immediately blocked as a proxy server.

So, we know this:

1. The subject was absolutely, positively fed to The Atlantic rather than generated organically. (Otherwise, why the secrecy?)
2. The person feeding the story was technologically savvy and went to fairly elaborate steps to cover their tracks, apparently not wanting this to bite them in the ass.

That shortens the list of probable perps considerably. In fact, I've got a really good idea...

RfB

[Vigilant]

Tell me that he's the guy to make this argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =688037403

Back into the one year hopper for you.

[Parabola]

Yeah a message of "hey, read and listen to women talking about feminism right now instead of you or me" so hypocritical, so wild

like he's talking to human hindenburg viriditas and you STILL focus on him?

[Moral Hazard]

Tell me that he's the guy to make this argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =688037403

Despite Lila Tretikov's new management, Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) / Oliver Keyes (T-H-L) has returned to his (long established but recently hidden) form of providing service to the customers of Wikipedia:

I've heard everything from "there's no gender gap, the surveys are bullshit!" to "the gender gap isn't ''our'' fault it's wider society, we can't do anything at all!". It's not as common now, I'll agree, but it's hardly uniform.

I'm not "playing the victim card". I don't think women "can't take care of themselves". I think women are individuals with different tolerances for bullshit and aggression and testosterone. I think that the attitude of "they should just grit their teath and deal with it" is one of the most cowardly, patronising, contemptible approaches it's possible to take to this issue.

• The implication that the responsibility is on women—''just'' on women—and they should try harder.
  The implication that yes, the system is toxic, but really if you can't take that toxicity the fault is on you and you just weren't committed enough to solving the problem.
  The implication that hey, just so coincidentally as a side-effect of this approach, men don't have to do anything, isn't ''that'' a weird coinkydink?

You talk a lot about what feminism means or what it does. You talk a lot about the wider societal context in which we operate. The feminism I am learning (I don't think anyone fully 'knows' feminism and gendered discrimination, least of all people who haven't lived as women) says that we should ''listen'' to what the solution is, not constantly talk.

The wider societal context in which we operate is full of lessons and ideas and guides from a variety of brilliant thinkers of all stripes on what can solve this problem and what the dynamics look like

people who are actually impacted by it. How about we listen to them; to people like

• SlimVirgin (T-C-L) and
  Ashe Dryden and
  Shanley Kane and
  Cameron G..

To the problems they see with dialogues like this.

In the meantime, I'm done with this thread, and I'm done with you. Every response you have is centred around insults, and holier-than-thou "I know better than everyone else". To match that tone: if I was the least bit conspiratorial, I would almost think this has less to do with solving the gender gap and more to do with a mixture of laziness, privilege and arrogance that comes out as demanding we accede to the view that none of the solutions to this problem involve you doing a damn lick of work.
Ironholds (T-C-L) 06:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a strong ending from a (current?) WMF-employee who had edited Wikipedia only 500 times since April, as Carrite had noted and Ironholds had acknowledged before this tantrum.

Oliver used to write sentences instead of fragments and paragraphs instead of lists. He also demonstrated control over his rage on Wikipedia at least when he wasn't using another administrator's IP to vandalize Wikipedia.
Has he lost it on his blog also? Is he still working for the WMF? Maybe it's time for a friend to get him some help?

[Vigilant]

Yeah a message of "hey, read and listen to women talking about feminism right now instead of you or me" so hypocritical, so wild

like he's talking to human hindenburg viriditas and you STILL focus on him?

What does viriditas have to do with Oliver Keyes utter hypocrisy?

Can viriditas be a tool while Oliver Keyes is being a hypocrite?
Can viriditas be a saint while Oliver Keyes is being a hypocrite?
The answer to both of he above questions is yes, thus viriditas' behavior and Oliver Keyes' behavior are independent variables.

Happy to help.

BTW, doesn't the WMF have a PR department for this type of thing?
Oliver Keyes has been spectacularly bad since forever when in a public facing role.
Some things never change.

[Parabola]

I'm just saying if you're reading that page and ironholds was what jumped out at you, you're blinding yourself to some primo embarrassing shit.

Considering the fact that armament production, arms sales, war, and deaths from war are the ultimate forms of attack and revenge porn (with the unjustified invasion of Iraq fitting that definition quite appropriately), I would answer yes, all of them. Religious adherents are at the top of the list for fighting wars on behalf of invisible men, followed by more mindless, invisible syncophantic bureaucrats who sit at their desks while managing assasination squads and raining death on to civilians from above, in an absolutely irrational attempt to stop violence (which has the exact opposite effect and in reality creates newly formed terrorists). You seem to see attack and revenge porn when it suits you and ignore it when it is a mainstream foreign policy. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing the crazy goldmine just to post about the old grudge, you feel me

[Vigilant]

I'm just saying if you're reading that page and ironholds was what jumped out at you, you're blinding yourself to some primo embarrassing shit.

Considering the fact that armament production, arms sales, war, and deaths from war are the ultimate forms of attack and revenge porn (with the unjustified invasion of Iraq fitting that definition quite appropriately), I would answer yes, all of them. Religious adherents are at the top of the list for fighting wars on behalf of invisible men, followed by more mindless, invisible syncophantic bureaucrats who sit at their desks while managing assasination squads and raining death on to civilians from above, in an absolutely irrational attempt to stop violence (which has the exact opposite effect and in reality creates newly formed terrorists). You seem to see attack and revenge porn when it suits you and ignore it when it is a mainstream foreign policy. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing the crazy goldmine just to post about the old grudge, you feel me

I hear you.

I just don't remember viriditas talking about punching a woman's windpipe with a pen and watching her gurgle her last.
Nor do I remember viriditas bragging about punching two people in school well after having achieved adult hood.
Nor do I see that viriditas is an employee of the WMF.

Some people carry baggage from their past.
Some carry obligations from their work.
Some people ought to be very, very careful about calling other people misogynists for a variety of reasons.

[Moral Hazard]

Viriditas has been mentioned many times on Wikipediocracy, because of his behavior and interests, e.g., here.

Keyes's outburst will not change Viriditas (and nor would its shouting persuade any other user), but it does display Keyes as we know him.

Regardless, Keyes's outburst occurred in a public forum towards a volunteer. The damning tone is especially inappropriate from a (recent?) employee/contractor of the WMF. Again, Keyes does seem to be overcompensating.

[Zoloft]

Viriditas has been mentioned many times on Wikipediocracy, because of his behavior and interests.

Probably not enough times, but yes.

[Poetlister]

Tell me that he's the guy to make this argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =688037403

Back into the one year hopper for you.

Ironholds is scarcely the sort of person to be concerned about whether or not he's the appropriate person.

[Vigilant]

Tell me that he's the guy to make this argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =688037403

Back into the one year hopper for you.

Ironholds is scarcely the sort of person to be concerned about whether or not he's the appropriate person.

Move along.
There an encyclopedia project to critique.
Everyone back to what Poetlister says is the right work.

[Moral Hazard]

Viriditas has been mentioned many times on Wikipediocracy, because of his behavior and interests.

Probably not enough times, but yes.

Here's a classic discussion among Wnt, Viriditas, and normal (Wikipediocracy) contributors.

Folks, you are all being trolled silly. Robert Greenwald exposed this nonsense in Fox Attacks: Decency and "Fox News Porn" in 2007.[3][4] Fox "News" is in no position to criticize Wikipedia for hosting sexual content when, according to Greenwald, Fox "News" has a long and sordid history of distributing it on their own network channel 24/7.[5] Viriditas (T-C-L)(talk) 00:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fox News has its issues, but I myself support the idea of some kind of filter on WMF projects' adult content. Cla68 (T-C-L) (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That's how repressive regimes begin. First you start with the sexual content that offends people, then you move on to the religious content, and finally, the political content. Funny how it's always the people screaming "freedom" and "liberty" the loudest who are always trying to curtail it. The facts show that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers some topics and subjects that might concern sexual content. As good people who only want the best for this site, we hope such content is conveyed with a respectful and reasoned approach, in an educational manner and with an eye on informing readers and improving access to knowledge. Nothing about this statement says that we must cover all subjects, just that it should be relevant and informative to human knowledge. Can Fox "News" say the same? No, they cannot, and more importantly, will not, because their primary impetus is not to inform and educate but to disinform and promote ignorance. More to the point, they sexualize the content they report in a demeaning and gratuitous manner, so much so, that many people would call Fox "news porn". Viriditas (T-C-L)(talk) 00:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The cinema has had age ratings for decades. It has not affected the ability of people on any end of the political spectrum to make movies one way or the other. Wikipedians are the only ones who see their ability to show the most bizarre types of porn to children as somehow inextricably linked with human freedom. And most of them don't even have children. JN466 (T-C-L) 19:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The heavy hand of the censor is brutally apparent in American movies under this ostensibly "voluntary" system. Think of how many films didn't dare to show even a purely romantic same-sex kiss until just a few years ago, and the impact that this had on youth already facing significant persecution. There have been an appalling number of suicides by teens who just couldn't take the constant wearing down. Censorship doesn't just make for bad movies, it kills people. It is palpably and deliberately evil. Wnt (T-C-L) (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Now, can someone explain why the people who are always trying to censor sexual content have no interest whatsoever in censoring violence? Why is it unacceptable to use a dirty word or show a breast, but perfectly acceptable to point a gun at someone, threaten to kill them, and then, using realistic special effects, show damage to the human body and dramatize emotional and physical trauma? In other words, why are we arguing about sexuality and pleasure, when threats to commit violence and the depiction of violent imagery have the greatest social harm? If someone can answer this glaring contradiction, I would be most grateful. Viriditas (T-C-L) (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Both of youse, Wnt and Viriditas are into some heavy Goodwin's Law territory. Somehow, unless Common is allowed to show low quality photos of people sticking toothbrushes into all sorts of places, people will kill themselves. Seriously? And teen-suicides are all about the fact that there's a NC-17 rating? And then there's the whole red-herring of violence... how is this exactly related? Unless you're talking about stuff like the crappy misogynist Donkey Punch video which the same group of Commons admins fought to keep and insert into Wikipedia articles. What the hell does it have to do with the topic? Way to derail the subject. And welcome to planet Insane.VolunteerMarek (T-C-L) 23:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll say again - if you cite Godwin's law when no one else has mentioned Hitler, you're the first to mention Hitler (by reference) which makes you the loser of a Usenet argument. Besides, Mike Godwin is, alas, not the WMF counsel anymore. What I cited was not a comparison to Naziism, only an example of one of the many ways that censorship kills people. Not a stretch, not hyperbole, but a commonplace. Censorship killed people in the 1980s when TV stations were too "moral" to run condom ads, and even the Surgeon General was being daring to mention the word. Censorship killed people when protesters were infiltrated and disrupted from stopping the war in Vietnam or the terrorist attacks on Nicaragua.
It kills people when bestgore.com is threatened with an obscenity prosecution for the crime of catching Luka Magnotta [This seems like something I don't want to Google. --KW], and people stop talking about the horrors of the world.
Wnt (T-C-L)???

Wnt,
just shut up.
If you really think that the existence of a NC-17 rating in movies "brutally kills people" or something then your opinion really has no place in intelligent discourse. And now you're going off on some crazy tangents about Vietnam and Nicaragua and comparing the obviously horrible things that happened there to ... lack of ads for condoms during the 1980's. Why do normal, reasonable, common sense, constructive Wikipedia editors have to put up with this bat shit crazy stuff and why are reasonable proposals (and ones supported by both Jimbo and WMF - just so we're clear here) held hostage to nutzoids like you? And people wonder about the dismal editor retention on this project.VolunteerMarek (T-C-L) 02:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind Godwin. If you want a Godwin, I'll give you something beyond a Godwin, an answer to Viriditas about why it is important to protect the right to view violence, often even more than the right to view sexual matter. I present you with a modern day Christian martyr, a man who surely shall stand beside Perpetua in the Kingdom of Heaven. I present you with that quite possibly "obscene" site, a truly terrible video, though it was freely broadcast in Egypt: [6] And I say this: what is most remarkable about this video is not the blood, or the severing of the vertebrae, but the calm and resolute faith of the man, even as his life is so brutally ended, his willingness to refuse even to make a token white lie of recantation and acceptance to Islam. Never mind the powers of rules and knives; the power of belief, see that power conquer all, in our world and the next.
Wnt (T-C-L)(talk) 01:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Updated with emboldening of some of the craziness.
I miss Volunteer Marek.

[Jim]

I enjoyed:

Wnt,
just shut up.

But I'm superficial like that.

[Vigilant]

I enjoyed:

Wnt,
just shut up.

But I'm superficial like that.

If only he would at some point.
Wnt's a classic contraindicator.

[Randy from Boise]

I used to think that Wnt was Prioryman's little brother, but I've really come around to appreciating his perspective, much like Anthony's. He's hardcore in his beliefs, smart about defending them, and fights according to Queensberry Rules... Ya gotta respect that.

Moreover, on some things he is pretty right on the money.

RfB

[Moral Hazard]

Good luck to Oliver in the future.

Oliver Keyes is GONE!

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 82313.html

Dear all,

I am leaving the Wikimedia Foundation to take up a job as a Senior
Data Scientist at an information security company. My last day will be
on 18 March.

After 12 months of continual stress, losses and workplace fear, I no
longer wish to work for the Wikimedia Foundation.

While I appreciate that the Board of Trustees may take steps to
rectify the situation, I have no confidence in their ability to
effectively do so given their failure to solve for the problem until
it became a publicity issue as well as a staff complaint.

I wish the movement and community the best of luck in building a
fairer, more transparent and more representative governing structure.

All the best,
Oliver Keyes
Of these last 5 years, Wikimedia Foundation

Lila bags one of the big shitheels.
Mount his head on the wall.

[Randy from Boise]

Good luck to Oliver in the future.

What, no announcement that we'll all be getting together at a small village in Italy this summer to hold a celebratory barbeque???

RfB

[Moral Hazard]

He's a shy one. He never accepted repeated invitations from Vigilant in San Francisco. I was hurt that he did not send me his card when visiting Denmark last summer.

[Vigilant]

Once more into the tree chipper, once more, dear friends!
Signpost Talk: Systemic Bias

Is there any way that Oliver Keyes can learn to stop trying to belligerently white knight while being employed by the WMF?

Hey Oliver, there's a reason you were moved to a non customer facing position. Remember?

[Vigilant]

Aren't you gone yet?
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 83418.html

[Moral Hazard]

Signpost Talk: Systemic Bias

Is there any way that Oliver Keyes can learn to stop trying to belligerently white knight while being employed by the WMF?

The whole discussion is amusing. Some funny bits:

Arrogant and cliquish
Juvenile trash talk from someone who is being paid to do this professionally. The posts are an opportunity to encourage new writers interested in working collegiately to improve the topic. This rubbish pushes good editors away by making Wikipedia look like a 4Chan clique giving high-fives to anyone who can shout "fuck" the loudest.
--Fæ (T-C-L) 08:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Given how many insults your comment about the op-ed contains, you're perhaps not someone who should be in the business of dictating what is and is not polite.
Now, you might come back with: my description was accurate and the only reason I was so rude about things is that I'm pretty frustrated to see content that doesn't meet my standards for what I want Wikipedia to look like, or do an adequate job of representing my viewpoint.
To which I'd say: yes! Exactly.
Ironholds (T-C-L) 01:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What insults? I didn't see any in the comment above.
Compare your comment, which judges a person multiple times ("you're perhaps not someone", "was so rude", "I'm pretty frustrated") rather than focus on content.
Please desist from your continued personal attacks to Wikimedia volunteers.
Nemo (T-C-L) 15:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ironholds, and respectfully request the restoration of Sarah Stierch (T-H-L).

generic_hipster (T-C-L) 14:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

[Moral Hazard]

Aren't you gone yet?
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 83418.html

Maybe he'll be the next group-facilitator hired at the WMF?

I'm sensing pent up anger.
Did you try improving your product instead of having millenial drama?
Of course not! You work at the WMF!
Take it from me, talking about the problem did not work and it won't work. It never does.
"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.""

[Vigilant]

It's funny how hard poor Oliver is trying to compensate for his prior actions.

Oliver. Dude. Just chill.

You made gruesomely violent statements about killing women on IRC. You got desysoped, almost banned and almost fired. Everyone screws up occasionally.

I mean, I've never said anything like that, but I'm sure that ... wait, no, nobody I know has ever said anything like that ... I don't recall anyone else on the wikipedia admin's channel saying anything like that ... Hmmm ...

Oliver,
Have you ever thought about just shutting the fuck up for a good, long while?
Have you ever considered that most people think you're a complete asshole and that there's a reason for that?
Have you managed a coherent thought about how much damage you do to the causes you nominally support when you open your cakehole?


On another topic, when are you thinking of coming to San Francisco to punch me in the throat?

[Textnyymi]

Do you think Oliver will get some courage to say "I'm sorry, those statements were out of line and were very inappropriate, even if they were intended as a joke, I apologize for making them"?

[Lightbreather]

Y'all know this site's good-ol-boys' obsession with Ironholds is really no different than us outsiders' interest in Corbett. It's a shame the one group is tolerated (if not indulged) while the other is discouraged (to put it mildly).

[Moral Hazard]

Do you think Oliver will get some courage to say "I'm sorry, those statements were out of line and were very inappropriate, even if they were intended as a joke, I apologize for making them"?

In the last year or so, Oliver has often prefaced his latest political interventions with voluntary admissions that he used to make sexist remarks when he was immature. (Read the last year's examples in this thread for examples of such apologies.)

Many of us have noted that he does seem to have matured in many ways, and most of us only discuss him immediately after he does something outrageous. Vigilant and others have applauded Wales Ironholds for criticizing Jimbo Wales in the last month.

Similarly, many of avoid writing the user-name of a DU*000, since the WMF banned him (and a reasonable time for discussion has passed). Our focus is on structural problems of Wikipedia and the WMF, rather than attacking easy targets (when such discussions serve no good purpose).

[Randy from Boise]

Y'all know this site's good-ol-boys' obsession with Ironholds is really no different than us outsiders' interest in Corbett. It's a shame the one group is tolerated (if not indulged) while the other is discouraged (to put it mildly).

Current events revitalize old threads on controversial personalities.

Rehashing the same old-same old to grind axes is frowned upon. Therein lies the difference.

t

[Vigilant]

Y'all know this site's good-ol-boys' obsession with Ironholds is really no different than us outsiders' interest in Corbett. It's a shame the one group is tolerated (if not indulged) while the other is discouraged (to put it mildly).

Current events revitalize old threads on controversial personalities.

Rehashing the same old-same old to grind axes is frowned upon. Therein lies the difference.

t

As opposed to people who ring up someone's name and try to shoehorn whatever the topic of the thread is into displaying their dislike for their nemesis?

Now, who do we know who does that all the damn time?

[Moral Hazard]

Feet in mouth.
Vigilant is the most hostile towards Eric C of all the regulars here, so your having irritated him is no small feat, which I fete.

[Poetlister]

Y'all know this site's good-ol-boys' obsession with Ironholds is really no different than us outsiders' interest in Corbett. It's a shame the one group is tolerated (if not indulged) while the other is discouraged (to put it mildly).

Many people here think Ironholds is a very nasty piece of work, certainly in a different league from Corbett. I have no great desire to discuss either of them, to be honest.

[Lightbreather]

Vigilant is the most hostile towards Eric C of all the regulars here....

The fact that Vigilant is one of the few old-timers here who agrees that Corbett is an ass deserving of regular criticism, is one of the reasons that I mostly like him. (Of course, I dislike that he periodically throws anger at me.) However, it's not just Vig who spends a lot of time starting new discussions on Ironholds/Oliver Keyes and dragging him into discussions about other topics.

Me typing Eric in message texts: 28 times.
Me typing "Corbett" in message texts: 23 times.
(There is some overlap in those search results.)

Vigilant typing "Ironholds" in message texts: 165 times.
Vigilant typing "Keyes" in message texts: 257 times.
(Though others, I believe, might bring him up even more often, no?)

Kohs typing "Jimbo" in message texts: 1206 times.
Kohs typing "Wales" in message texts: 803 times.
(There is some overlap in those search results.)

My point here is that certain editors (like Ironholds and, of course, Jimbo Wales) are considered acceptable targets for regular, negative commentary, while others (like Eric Corbett) receive regular protection from (most of) the old-timers.

BTW: I am no fan of Ironholds; I don't have an opinion about him really.

[Moral Hazard]

Why don't you respect the thread and house rules, and avoid interjecting your personal campaigns?

[Zoloft]

Y'all know this site's good-ol-boys' obsession with Ironholds is really no different than us outsiders' interest in Corbett. It's a shame the one group is tolerated (if not indulged) while the other is discouraged (to put it mildly).

I don't disagree, which is why discussion of Ironholds is not particularly encouraged, and mostly confined to this ancient topic.

If it spread all over the site and threatened to derail many topics, I would bring a righteous hammer down upon the propagators.

[Randy from Boise]

Vigilant is the most hostile towards Eric C of all the regulars here....

The fact that Vigilant is one of the few old-timers here who agrees that Corbett is an ass deserving of regular criticism, is one of the reasons that I mostly like him. (Of course, I dislike that he periodically throws anger at me.) However, it's not just Vig who spends a lot of time starting new discussions on Ironholds/Oliver Keyes and dragging him into discussions about other topics.

Me typing Eric in message texts: 28 times.
Me typing "Corbett" in message texts: 23 times.
(There is some overlap in those search results.)

Vigilant typing "Ironholds" in message texts: 165 times.
Vigilant typing "Keyes" in message texts: 257 times.
(Though others, I believe, might bring him up even more often, no?)

Kohs typing "Jimbo" in message texts: 1206 times.
Kohs typing "Wales" in message texts: 803 times.
(There is some overlap in those search results.)

My point here is that certain editors (like Ironholds and, of course, Jimbo Wales) are considered acceptable targets for regular, negative commentary, while others (like Eric Corbett) receive regular protection from (most of) the old-timers.

BTW: I am no fan of Ironholds; I don't have an opinion about him really.

Vig has 12,755 posts vs. 209 for yourself. I'll leave the percentages to you, I just got home from work and my brain hurts...

RfB

[Vigilant]

Vigilant is the most hostile towards Eric C of all the regulars here....

The fact that Vigilant is one of the few old-timers here who agrees that Corbett is an ass deserving of regular criticism, is one of the reasons that I mostly like him. (Of course, I dislike that he periodically throws anger at me.) However, it's not just Vig who spends a lot of time starting new discussions on Ironholds/Oliver Keyes and dragging him into discussions about other topics.

Me typing Eric in message texts: 28 times.
Me typing "Corbett" in message texts: 23 times.
(There is some overlap in those search results.)

Vigilant typing "Ironholds" in message texts: 165 times.
Vigilant typing "Keyes" in message texts: 257 times.
(Though others, I believe, might bring him up even more often, no?)

Kohs typing "Jimbo" in message texts: 1206 times.
Kohs typing "Wales" in message texts: 803 times.
(There is some overlap in those search results.)

My point here is that certain editors (like Ironholds and, of course, Jimbo Wales) are considered acceptable targets for regular, negative commentary, while others (like Eric Corbett) receive regular protection from (most of) the old-timers.

BTW: I am no fan of Ironholds; I don't have an opinion about him really.

Vig has 12,755 posts vs. 209 for yourself. I'll leave the percentages to you, I just got home from work and my brain hurts...

RfB

Now, now, don't mansplain to her...

There's another dimension to the posting on my part is that I usually bring new stuff to the one old thread when I post in it. You continually dredge up the same old stuff and chew on it.

[Lightbreather]

... I usually bring new stuff to the one old thread when I post in it. You continually dredge up the same old stuff and chew on it.

When I bring up Eric it is usually "new stuff". If there is a single "Down with Eric Corbett" discussion here that is the officially sanctioned one old thread, please tell me which it is and I'll use it in future.

Also, if you're really being honest, when you bring up new stuff about Ironholds, it's usually accompanied by reminders of old stuff.

[Vigilant]

... I usually bring new stuff to the one old thread when I post in it. You continually dredge up the same old stuff and chew on it.

When I bring up Eric it is usually "new stuff". If there is a single "Down with Eric Corbett" discussion here that is the officially sanctioned one old thread, please tell me which it is and I'll use it in future.

Also, if you're really being honest, when you bring up new stuff about Ironholds, it's usually accompanied by reminders of old stuff.

I was going to write you a longer post where I laid out what you were doing that's tedious and pointless, but that was too long a post.

Then I was going to write one that show you what I think I'm doing that's different than what you're doing, but I got bored.

Then I contemplated 'Foe'ing you like I did the ever tedious Abd, but ultimately decided that I'll watch from the sidelines and throw shit at you when you step over the line again.

[The Joy]

Why does a charity dedicated to a free, educational encyclopedia hire someone like Oliver "Ironholds" Keyes and tolerate his behavior without sanction?

Maybe if we focus on that issue, this thread won't be entirely lamentable? Even discussing why they hired an R programmer of all things instead of a Python or Java programmer would be better.