Peter Damian wrote:That's totally outrageous. Does Ottava know this? It's unquestionably Keyes (there are other diffs that prove the identity). Keyes has usurped Ottava's identity by modifying his edits, in a fantastically puerile way that you only see in common vandals, moreover on his own talk page. This is a big Wikipedia no-no. Unbelievable.
Outrageous. The sort of thing that should find its way to the ArbCom page.
Wasting your time. Arbcom obviously doesn't give a damn anymore.
Just add it to the wiki, and someday we'll write a whole chapter about Oliver's grubby little bottom.
Or better yet, find a famous magazine writer to do it.
Add the evidence to the Kiefer/Ironhold case.
It's definitely on-wiki behavior.
ARBCOM has let evidence from RfAs into the mix; they can eat this.
A ban of me and an "admonishment" for Ironholds would clarify the values of Wikipedia, as I noted in replying to Worm That Turns's suggestion at the "workshop".
A man who targets vulnerable children and thwart their parents attempts to stop their email/IM contacts (and resist the child's request to stop) are welcome on Wikipedia and specifically by Worm That Turn.
Fr33kman, you really are a fucking moron. How the hell did you ever get any kind of technical privileges? "simple English Wikipedia" does not translate as "Wikipedia for English simpletons". 80.177.10.254 (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Here he modifies a post by Ottava on his user talk
(corrections)
... after being shown to be an astounding cunt, and I will be gone for at least the duration of finishing my real life work - or until I decide that my return will get me, the gawping narcissistic camera-slut that I am, sufficient attention.
1187 03[18:15] * HJ_Mitchell (50b10afe@gateway/web/freenode/ip.80.177.10.254) has joined #wikipedia-en
1192 [18:16] <foks> An HJ_Mitchell!
1193 [18:16] <SigmaWP> HJ_Mitchell: Haven't seen you here
1194 [18:17] <Qcoder00> lucasoutloud: I have a theory
1195 [18:17] <SigmaWP> I bet you don't know who I am
1197 [18:17] <Fluffernutter> HJ_Mitchell is really just a sockpuppet of Ironholds
1198 [18:17] <HJ_Mitchell> indeed; I'm not often in
1200 [18:17] <foks> Hmm, explains a lot
1201 [18:17] <HJ_Mitchell> And yes, because Oliver needs hundreds of admin accounts!
1202 [18:17] <WilliamH_UK> I wouldnt say sock puppet, but meat puppet definitely
I once confused HJ Mitchell and Ironholds, because they both are English and they have fleshy lips, like The Smoking Man on X-Files. Worm That Turned said that Mitchell had never worked at WMF, without saying that I must have been thinking of Ironholds.... WTT and Keyes like to attend WMF/Wikipedia events.
Mitchell seems like a decent fellow.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:40 am
by lilburne
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
I once confused HJ Mitchell and Ironholds, because they both are English and they have fleshy lips, like The Smoking Man on X-Files. Worm That Turned said that Mitchell had never worked at WMF, without saying that I must have been thinking of Ironholds.... WTT and Keyes like to attend WMF/Wikipedia events.
Mitchell seems like a decent fellow.
Mitchell organizes the Coventry meetups.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:06 am
by Hex
Peter Damian wrote:there are other diffs that prove the identity
Thanks to a very early misunderstanding of user accounts by Oliver Keyes, there's also 80.177.10.254(T-C-L).
Note that this information was speedy deleted under criterion U2, "no such user", not under any grounds of confidentiality. At the time of deletion, it had been available to the public for over three years.
the current record for penis size is 80 foot by Oliver Keyes.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:44 pm
by dogbiscuit
Vigilant wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:That's totally outrageous. Does Ottava know this? It's unquestionably Keyes (there are other diffs that prove the identity). Keyes has usurped Ottava's identity by modifying his edits, in a fantastically puerile way that you only see in common vandals, moreover on his own talk page. This is a big Wikipedia no-no. Unbelievable.
Outrageous. The sort of thing that should find its way to the ArbCom page.
Wasting your time. Arbcom obviously doesn't give a damn anymore.
Just add it to the wiki, and someday we'll write a whole chapter about Oliver's grubby little bottom.
Or better yet, find a famous magazine writer to do it.
Add the evidence to the Kiefer/Ironhold case.
It's definitely on-wiki behavior.
ARBCOM has let evidence from RfAs into the mix; they can eat this.
Exactly. The point is not to get Arbcom or Sue to do the right thing, there is precious little evidence either are capable of that. It is simply to take away the last figleaf.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:07 pm
by Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Hex wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:there are other diffs that prove the identity
Thanks to a very early misunderstanding of user accounts by Oliver Keyes, there's also 80.177.10.254(T-C-L).
Note that this information was speedy deleted under criterion U2, "no such user", not under any grounds of confidentiality. At the time of deletion, it had been available to the public for over three years.
Emblem-question-yellow.svg I am looking for help from an administrator!
Ask your question below. If you feel your request requires immediate attention, or if you require input from multiple administrators, you may wish to raise the matter at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. If you do not require help from administrators specifically, it is best to use the template {{help me}} instead of this one.
The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help is notified when this template is used. You can join that channel (chat room) if you want to get real-time assistance or if you want to help out. (Click here for instant access.)
Note to admins: Once you have offered help, please replace this template with {{admin help-helped}}. This IP has been used for vandalism and harassment. It has been used by administrator and WMF employee Ironholds, who is a party in an active ArbCom case.
The user page should be restored. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
July 2013[edit]
Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Human penis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your comment "the current record for penis size is 80 foot by Oliver Keyes. " was unreferenced and apparent vandalism. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:80.177.10.254
This was exactly the thing that got me permanently banned. It's OK to leave messages about vandalism and sockpuppeting if you are an administrator and the other person is not very important. If it's the other way round, you are dead.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:24 pm
by Jim
Apologies if someone already linked this, but here's a pretty good example of Mr Keyes at his finest, showing everyone how a WMF staff member should liase with a WP admin. It features HJ Mitchell, mentioned above, with a cameo from Jorm: Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Archive_2#Backlog_again(T-H-L)
It's worth reading the whole thread, but I'll just pop in this teaser quote from Mitchell:
I'm sorry, Oliver, but that is a lie. I offered to facilitate a discussion between the two of you, and you told me to fuck off (your words). Now I don't give a shit about that but I won't let you come here and pretend that it was Kudpung who refused to engage with you.
the current record for penis size is 80 foot by Oliver Keyes.
Ah, come on, he's no taller than 6'2", max.
RfB
NB: This is known as an "ill-advised off-wiki joke."
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:11 pm
by Ceoil
From the New pages patrol archive linked above.
"If you did not notice the deployment then, well, that's not our problem. Okeyes (WMF)"
In other words - "Our customers suck, is the problem."
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:31 pm
by Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Jim wrote:Apologies if someone already linked this, but here's a pretty good example of Mr Keyes at his finest, showing everyone how a WMF staff member should liase with a WP admin. It features HJ Mitchell, mentioned above, with a cameo from Jorm: Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Archive_2#Backlog_again(T-H-L)
It's worth reading the whole thread, but I'll just pop in this teaser quote from Mitchell:
I'm sorry, Oliver, but that is a lie. I offered to facilitate a discussion between the two of you, and you told me to fuck off (your words). Now I don't give a shit about that but I won't let you come here and pretend that it was Kudpung who refused to engage with you.
Lovely.
I cited this but Salvio guiliano removed it as being after the deadline.
How often are those deadlines enforced?
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:40 pm
by lilburne
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
I cited this but Salvio guiliano removed it as being after the deadline.
How often are those deadlines enforced?
When will you learn?
Hey, Baby I just got back from town
where the bribes are paid
Honey, they turned my offer down
They say the deal's already made
So now I gotta stand and watch
while it all comes down
and the buzzards and the hawks
and the judges and the mob
circle around
Now if I were the
queen of all the world
I would go in chains
just to see you free
of the ropes that bind you
and the role you play
and the pride that hooks you
while the big ones get away
Love junkies wanna change the world:
it quickly stays the same
and money junkies hire all the smart ones
Power junkies run the game
One step at a time
Polarity Hill
If the bad guys don't get you
then the good guys will
With angels on the take
and gangsters in the yard
Hey don't the wars come easy
Hey don't the peace come hard
And if I had a way
to reach the sky
I'd grab that crescent moon
wield it like a knife
save you from the lies
From the ropes that bind you
and the role you play
and the game that hooks you
while the big ones get away.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
I cited this but Salvio guiliano removed it as being after the deadline.
Yeah - I saw you did that, and that it was quickly swept away on that flimsy pretext, sorry - wish I'd seen it earlier, but I only came across it today, in a link at an RFC.
WTT and Demiurge1000 raised concerns about "innuendo" in the last day, so let us deal with the issues.
Primatology provides insights into human primates, particularly young males, particularly those with autism and related disorders (according to Svante Paabo, sic.). I used "grooming" and "preening" in the same passage where I discussed WTT's recruiting of kids for his political machine 2 years ago, kids which he has largely disavowed since he was elected to ArbCom, as I predicted he would.
Wikipediocracy has now hidden a discussion of the participants in Demiurge1000 and WTT's adoption courses/mentoring, to protect the minors, who have a disturbing incidence of autism, Aspberger's syndrome, AD(H)D, etc. Similarly, there are disturbing messages to Demiurge1000 like "I miss you" or "I need you" from kids, besides the "Demiurge1000 likes to cane boys" from one of his young editors.
At Wikipediocracy, I defended Demiurge1000 and tried to explain his behavior as innocent. I succeeding in removing violence and threats of outing from a thread---as I have for threats of outing or violent language for Bishonen, BWilkins, and Beeblebrox.
It was only as more evidence poured in that my denial about Demiurge1000 stopped. The Wikipediocracy thread is now private, to protect children and vulnerable young adults. He has contacted children privately, against the spirit of child protection rules here. (Only if the kid volunteered his email and IM would Demiurge1000 have any chance of being within policy, but even then he is behaving like a child predator. The rules need strengthened) He has helped a child work around parental efforts to stop emailing him, and continued emailing and IMing the kid off-Wiki. He told another minor that he was going to visit his town, again on Wiki.
ArbCom has known about this for months. It is only cowardice and denial that allows Demiurge1000 to continue editing, and indeed to suggest himself this week as a mentor for another troubled kid.
Ironholds has his problems, if the history of his user page has been accurately conveyed at Wikipediocracy. He has a lot of work to do. However, he is a minor concern in comparison to Demiurge1000.
A ban of me and an "admonishment" for Ironholds would clarify the values of Wikipedia, as I noted in replying to Worm That Turns's suggestion at the "workshop".
A man who targets vulnerable children and thwarts their parents' attempts to stop their email/IM contacts (and resist the child's request to stop) are welcome on Wikipedia and specifically by Worm That Turn.
Just a quick comment - the proposal to ban Kiefer is troubling and quite badly wrong. The suggest of banning a user who was badly treated at the hands of a Wikimedia Foundation staff member is catastrophically wrong. It has all the hallmarks of criminalising the victim and apart from the questionable morality of such an option, the damage it could do to the project is enormous. The actions of the Arbitration Committee are closely scrutinised by members of our community and by people from much further afield, press and academics, and the negative reactions such a decision will create could do untold damage.
There's already a feeling of the community spreading out and clustering, of a caste system developing, with WMF staff at the top, functionaries and arbitrators also at the top, administrators some what further down, and regular editors without advanced permissions feeling really far adrift at the bottom, a decision to penalise such an editor when they were the victim of unsavoury and unacceptable comments by a WMF staffer is only going to reinforce that feeling amongst much of the community and polarise opinion unfavourably against the Arbitration Committee and the project itself.
I don't think Kiefer causes so much disruption that a permanent, indefinite block is the correct course of action anyway, the community is capable of dealing with any issues he raises, some of which are very important, such as the child protection issues. The most recent blocks have all been overturned, either at the behest or with the support of the community and some shouldn't really be on there - I blocked him for what turned out to be a spurious, bad faith outing complaint, for example. The use of his block log as a stick to beat him with is wrong and shouldn't be taking place.
I'm not suggesting no action should be taken against Kiefer, but it needs to be proportionate to the complaint, the comments made by Oliver, the overall level of action taken by the committee in the case and the risk of disruption Kiefer could conceivably cause for the project in future. I'd suggest some sort of admonishment and reminder about civility. The suggestion of a ban is a good example of what is wrong with the project - yes, Kiefer can be unpleasant, overly insistent and ultimately a little disruptive, but it's frequently because he feels he's being ignored and being unduly penalised. The current Arbitration case shows this to be largely correct, the Arbitration committee want to take no responsibility for IRC and personal attacks made via that medium, instead choosing to focus on the results and responses to those personal attacks, but only when they take place on Wikipedia.
I trust you'll take onboard the comments I've made and make a more appropriate series of proposals at the RFAR, for the future of the project, for the benefit Kiefer and for the integrity of the committee itself. Nick(T-C-L) 4:21 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)
If you or the Arbitration Committee feel it is absolutely necessary to ban Kiefer, it shouldn't be on the back of this case, the synopsis for which reads at the moment "User was badmouthed on IRC by WMF staffer, User complained vociferously, User banned for their troubles, WMF staffer let off with caution". That's going to turn into a monumental PR disaster for the project amongst the community, in the press, everywhere. Nick(T-C-L) 9:00 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:39 pm
by neved
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:I wrote the following reply:
WTT and Demiurge1000 raised concerns about "innuendo" in the last day, so let us deal with the issues.
Primatology provides insights into human primates, particularly young males, particularly those with autism and related disorders (according to Svante Paabo, sic.). I used "grooming" and "preening" in the same passage where I discussed WTT's recruiting of kids for his political machine 2 years ago, kids which he has largely disavowed since he was elected to ArbCom, as I predicted he would.
Wikipediocracy has now hidden a discussion of the participants in Demiurge1000 and WTT's adoption courses/mentoring, to protect the minors, who have a disturbing incidence of autism, Aspberger's syndrome, AD(H)D, etc. Similarly, there are disturbing messages to Demiurge1000 like "I miss you" or "I need you" from kids, besides the "Demiurge1000 likes to cane boys" from one of his young editors.
At Wikipediocracy, I defended Demiurge1000 and tried to explain his behavior as innocent. I succeeding in removing violence and threats of outing from a thread---as I have for threats of outing or violent language for Bishonen, BWilkins, and Beeblebrox.
It was only as more evidence poured in that my denial about Demiurge1000 stopped. The Wikipediocracy thread is now private, to protect children and vulnerable young adults. He has contacted children privately, against the spirit of child protection rules here. (Only if the kid volunteered his email and IM would Demiurge1000 have any chance of being within policy, but even then he is behaving like a child predator. The rules need strengthened) He has helped a child work around parental efforts to stop emailing him, and continued emailing and IMing the kid off-Wiki. He told another minor that he was going to visit his town, again on Wiki.
ArbCom has known about this for months. It is only cowardice and denial that allows Demiurge1000 to continue editing, and indeed to suggest himself this week as a mentor for another troubled kid.
Ironholds has his problems, if the history of his user page has been accurately conveyed at Wikipediocracy. He has a lot of work to do. However, he is a minor concern in comparison to Demiurge1000.
Nick is correct. This could be horrible publicity for the WMF. The press release practically writes itself.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:04 am
by Vigilant
Zoloft wrote:Nick is correct. This could be horrible publicity for the WMF. The press release practically writes itself.
Shhhhhhhhh
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:11 am
by tarantino
neved wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:I wrote the following reply:
WTT and Demiurge1000 raised concerns about "innuendo" in the last day, so let us deal with the issues.
Primatology provides insights into human primates, particularly young males, particularly those with autism and related disorders (according to Svante Paabo, sic.). I used "grooming" and "preening" in the same passage where I discussed WTT's recruiting of kids for his political machine 2 years ago, kids which he has largely disavowed since he was elected to ArbCom, as I predicted he would.
Wikipediocracy has now hidden a discussion of the participants in Demiurge1000 and WTT's adoption courses/mentoring, to protect the minors, who have a disturbing incidence of autism, Aspberger's syndrome, AD(H)D, etc. Similarly, there are disturbing messages to Demiurge1000 like "I miss you" or "I need you" from kids, besides the "Demiurge1000 likes to cane boys" from one of his young editors.
At Wikipediocracy, I defended Demiurge1000 and tried to explain his behavior as innocent. I succeeding in removing violence and threats of outing from a thread---as I have for threats of outing or violent language for Bishonen, BWilkins, and Beeblebrox.
It was only as more evidence poured in that my denial about Demiurge1000 stopped. The Wikipediocracy thread is now private, to protect children and vulnerable young adults. He has contacted children privately, against the spirit of child protection rules here. (Only if the kid volunteered his email and IM would Demiurge1000 have any chance of being within policy, but even then he is behaving like a child predator. The rules need strengthened) He has helped a child work around parental efforts to stop emailing him, and continued emailing and IMing the kid off-Wiki. He told another minor that he was going to visit his town, again on Wiki.
ArbCom has known about this for months. It is only cowardice and denial that allows Demiurge1000 to continue editing, and indeed to suggest himself this week as a mentor for another troubled kid.
Ironholds has his problems, if the history of his user page has been accurately conveyed at Wikipediocracy. He has a lot of work to do. However, he is a minor concern in comparison to Demiurge1000.
Could have posted this at the top of the thread, probably, the only question was whether it was going to be a six month or a three month minimum...
Sentence first, verdict afterwards, etc.
RfB
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:28 am
by Wer900
Randy from Boise wrote:Forthcoming result:
KW: Indefinite ban, minimum six months.
Ironholds: Gentle slap on the tuckus.
Could have posted this at the top of the thread, probably, the only question was whether it was going to be a six month or a three month minimum...
Sentence first, verdict afterwards, etc.
RfB
Absolutely right. Although it may sound overtly political, I am of the opinion that the case should be deliberately protracted so that it takes perhaps two weeks longer than expected to complete. It is necessary to cause ArbCom to lose credibility completely, and if possible gain personal clout with Jimbo so that he finally exits the state of mind where he merely talks to members of the House of Lords and actually does something about Wikipedia governance.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:55 am
by Randy from Boise
Wer900 wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Forthcoming result:
KW: Indefinite ban, minimum six months.
Ironholds: Gentle slap on the tuckus.
Could have posted this at the top of the thread, probably, the only question was whether it was going to be a six month or a three month minimum...
Sentence first, verdict afterwards, etc.
RfB
Absolutely right. Although it may sound overtly political, I am of the opinion that the case should be deliberately protracted so that it takes perhaps two weeks longer than expected to complete. It is necessary to cause ArbCom to lose credibility completely, and if possible gain personal clout with Jimbo so that he finally exits the state of mind where he merely talks to members of the House of Lords and actually does something about Wikipedia governance.
Ya can't lose what ya ain't got.
This is the worst ArbCom since I've been at Wikipedia, certainly. I have a hunch their approval rating among those paying attention is somewhere in the range of that of the US Congress...
RfB
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:46 am
by Vigilant
What a giant pile of horseshit
I've responded to Nick's comments there. He brings up some important issues, ones that I had considered and disagreed with his conclusions. It's important to remember that I'm recused in this case, I'm bringing these proposals as a concerned editor. Whether the unrecused arbitrators take note is up to them. I do find it a shame that no one else has proposed anything whatsoever at the workshop. WormTT(talk) 09:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
If you're recused, then how is it possible for you to appear as a witness for the prosecution?
Do you not understand what "recused" means?
Sounds very similar to Oliver Keyes stating that he was in the wikipedia-en-admins IRC channels in his capacity as an editor.
These are not masks you can take on and off as the moment requires. You're supposed to have SOME sense of ethics.
the current record for penis size is 80 foot by Oliver Keyes.
In his defense, that was posted on April Fool's Day.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:04 pm
by Hex
Vigilant wrote:
These are not masks you can take on and off as the moment requires. You're supposed to have SOME sense of ethics.
You know, what I don't understand at all is that the main case page states that the "Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter" is five accept, four decline, and two recuse. Cases are supposed to have received four net votes of acceptance, or an absolute majority, to proceed, within ten days of the original request. This request was filed on the sixth of July and opened as a case six days later with a total of one net vote, and no absolute majority. What the hell is going on?
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:44 pm
by Echo
Hex wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
These are not masks you can take on and off as the moment requires. You're supposed to have SOME sense of ethics.
You know, what I don't understand at all is that the main case page states that the "Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter" is five accept, four decline, and two recuse. Cases are supposed to have received four net votes of acceptance, or an absolute majority, to proceed, within ten days of the original request. This request was filed on the sixth of July and opened as a case six days later with a total of one net vote, and no absolute majority. What the hell is going on?
A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:
Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;
More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and
More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.
Echo wrote:
A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:
Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;
Ah, I obviously missed that clause. Thanks for the clarification. Five for and four against doesn't strike me of much of a balance to accept a case, but them's the rules I guess. Carry on Arbing then....
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 5:23 pm
by Peter Damian
… it occurs to me that another way of looking at the situation might be to analogize IRC to a Wikipedia meet-up. If the New York Chapter holds a meet-up, it is connected to Wikipedia in the sense that it is publicized on this site, people may sign up on this site, and the discussion (formal and informal) may center around this site. … Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _Ironholds
He misses out: decisions taken there may be enacted onsite. Alliances may be cemented, plots may be hatched, etc. And isn’t the IRC channel in question an admins-only channel? Anyone can join a meet-up. Not the case with en-admins.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:33 pm
by mac
Peter Damian wrote:
… it occurs to me that another way of looking at the situation might be to analogize IRC to a Wikipedia meet-up. If the New York Chapter holds a meet-up, it is connected to Wikipedia in the sense that it is publicized on this site, people may sign up on this site, and the discussion (formal and informal) may center around this site. … Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _Ironholds
He misses out: decisions taken there may be enacted onsite. Alliances may be cemented, plots may be hatched, etc. And isn’t the IRC channel in question an admins-only channel? Anyone can join a meet-up. Not the case with en-admins.
I wonder what would happen if people at these meet ups said some of the things typed out in IRC.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:52 pm
by Zoloft
mac wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
… it occurs to me that another way of looking at the situation might be to analogize IRC to a Wikipedia meet-up. If the New York Chapter holds a meet-up, it is connected to Wikipedia in the sense that it is publicized on this site, people may sign up on this site, and the discussion (formal and informal) may center around this site. … Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _Ironholds
He misses out: decisions taken there may be enacted onsite. Alliances may be cemented, plots may be hatched, etc. And isn’t the IRC channel in question an admins-only channel? Anyone can join a meet-up. Not the case with en-admins.
I wonder what would happen if people at these meet ups said some of the things typed out in IRC.
I think it would depend on the alcohol level and sad drunk/happy drunk/angry drunk ratio.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 7:09 pm
by Vigilant
mac wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
… it occurs to me that another way of looking at the situation might be to analogize IRC to a Wikipedia meet-up. If the New York Chapter holds a meet-up, it is connected to Wikipedia in the sense that it is publicized on this site, people may sign up on this site, and the discussion (formal and informal) may center around this site. … Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _Ironholds
He misses out: decisions taken there may be enacted onsite. Alliances may be cemented, plots may be hatched, etc. And isn’t the IRC channel in question an admins-only channel? Anyone can join a meet-up. Not the case with en-admins.
I wonder what would happen if people at these meet ups said some of the things typed out in IRC.
Lots of awkward attempts at sex?
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 7:36 pm
by SB_Johnny
Vigilant wrote:
mac wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
… it occurs to me that another way of looking at the situation might be to analogize IRC to a Wikipedia meet-up. If the New York Chapter holds a meet-up, it is connected to Wikipedia in the sense that it is publicized on this site, people may sign up on this site, and the discussion (formal and informal) may center around this site. … Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _Ironholds
He misses out: decisions taken there may be enacted onsite. Alliances may be cemented, plots may be hatched, etc. And isn’t the IRC channel in question an admins-only channel? Anyone can join a meet-up. Not the case with en-admins.
I wonder what would happen if people at these meet ups said some of the things typed out in IRC.
Lots of awkward attempts at sex?
Presumably they would video themselves and upload it to commons where it would be lovingly curated by Mattbuck and his pals.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:43 am
by Poetlister
Vigilant wrote:If you're recused, then how is it possible for you to appear as a witness for the prosecution?
Do you not understand what "recused" means?
What is an ArbCom member supposed to do if he is a key witness in a case? He can't very well help to try the case.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:57 am
by Vigilant
Outsider wrote:
Vigilant wrote:If you're recused, then how is it possible for you to appear as a witness for the prosecution?
Do you not understand what "recused" means?
What is an ArbCom member supposed to do if he is a key witness in a case? He can't very well help to try the case.
How on earth is he a key witness?
Recused means GTFO, not change hats and wink at your buddies on the court.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:11 pm
by Poetlister
Vigilant wrote:
Outsider wrote:
Vigilant wrote:If you're recused, then how is it possible for you to appear as a witness for the prosecution?
Do you not understand what "recused" means?
What is an ArbCom member supposed to do if he is a key witness in a case? He can't very well help to try the case.
How on earth is he a key witness?
Recused means GTFO, not change hats and wink at your buddies on the court.
He obviously thinks he is a key witness.
But OK, purely as a hypothetical, if he were a key witness how could he not give evidence? If an ArbCom member could give evidence in support of someone you approved of and he refused, would you say "Yes, he's done the right thing because he's recused"?
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:15 pm
by thekohser
Outsider wrote:...if he were a key witness how could he not give evidence?
What is "evidence" in a MMORPG? Are we talking about "diffs" that could be presented by any Joe Schmoe off the street? Why does the ArbCom member have to be the one who "gives" this vital "evidence"?
Let me suggest a set of sanctions that are ever so slightly stronger than the cheap ass admonishment being foisted already just to show how very, very seriously I take this.
Laughably inept.
It'll probably pass.
They really should be listening to Nick, but the idea of letting WO "win one" is anathema to them.
Instead, they'll formally set in stone the wiki-caste system.
Let me suggest a set of sanctions that are ever so slightly stronger than the cheap ass admonishment being foisted already just to show how very, very seriously I take this.
Laughably inept.
It'll probably pass.
They really should be listening to Nick, but the idea of letting WO "win one" is anathema to them. Instead, they'll formally set in stone the wiki-caste system.
You can't say that! It is a "meta-discussion" that has the potential to begin the end of Teh Communitah™! Or so I was warned by David Fuchs when trying to prove, along with Tim Davenport, that IRC is indeed official. (One thing that hasn't been considered, and that David Fuchs has hatted, is that the freenode: prefix works on Wikipedia. That, combined with the fact that membership in various channels is restricted to certain Wikipedia functionaries, or simply the fact that the primary purpose of certain channels is to discuss Wikipedia and at times perform official business, should be enough evidence that the channels CANNOT be considered off-wiki.)
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:42 am
by Poetlister
thekohser wrote:
Outsider wrote:...if he were a key witness how could he not give evidence?
What is "evidence" in a MMORPG?
That is for ArbCom in its great wisdom to decide; we puny mortals should not dare to comment.
Are we talking about "diffs" that could be presented by any Joe Schmoe off the street? Why does the ArbCom member have to be the one who "gives" this vital "evidence"?
Of course, it would be easy enough to arrange a meatpuppet to give the evidence. I'm sure that that would greatly improve fairness and transparency.
A communications difference, then; my motivation was to avoid the Streisand Effect and more backroom biting. Again, while the community are my bosses as a sysop, I'm not best suited to evaluate their overall opinion of me; the Arbitration Committee is, if nothing else, better-suited than I am. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
While I agree ArbCom is in a better position than you are to determine the community's overall opinion of you, the entity in the best position to determine that - by an extraordinarily wide margin - is the community itself. That's what RFA's are for; I'll again request that you go through another one to confirm that you still have their trust. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The same argument could be made for, well, any user dispute ArbCom has ever dealt with. The fact that the Committee exists is indicative of the fact that community workflows, particularly around user disputes, are not necessarily ideal. And I'd disagree; at the last election the number of voters vastly outnumbered the number of participants in, well, every RfA ever held, to my knowledge. If what we're looking for is representation of the community's overall opinions on behavioural issues and propriety, the Committee is in some ways in a better place to speak with authority than ~100 users at RfA. They represent more voices, even if those voices aren't heard directly. Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
But an ArbCom case and admin recall have very different criteria; ArbCom is looking to see if you've violated any policies that should result in an involuntary desysop. Recall/reconfirmation is looking to see if you still have the trust of the community. It is possible to survive an ArbCom case with your bit intact, but not have the trust of the community.
There is currently no mechanism in place to remove the bit from someone who no longer has the trust of the community, but who has not risen to the level of an ArbCom-enforced desysop. Recall, exists, but it is voluntary. But you said in the past, and reconfirmed in the past week or so, that you believe in admin recall, and are open to it. If the only mechanism for bit removal you're willing to respect is ArbCom, what exactly do you mean by that? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. Recall exists, yes, and I'm open to it, but what precisely it constitutes - that is, the precise community disquiet necessary, whether it's a reconfirmation or a voluntary desysop, etc - is something that, I will admit, I've been deficient in thinking on, hence the not getting around to writing recall criteria. I'm willing to respect mechanisms other than ArbCom, but the precise details are, again, something I was deficient in identifying. Ironholds (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Would you like to borrow mine? You should come up with something; it's not really kosher to say you're open to recall, but unfortunately you can't be recalled because you haven't got any criteria. That's functionally indistinguishable from "I'm not open to recall". --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
That seems reasonable enough, and in the future I'm happy to use it - but as it says, fiddling recall about one way or another in situ is somewhat problematic. Ironholds (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not problematic at all, when there is otherwise no way whatsoever to recall you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems clear we're not going to agree here. Once again, I consider the Committee pretty well suited to decide whether I'm competent enough to continue to hold the tools; for future instances, I will set up a recall mechanism, most probably based on yours, which seems eminently reasonable. On other points we seem to disagree, I'm afraid. Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
But we don't disagree at all; I think my criteria are eminently reasonable; you think my criteria are eminently reasonable; the recaller and the recallee both agree on criteria, so there can't possibly be a problem in using them now. If your concern is that using my criteria would somehow be seen as "gaming", I assure you that saying you wish you could submit to a recall, but your hands are tied and you can't, will be seen as "gaming" by many, many more people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It's absolutely clear that he'd never retaint he bit and he's DESPERATE to hang onto it.
That is the scrabbling of a rat, trapped in the corner by a terrier.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:04 pm
by Vigilant
What's really striking is just how bad some of the people want to get rid of Kiefer.
You've got WormThatTurned turning in bullshit/false evidence after "recusing" himself from the case, getting called out on it, rightly, and then thrashing about.
ARBCOM seems to be looking the other way on this because, like Oliver Keyes,WTT is in a higher caste than the accused.
Nick and Floquenbeam trying desperately to inject some good sense into the proceedings are being ignored and shushed to the corner. "The big people are talking now" type of head patting nonsense.
Worse yet, you have WTT and his grooming by Demiwit overshadowing the entire process.
Anyone who's been under the wing of that dragon should be watched pretty closely.
That Demiwit is allowed to participate in a case with one of his former proteges is as striking as it is vile.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:38 pm
by Tarc
Vigilant wrote:What's really striking is just how bad some of the people want to get rid of Kiefer.
You've got WormThatTurned turning in bullshit/false evidence after "recusing" himself from the case, getting called out on it, rightly, and then thrashing about.
I don't really get this line of attack. That he recused himself just means he's too involved in the matter to adjudicate it impartially, it has no affect whatsoever on his ability or right to comment on the case or give evidence. Arb cases, AN, ANI, Enforcement, etc... are chock full of "involved" commenters
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:43 pm
by Vigilant
Tarc wrote:
Vigilant wrote:What's really striking is just how bad some of the people want to get rid of Kiefer.
You've got WormThatTurned turning in bullshit/false evidence after "recusing" himself from the case, getting called out on it, rightly, and then thrashing about.
I don't really get this line of attack. That he recused himself just means he's too involved in the matter to adjudicate it impartially, it has no affect whatsoever on his ability or right to comment on the case or give evidence. Arb cases, AN, ANI, Enforcement, etc... are chock full of "involved" commenters
When was the last time that you saw a judge recuse themselves from a case for being involved and then turn around and file a deposition?
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:20 pm
by Midsize Jake
Vigilant wrote:When was the last time that you saw a judge recuse themselves from a case for being involved and then turn around and file a deposition?
Personally, I don't like to compare ArbCom (or any other Wikipedia-based dispute-extension system) to a court of law, because that tends to legitimize ArbCom and denigrate courts of law. And I believe there has been some precedent in other Arbcom cases for Mr. Worm's actions here, though I can't be bothered to look that up at the moment. But "precedent" for Arbcom doesn't mean the same thing as precedent for a court of law, either.
The point here is that their desire as Wikipedians to both punish those who disobey them, and to protect their fellow rule-enforcers, vastly outweighs their desire to convey a (false) impression of legitimacy. Judges in actual courts of law, on the other hand, are (for the most part) keenly aware of the need to reinforce their own legitimacy, and that of the judiciary as a whole, by conducting themselves as professionally as possible - which of course would include their not filing depositions in cases they've just recused themselves from.
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:29 pm
by Vigilant
Midsize Jake wrote:
Vigilant wrote:When was the last time that you saw a judge recuse themselves from a case for being involved and then turn around and file a deposition?
Personally, I don't like to compare ArbCom (or any other Wikipedia-based dispute-extension system) to a court of law, because that tends to legitimize ArbCom and denigrate courts of law. And I believe there has been some precedent for Mr. Worm's actions here, though I can't be bothered to look that up at the moment.
The point here is that their desire as Wikipedians to both punish those who disobey them, and to protect their fellow rule-enforcers, vastly outweighs their desire to convey a (false) impression of legitimacy. Judges in actual courts of law, on the other hand, are (for the most part) keenly aware of the need to reinforce their own legitimacy, and that of the judiciary as a whole, by conducting themselves as professionally as possible - which of course would include their not filing depositions in cases they've just recused themselves from.
Then ARBCOM should come up with a new word/phrase since "recuse" is already taken.
How about "fuck you from the grandstands" or "shanking you hard but not in my OFFICIAL role as an arbitrator" or "Whatever. I do what I want!"
With a guest appearance by David Craven (aptly surnamed : lacking the least bit of courage : contemptibly fainthearted ).
Re: Down with Ironholds?
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:34 pm
by Tarc
Vigilant wrote:
Tarc wrote:
Vigilant wrote:What's really striking is just how bad some of the people want to get rid of Kiefer.
You've got WormThatTurned turning in bullshit/false evidence after "recusing" himself from the case, getting called out on it, rightly, and then thrashing about.
I don't really get this line of attack. That he recused himself just means he's too involved in the matter to adjudicate it impartially, it has no affect whatsoever on his ability or right to comment on the case or give evidence. Arb cases, AN, ANI, Enforcement, etc... are chock full of "involved" commenters
When was the last time that you saw a judge recuse themselves from a case for being involved and then turn around and file a deposition?
I don't think such examples are terribly applicable to the insular Wiki-world. A recused Arb commenting or giving evidence doesn't carry any more weight then the input of others.
Lovely.