Down with Ironholds?

Discussions on Wikimedia governance
User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
kołdry
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Mancunium » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:50 am

DanMurphy wrote:
Mancunium wrote:Edit: blog.ironholds.org is now "403 Forbidden" to me, but I can still read it by following the link at GitHub: link
Mr. Keyes set his site up to deny incoming links from here about a month ago. But you can still access it from the general intertube thingy.
Thank you. I tested the link on my Facebook page, and just assumed it would work when embedded here.
former Living Person

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:51 am

Good article by Mr. Murphy - I was impressed! :)

It seems to me that in this diff, the one where Ms. Gardner writes...
Sue Gardner wrote:Please be generous or at a minimum neutral in terms of how you characterize the behaviour of others. "Misogyny," for example, is a very strong word and a serious accusation: it shouldn't be lightly made.
...she's taking precisely the opposite position from the one she should be taking, in that Wikipedians and WMF employees who help create a hostile environment for women actually should be accused of misogyny wherever a reasonable case can be made. That might not be strictly necessary if the striking gender imbalance didn't exist, because the problem might largely take care of itself (i.e., there would be at least a political disincentive, given that the moral one is ineffective on WP, to hate women if women were to someday make up a full half of the WP user base). And maybe I'm being slightly unfair by assuming that the gender imbalance necessitates stricter regulation of user behavior, which admittedly could lead to a kind of witch-hunt mentality if taken too far - noting that Wikipedians will almost certainly succumb to exactly that, if it leads to more blocks 'n' bans for people they dislike. But (IMO) they're not going to fix the imbalance with surface-fixes like WYSIWYG editing, even if they eventually get such things to work.

In her defense, I suppose there's a valid argument to be made that by describing people as "misogynists" when they're really just ordinary run-of-the-mill assholes, you're "cheapening the term" and thereby lessening its impact when applied to people who really are misogynists. But part of the problem there is that to many men (and particularly misogynists), the term "asshole" amounts to a more serious accusation than "misogynist." Ms. Gardner might not even realize that, for all we know.

Either way, by imposing a chilling effect on accusations of misogyny, she's basically giving aid and comfort to misogynists, isn't she? It would be one thing if this statement were made by some administrator somewhere, but this is the Executive Director of the Foundation saying this. Wikipedia needs more women, and she should be leading the charge - not hanging back in the ranks and advising the "cautious approach."

User avatar
rhindle
Habitué
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:44 pm
Wikipedia User: Kafkaesque
Wikipedia Review Member: rhindle
Location: 'Murica

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by rhindle » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:56 am

The trick is to prevent any potential problem female editors from using the "Fae defense" in using misogyny as a deflection for legitimate criticism. I don't think there's been any female editor playing that card for all I know but it's something that should be addressed. Regardless, there should be a zero-tolerance policy for legitimate misogynistic, racist, and homophobic rhetoric possibly placed in WP:CIVIL with the caveat that you shouldn't use that as a crutch to avoid criticism.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Zoloft » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:00 am

DanMurphy wrote:I woke up this morning, saw the latest rape and death threats against women hacks in the UK, and decided to write something. This is how it came out.
Bravo. Makes the point succinctly.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Jim » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:38 am

DanMurphy wrote:I woke up this morning, saw the latest rape and death threats against women hacks in the UK, and decided to write something. This is how it came out.
+1 to everyone who has already praised you for this excellent article. Thanks. :bow:

User avatar
neved
Gregarious
Posts: 926
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:22 pm
Location: Here, for whatever reason, is the world. And here it stays. With me on it.

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by neved » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:12 pm

Peter Damian wrote:He’s talking about punching me too!
Thu Nov 24 17:03:30 2011

101 06[17:14] * tommorris wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales [[RealDoll]].
102 15[17:14] * Panyd (~Panyd@host109-158-170-165.range109-158.btcentralplus.com) Quit (Changing host)
103 03[17:14] * Panyd (~Panyd@wikipedia/Panyd) has joined #wikipedia-en
104 [17:14] <_trollface_> still, a bobble head would be fun
105 [17:14] <_trollface_> :P

106 [17:15] <Ironholds> tommorris: we could have a Peter Damian one!
107 [17:15] <Ironholds> as anatomically vacant as a ken doll
108 [17:15] <tommorris> Ironholds: you have to pay extra for the shemale option
109 [17:15] <Ironholds> "punching him in the face feels like punching the real thing!"
110 [17:15] <tommorris> no, better yet, wire it up to a thread on Wikipedia Review. every time you punch it, it updates the post
And now you've got an apology http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566824375
Those comments are juvenile, insulting and embarrassing. I apologise to both Jimmy Wales and to Peter Damian: it was stupid for me to say those things, and I'm sorry. I also apologise for using a transphobic slur.
I realised at some point between 2011 and now that participation in the "drama" side of Wikipedia makes me miserable and turns me into a sort of person I don't want to be. (On my deathbed, I can't imagine that I will regret not spending more time posting on ANI.) I now try to consciously opt-out of such situations. I think I have matured as a person; I would not take part in a conversation like the one excerpted above today. IRC can promote a rhetorical one-upmanship which can be excessive, mean and immature. I'm far more careful in what I say and have pared down the number of Wikimedia IRC channels I participate in.
As for OTRS, I act with discretion and try my hardest to deal with the emails I handle at OTRS in a kind and considerate way. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
and even Jimbo's comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566835261
Great, apology accepted from me at least. I expect Peter will accept that apology as well.
One problem with IRC is that it has the feel of a casual off-the-record chat with friends, and joking around is the norm. The result of this is a tone and manner of speaking that is often inappropriate upon further reflection. OTRS, on the other hand, has a formal and dignified tone that tends to bring out the best in people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
"We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children." Golda Meir

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Mancunium » Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:38 pm

Mancunium wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
Mancunium wrote:Edit: blog.ironholds.org is now "403 Forbidden" to me, but I can still read it by following the link at GitHub: link
Mr. Keyes set his site up to deny incoming links from here about a month ago. But you can still access it from the general intertube thingy.
Thank you. I tested the link on my Facebook page, and just assumed it would work when embedded here.
I'd like to thank you again, Dan. Yesterday I wrote a comment on your excellent CSM article, and on Vigilant's suggestion that Keyes deserves his own WP article; but when I edited it to include the link, via GitHub, to Ironhold's blog I deleted my original post.

I'm always being reminded that I'm not the brightest star in the WO galaxy.
former Living Person

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:12 pm

neved wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:He’s talking about punching me too!
Thu Nov 24 17:03:30 2011

101 06[17:14] * tommorris wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales [[RealDoll]].
102 15[17:14] * Panyd (~Panyd@host109-158-170-165.range109-158.btcentralplus.com) Quit (Changing host)
103 03[17:14] * Panyd (~Panyd@wikipedia/Panyd) has joined #wikipedia-en
104 [17:14] <_trollface_> still, a bobble head would be fun
105 [17:14] <_trollface_> :P

106 [17:15] <Ironholds> tommorris: we could have a Peter Damian one!
107 [17:15] <Ironholds> as anatomically vacant as a ken doll
108 [17:15] <tommorris> Ironholds: you have to pay extra for the shemale option
109 [17:15] <Ironholds> "punching him in the face feels like punching the real thing!"
110 [17:15] <tommorris> no, better yet, wire it up to a thread on Wikipedia Review. every time you punch it, it updates the post
And now you've got an apology http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566824375
Those comments are juvenile, insulting and embarrassing. I apologise to both Jimmy Wales and to Peter Damian: it was stupid for me to say those things, and I'm sorry. I also apologise for using a transphobic slur.
I realised at some point between 2011 and now that participation in the "drama" side of Wikipedia makes me miserable and turns me into a sort of person I don't want to be. (On my deathbed, I can't imagine that I will regret not spending more time posting on ANI.) I now try to consciously opt-out of such situations. I think I have matured as a person; I would not take part in a conversation like the one excerpted above today. IRC can promote a rhetorical one-upmanship which can be excessive, mean and immature. I'm far more careful in what I say and have pared down the number of Wikimedia IRC channels I participate in.
As for OTRS, I act with discretion and try my hardest to deal with the emails I handle at OTRS in a kind and considerate way. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
and even Jimbo's comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566835261
Great, apology accepted from me at least. I expect Peter will accept that apology as well.
One problem with IRC is that it has the feel of a casual off-the-record chat with friends, and joking around is the norm. The result of this is a tone and manner of speaking that is often inappropriate upon further reflection. OTRS, on the other hand, has a formal and dignified tone that tends to bring out the best in people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Two adults, particularly Mr. Tom Morris, behave like adults. What a refreshing change and an example for all.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:21 pm

Will Oliver Keyes finally be shamed into making his own adult apology?
Can he man up?
Will he find his big boy pants?

Time will tell.

My money is on, "No".
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Peter Damian » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:53 pm

neved wrote:And now you've got an apology http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566824375
Those comments are juvenile, insulting and embarrassing. I apologise to both Jimmy Wales and to Peter Damian: it was stupid for me to say those things, and I'm sorry. I also apologise for using a transphobic slur.
I realised at some point between 2011 and now that participation in the "drama" side of Wikipedia makes me miserable and turns me into a sort of person I don't want to be. (On my deathbed, I can't imagine that I will regret not spending more time posting on ANI.) I now try to consciously opt-out of such situations. I think I have matured as a person; I would not take part in a conversation like the one excerpted above today. IRC can promote a rhetorical one-upmanship which can be excessive, mean and immature. I'm far more careful in what I say and have pared down the number of Wikimedia IRC channels I participate in.
As for OTRS, I act with discretion and try my hardest to deal with the emails I handle at OTRS in a kind and considerate way. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
and even Jimbo's comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566835261
Great, apology accepted from me at least. I expect Peter will accept that apology as well.
One problem with IRC is that it has the feel of a casual off-the-record chat with friends, and joking around is the norm. The result of this is a tone and manner of speaking that is often inappropriate upon further reflection. OTRS, on the other hand, has a formal and dignified tone that tends to bring out the best in people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It's great to see an apology. It's not so great that I'm still not in a position to be able to accept it, o/a of being banned by one of the people who were involved in that discussion.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by EricBarbour » Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:26 pm

Thu Nov 24 17:03:30 2011

101 06[17:14] * tommorris wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales [[RealDoll]].
102 15[17:14] * Panyd (~Panyd@host109-158-170-165.range109-158.btcentralplus.com) Quit (Changing host)
103 03[17:14] * Panyd (~Panyd@wikipedia/Panyd) has joined #wikipedia-en
104 [17:14] <_trollface_> still, a bobble head would be fun
105 [17:14] <_trollface_> :P

106 [17:15] <Ironholds> tommorris: we could have a Peter Damian one!
107 [17:15] <Ironholds> as anatomically vacant as a ken doll
108 [17:15] <tommorris> Ironholds: you have to pay extra for the shemale option
109 [17:15] <Ironholds> "punching him in the face feels like punching the real thing!"
110 [17:15] <tommorris> no, better yet, wire it up to a thread on Wikipedia Review. every time you punch it, it updates the post
I will, of course, save this to my Tom Morris article. Preserved for future generations to marvel at.

If anyone has handy examples of Tom screwing with Quora threads, please pass them on to me. Tom doesn't do the real dirty tricks
on Wikipedia itself, he does them elsewhere.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:32 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Thu Nov 24 17:03:30 2011

101 06[17:14] * tommorris wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales [[RealDoll]].
102 15[17:14] * Panyd (~Panyd@host109-158-170-165.range109-158.btcentralplus.com) Quit (Changing host)
103 03[17:14] * Panyd (~Panyd@wikipedia/Panyd) has joined #wikipedia-en
104 [17:14] <_trollface_> still, a bobble head would be fun
105 [17:14] <_trollface_> :P

106 [17:15] <Ironholds> tommorris: we could have a Peter Damian one!
107 [17:15] <Ironholds> as anatomically vacant as a ken doll
108 [17:15] <tommorris> Ironholds: you have to pay extra for the shemale option
109 [17:15] <Ironholds> "punching him in the face feels like punching the real thing!"
110 [17:15] <tommorris> no, better yet, wire it up to a thread on Wikipedia Review. every time you punch it, it updates the post
I will, of course, save this to my Tom Morris article. Preserved for future generations to marvel at.

If anyone has handy examples of Tom screwing with Quora threads, please pass them on to me. Tom doesn't do the real dirty tricks
on Wikipedia itself, he does them elsewhere.
Actually, Tom posts pretty sensible stuff on Quora as far as I have seen.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:53 am

HRIP7 wrote:Actually, Tom posts pretty sensible stuff on Quora as far as I have seen.
Yes, he "posts sensible stuff" almost anywhere in public view. He's also quite the deletionist, and as you've seen, he's been a regular
on IRC, making tasteless jokes with the best/worst of them. And he reliably meatpuppets for Jimbo on Quora. My problem with Tom is that
he turns a blind eye when really bad things happen, especially at WMUK. And of course, he has no problems with Ironholds at all.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:15 am

EricBarbour wrote:...He's also quite the deletionist, and as you've seen, he's been a regular on IRC, making tasteless jokes with the best/worst of them. And he reliably meatpuppets for Jimbo on Quora.
How recently? It almost sounds like he had some sort of breakdown, if we're to take him at his word when he says "I realised at some point between 2011 and now that participation in the "drama" side of Wikipedia makes me miserable and turns me into a sort of person I don't want to be."

And of course, there's nothing wrong with being a "deletionist" in my book, since I don't even believe the term has any sort of legitimate meaning. As for Quora... sure, that's bad, but it's also Quora.

Obviously it's not hard to believe that any given apology one gets from a WP'er is insincere - and of course we all remember a time when apologies of any kind were pretty much impossible to get, even when it was really obvious that the person was saying or doing something egregiously awful. (Not that they're easy to get now, of course... and I'm not referring to apologies owed to WR people either, though IMO there were a few cases of those too.) But this one I could believe, if only based on context.

Then again, I'd hardly even heard of this guy until now, so take all this with a grain of salt.
Last edited by Midsize Jake on Sat Aug 03, 2013 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:44 am

I don't think much of apologies, especially when they come under pressure. An unrepentant jackass can apologize just as easily as a traitor can recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Not that I am saying he is an unrepentant jackass, just that saying you are sorry and actually being sorry are not one and the same.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


User avatar
Tasty Barnacle
Contributor
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:58 pm

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Tasty Barnacle » Sat Aug 03, 2013 2:18 am

DanMurphy wrote:I woke up this morning, saw the latest rape and death threats against women hacks in the UK, and decided to write something. This is how it came out.
I only saw Dan Murphy's article today when I noticed the warring over it on the Wikipediocracy page on WP ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566858739 )

Thanks for writing that article, Dan.

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:19 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
neved wrote:And now you've got an apology http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566824375
Those comments are juvenile, insulting and embarrassing. I apologise to both Jimmy Wales and to Peter Damian: it was stupid for me to say those things, and I'm sorry. I also apologise for using a transphobic slur.
I realised at some point between 2011 and now that participation in the "drama" side of Wikipedia makes me miserable and turns me into a sort of person I don't want to be. (On my deathbed, I can't imagine that I will regret not spending more time posting on ANI.) I now try to consciously opt-out of such situations. I think I have matured as a person; I would not take part in a conversation like the one excerpted above today. IRC can promote a rhetorical one-upmanship which can be excessive, mean and immature. I'm far more careful in what I say and have pared down the number of Wikimedia IRC channels I participate in.
As for OTRS, I act with discretion and try my hardest to deal with the emails I handle at OTRS in a kind and considerate way. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
and even Jimbo's comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566835261
Great, apology accepted from me at least. I expect Peter will accept that apology as well.
One problem with IRC is that it has the feel of a casual off-the-record chat with friends, and joking around is the norm. The result of this is a tone and manner of speaking that is often inappropriate upon further reflection. OTRS, on the other hand, has a formal and dignified tone that tends to bring out the best in people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It's great to see an apology. It's not so great that I'm still not in a position to be able to accept it, o/a of being banned by one of the people who were involved in that discussion.
The latest reported WP:IRC dialogue with sexual violence and humiliation by Oliver Keyes ( Ironholds (T-C-L) , Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) )
101 [17:14] * tommorris wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales RealDoll.
106 [17:15] <Ironholds> tommorris: we could have a Peter Damian one!
107 [17:15] <Ironholds> as anatomically vacant as a ken doll
108 [17:15] <tommorris> Ironholds: you have to pay extra for the shemale option
109 [17:15] <Ironholds> "punching him in the face feels like punching the real thing!"
was noted by me at the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds ArbCom case:
TParis (T-C-L) (on my talk page)[16] and by (WMF employee) Tom Morris (T-C-L) recently on the talk page of Jimbo Wales (T-C-L) (talk · contribs) [17] made no criticisms of the veracity of the IRC logs, but rather took responsibility and apologized for their own small parts in the discussions with Ironholds. That the November 2011 discussion (by only WMF's "community liaison") involved sexual violence targeting Peter Damian (T-C-L) is another reason to be concerned, given the treatment of Damian by ArbCom. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 2:48 pm, Today (UTC+2)
Both TParis (T-C-L) and Tom Morris (T-C-L) accept the veracity of the IRC logs.
In contrast, Ironholds (T-C-L), Demiwit/Demiurge1000 (T-C-L), and Worm That Turned (T-C-L) continue to pretend that the logs have been fabricated...!
I do take the logs I've seen with a pinch of salt as I am aware logs have been manipulated in the past, so I personally appreciated Ironholds to corroborating some of his statements.
Fear of exposure motivates Ironholds and Demiurge1000's denial, but what motivates WTT/David Craven?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Peter Damian » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:28 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
neved wrote:And now you've got an apology http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566824375
Those comments are juvenile, insulting and embarrassing. I apologise to both Jimmy Wales and to Peter Damian: it was stupid for me to say those things, and I'm sorry. I also apologise for using a transphobic slur.
I realised at some point between 2011 and now that participation in the "drama" side of Wikipedia makes me miserable and turns me into a sort of person I don't want to be. (On my deathbed, I can't imagine that I will regret not spending more time posting on ANI.) I now try to consciously opt-out of such situations. I think I have matured as a person; I would not take part in a conversation like the one excerpted above today. IRC can promote a rhetorical one-upmanship which can be excessive, mean and immature. I'm far more careful in what I say and have pared down the number of Wikimedia IRC channels I participate in.
As for OTRS, I act with discretion and try my hardest to deal with the emails I handle at OTRS in a kind and considerate way. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
and even Jimbo's comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =566835261
Great, apology accepted from me at least. I expect Peter will accept that apology as well.
One problem with IRC is that it has the feel of a casual off-the-record chat with friends, and joking around is the norm. The result of this is a tone and manner of speaking that is often inappropriate upon further reflection. OTRS, on the other hand, has a formal and dignified tone that tends to bring out the best in people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It's great to see an apology. It's not so great that I'm still not in a position to be able to accept it, o/a of being banned by one of the people who were involved in that discussion.
The latest reported WP:IRC dialogue with sexual violence and humiliation by Oliver Keyes ( Ironholds (T-C-L) , Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) )
101 [17:14] * tommorris wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales RealDoll.
106 [17:15] <Ironholds> tommorris: we could have a Peter Damian one!
107 [17:15] <Ironholds> as anatomically vacant as a ken doll
108 [17:15] <tommorris> Ironholds: you have to pay extra for the shemale option
109 [17:15] <Ironholds> "punching him in the face feels like punching the real thing!"
was noted by me at the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds ArbCom case:
TParis (T-C-L) (on my talk page)[16] and by (WMF employee) Tom Morris (T-C-L) recently on the talk page of Jimbo Wales (T-C-L) (talk · contribs) [17] made no criticisms of the veracity of the IRC logs, but rather took responsibility and apologized for their own small parts in the discussions with Ironholds. That the November 2011 discussion (by only WMF's "community liaison") involved sexual violence targeting Peter Damian (T-C-L) is another reason to be concerned, given the treatment of Damian by ArbCom. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 2:48 pm, Today (UTC+2)
Both TParis (T-C-L) and Tom Morris (T-C-L) accept the veracity of the IRC logs.
In contrast, Ironholds (T-C-L), Demiwit/Demiurge1000 (T-C-L), and Worm That Turned (T-C-L) continue to pretend that the logs have been fabricated...!
I do take the logs I've seen with a pinch of salt as I am aware logs have been manipulated in the past, so I personally appreciated Ironholds to corroborating some of his statements.
Fear of exposure motivates Ironholds and Demiurge1000's denial, but what motivates WTT/David Craven?
Deleted by Arbcom http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =567108606
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:04 pm

Somebody needs to get this Nick (T-C-L) character under control.
What the hell is a sensible person doing, voluntarily, on an ARBCOM page.

Shit's getting sideways, something reasonable might happen if he doesn't shut the hell up.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Peter Damian » Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:11 pm

Vigilant wrote:Somebody needs to get this Nick (T-C-L) character under control.
What the hell is a sensible person doing, voluntarily, on an ARBCOM page.

Shit's getting sideways, something reasonable might happen if he doesn't shut the hell up.
Yup he really needs bringing under control.
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.
[...]
Nick (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
What the hell. Enough is enough.

Oh I see:
There was a reason the WMF staff member was badmouthing him.
WormTT(talk) 09:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:19 pm

Next thing you know, he's going to be calling for equality amongst the editor/admin classes!
Bloody wogs!
Peter Damian wrote:Oh I see:
There was a reason the WMF staff member was badmouthing him.
WormTT(talk) 09:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the reason for this badmouthing something along the lines of "the WMF employee is a mentally damaged narcissist with poor impulse control"?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Jim » Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:38 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:I don't think much of apologies
Ah. The apologist who doesn't think much of apologies. I'll parse that later, if I may - my irony chip is offline for maintenance.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:37 pm

Three days into the Proposed Decision part of the Kiefer/Ironholds case and nothing's been written on the decision page.

With the Workshop and Evidence pages being so thin, I can only imagine that they're trying, like a college freshman in English 101, toe fill out the standard length of the text.

Someone will vomit up the bulk of the foregone verdict like a sperm whale with a stuck squid beak and the drones will swarm to embrace it.

Protip : Try moving in the margins and bumping up the font size.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Zoloft » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:41 pm

Vigilant wrote:Three days into the Proposed Decision part of the Kiefer/Ironholds case and nothing's been written on the decision page.

With the Workshop and Evidence pages being so thin, I can only imagine that they're trying, like a college freshman in English 101, toe fill out the standard length of the text.

Someone will vomit up the bulk of the foregone verdict like a sperm whale with a stuck squid beak and the drones will swarm to embrace it.

Protip : Try moving in the margins and bumping up the font size.
It's all about tweaking the line spacing.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:54 pm

Vigilant wrote:Three days into the Proposed Decision part of the Kiefer/Ironholds case and nothing's been written on the decision page.
I wrote two messages at the decision's talk page:
The first message repeated the request(s) to have Demiurge1000 (T-C-L), Worm That Turned (T-C-L) (Dave Craven), and Mark Arsten (T-C-L) added as parties:
Parties
This is the last stage at which parties may be added to the case. For the record I repeat my request that the following users be added:
  • Mark Arsten (T-C-L), as the filer of the case, per Arbitration Guidelines;
    Demiurge1000 (T-C-L), since much of the evidence concerns Demiurge1000 and myself;
    Worm That Turned (T-C-L), since much of the evidence concerns Worm That Turned (along with Demiurge1000) and myself.
An interaction ban with Demiurge1000 has been urged by many in the community for years. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 3:28 pm, Today (UTC+2)
The second message concerned the canvassing by administrators on #wikipedia-en OR #wikipedia-en-admin to support (indefinitely) blocking me.
IRC canvassing by administrators: Names and actions

Nick (T-C-L) stated that at the ANI discussion---in which Oliver Keyes (Ironholds (T-C-L), Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) ) made his suggestion that (roughly) "nobody unblock KW unless he wishes to be thwapped"---administrators were canvassed on IRC to support indefinitely blocking me at ANI. Evidence has been submitted by email to ArbCom, but none of it has been forwarded to me.

Please forward me the evidence.

Please post answers to the following questions:
  • 1. Which administrators were canvassing?
    2. Which administrators were participating in the IRC discussions and failed to come forward and alert the community of canvassing?
Any canvassing or acquiescent administrators should have their administrative-status removed (or at least they should have a public admonishment for canvassing or failing to alert the community about the canvassing). Such canvassing or complicit administrators need to be added as parties to this case.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) 3:37 pm, Today (UTC+2)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Peter Damian » Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:49 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:I wrote two messages at the decision's talk page:
I can't decide whether I want you to be banned or not. Half of me feels it would be unjust and cruel. The other half longs for the drama.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Mason
Habitué
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Mason » Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:00 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:I wrote two messages at the decision's talk page:
I can't decide whether I want you to be banned or not. Half of me feels it would be unjust and cruel. The other half longs for the drama.
I suspect there will be drama either way. My guess is the only reason the admins aren't whacking KW now for his not-all-that-veiled accusations that Demiurge1000 is an aspiring child molester is because they're assuming ArbCom will save them the trouble. If ArbCom just gives KW a Stern Warning, expect them to come out of the woodwork with blockhammers flying.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Peter Damian » Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:56 am

You may know about this already, but a comment you made on IRC was mentioned in a Christian Science Monitor article as an example of alleged misogyny on Wikipedia: [1] Robofish (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware of it; thanks for letting me know anyway. My perspective on it is the same as it's always been; that I was an incredibly dumb 18 year old, a marginally smarted 19 year old, and...so on and so forth. I'm not perfect today, by a heck of a long way, but I'm getting better at screwing up less - or, at least, screwing up in new, rather than old, ways. It doesn't diminish the impropriety of my actions, which is high, but I'm content with setting the standard that I will improve each day. Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Well he's 23 now and many of the juvenile comments were in the last three years, one of them very recently. And it doesn't read like an apology. I mailed Sue Gardner about the sex doll remark, copying Keyes. No reply.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

everyking
Critic
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:31 am
Wikipedia User: Everyking
Wikipedia Review Member: Everyking

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by everyking » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:16 pm

It seems to me that maybe someone with such a history of insults and violent fantasies isn't well-suited for handling community outreach for the WMF. Can they find no one else to do this job, or is that they prefer to hire the least suitable individuals?

Reading his user page for his WMF account, I saw this: "My job is to ensure that, when designing features, the Foundation takes the needs and perspectives of editors into account. ... At the moment I'm working on launching the VisualEditor." All right, in that case, the Foundation should have cancelled all work on the Visual Editor...several weeks ago, right? But since that hasn't happened, either he isn't doing his job or they don't listen to him.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:43 pm

At least they're following the same rules as everyone else.
Nick brings up something and is told by a snide, hat collector clerk that it's too late for that. The pages are closed.

Then, this.
Update

The proposed decision is almost ready; it should be posted within the next couple of days. Thanks for your patience... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Salvio.
That page will be closed in less than 12 hours.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:44 pm

Vigilant wrote:At least they're following the same rules as everyone else.
Nick brings up something and is told by a snide, hat collector clerk that it's too late for that. The pages are closed.

Then, this.
Update

The proposed decision is almost ready; it should be posted within the next couple of days. Thanks for your patience... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Salvio.
That page will be closed in less than 12 hours.

Salvio giuliano (T-C-L) and Roger Davies (T-C-L) are the drafting arbitrators.
:axemurderer:
The decision is about to be posted, after which comments by the community shall be entertained, while arbitrators vote, etc.
:popcorn:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:32 pm

I made some modest suggestions as the "principles" of the decision:
Reports that an editor may be violating Wikipedia's policy regarding the protection of children must be communicated in private to the Arbitration Committee or to the Wikimedia Foundation. Users must not discuss such allegations on-wiki; users who do so may receive sanctions up to and including an indefinite block, regardless of the correctness of the allegations.
This is weak.

I would suggest something more substantive:
In the past, the Arbitration Committee or its leading members have been informed of apparent violations of the child-protection policy, such as on-Wikipedia
  • alerting a child that the adult shall visit his community
    telling a child how to get around parental attempts to stop emailing, suggesting alternative social-media sites without age restrictions, and then continuing to email and IM the child (despite the parents' and child's wishes to stop),
    etc.
Even when the alerted members of the Arbitration Committee do nothing, editors are reminded that they will be indefinitely blocked if they raise the issue on-Wiki. They should go to Wikipediocracy (T-H-L), which has a history of exposing child predators.
This is really the issue in this case, after all. And none of you have done a thing to block the editor.

Uneven enforcement of civility

I proposed this principle in the workshop. Adopting it would clarify why you guys omit any discussion of personal attacks and incivility directed at me, to which I've responded in diffs you select.

Non-administrators shall accept personal attacks (especially false accusations) and incivility against themselves and other Wikipedia users, particularly when NPA and Civility violations are committed by elites (arbitrators, their clerks, bureaucrats, administrators, their familiars, and sock-puppets posing as new editors), per WP:Non-retaliation and per the uneven enforcement of civility endorsed by ArbCom in 2012. Non-administrators shall stop asking that administrators be blocked or warned for violating WP:NPA and WP:Civility, when accepting a block for civil disobedience. Listing examples of administrative abuse disrupts Wikipedia.
Unless this principle is adopted, there's no reason for you to omit the diffs from Beeblebrox (T-C-L) ("bullshitiness"), from Brown Haired Girl (misquoting me), etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) 1:25 am, Today (UTC+2)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
rhindle
Habitué
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:44 pm
Wikipedia User: Kafkaesque
Wikipedia Review Member: rhindle
Location: 'Murica

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by rhindle » Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:57 pm

It looks like Ironholds may be going down with you.

Wer900
Gregarious
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Wer900

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Wer900 » Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:03 am

rhindle wrote:It looks like Ironholds may be going down with you.
Heck, even I proposed lighter punishments for Ironholds. Good thing he didn't get the "extra life" treatment given to most administrators, though.
Obvious civility robots are obvious

User avatar
rhindle
Habitué
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:44 pm
Wikipedia User: Kafkaesque
Wikipedia Review Member: rhindle
Location: 'Murica

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by rhindle » Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:07 am

Wer900 wrote:
rhindle wrote:It looks like Ironholds may be going down with you.
Heck, even I proposed lighter punishments for Ironholds. Good thing he didn't get the "extra life" treatment given to most administrators, though.
I think it was called the "Super Mario" problem.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:17 am

I will link to the Proposed Remedies directly.

So far, I only see Kirill voting. The Workshop page is full of the same old IRC assholes, plus Mathsci, snivelling and screaming
for "justice", while stabbing Kiefer in the back repeatedly. AGK is still untrustworthy.
Banning me while welcoming Oliver Keyes (User:Ironholds, User:Okeyes (WMF)) and User:Demiurge1000 would clarify ArbCom's ability to handle WP:Civility, violence, misogyny, and child protection.
How did ArbCom's covering up of Qworty work out for Wikipedia? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
In 2007, he would have been "community banned forever" for saying such a thing. But then, those were the days of "TINC",
and today there isn't even a "TINC", there's just a bunch of process abusers arguing. Say what you wish, I still think Wikipedia
is declining.

Seriously, I suspect Arbcom will pussy out (again) and this case will fail (again).

Wer900
Gregarious
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Wer900

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Wer900 » Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:21 am

EricBarbour wrote: So far, I only see Kirill voting. The Workshop page is full of the same old IRC assholes, plus Mathsci, snivelling and screaming for "justice", while stabbing Kiefer in the back repeatedly. AGK is still untrustworthy.
AGK has shown himself as someone who is trying to be a liar and cheat. So what if all interactions with Ironholds were initiated by Keyes himself? Does that mean that the interactions somehow weren't a two-way street? Furthermore, the treatment of Kiefer in the case does not consider that he has been a Wikipedia critic, that many administrators hounded him into incivility, and the broader context of process-abusers in which Kiefer's comments were considered incivility. Mathsci remains an asshole.
Obvious civility robots are obvious

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by The Joy » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:03 am

rhindle wrote:It looks like Ironholds may be going down with you.
I call it the "Kamikaze Solution." In order to bring down a big, bad Wikipedian, a really good Wikipedian must sacrifice his/herself for the greater good. Like the real kamikazes (as Cla68 could better explain), few were successful overall.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Zoloft » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:22 am

The Joy wrote:
rhindle wrote:It looks like Ironholds may be going down with you.
I call it the "Kamikaze Solution." In order to bring down a big, bad Wikipedian, a really good Wikipedian must sacrifice his/herself for the greater good. Like the real kamikazes (as Cla68 could better explain), few were successful overall.
I would say they had more than a 'few' successes.

List of Ships sunk by Kamikaze Attack:

1944
Oct 25      St. Lo (CVE-63) (escort carrier) [8]
Nov 01      Abner Read (DD-526) (destroyer)
Nov 27      SC-744 (submarine chaser)
Dec 05      LSM-20 (landing ship, medium)
Dec 07      Mahan (DD-364) (destroyer)
Dec 07      LSM-318 (landing ship, medium)
Dec 07      Ward (APD-16) (high-speed transport)
Dec 10      William S. Ladd (Liberty cargo ship)
Dec 10      PT-323 (motor torpedo boat)
Dec 11      Reid (DD-369) (destroyer)
Dec 15      LST-472 (landing ship, tank)
Dec 15      LST-738 (landing ship, tank)
Dec 18      PT-300 (motor torpedo boat)
Dec 21      LST-460 (landing ship, tank)
Dec 21      LST-749 (landing ship, tank)
Dec 28      John Burke (Liberty cargo ship)
Dec 30      Porcupine (IX-126) (auxiliary tanker)

1945
Jan 04      Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) (escort carrier)
Jan 05      Lewis L. Dyche (Liberty cargo ship)
Jan 06      Long (DMS-12) (high-speed minesweeper)
Feb 21      Bismark Sea (CVE-21) (escort carrier)
Apr 06      Bush (DD-529) (destroyer)
Apr 06      Colhoun (DD-801) (destroyer)
Apr 06      Emmons (DMS-22) (high-speed minesweeper)
Apr 06      Hobbs Victory (cargo ship)
Apr 06      Logan Victory (cargo ship)
Apr 07      LST-447 (landing ship, tank) [9]
Apr 12      Mannert L. Abele (DD-733) (destroyer)
Apr 12      LCS(L)(3)-33 (landing craft, support (large) (Mk. III)) [10]
Apr 16      Pringle (DD-477) (destroyer)
Apr 22      Swallow (AM-65) (minesweeper)
Apr 22      LCS(L)(3)-15 (landing craft, support (large) (Mk. III))
Apr 27      Canada Victory (cargo ship)
May 03      Little (DD-803) (destroyer)
May 03      LSM(R)-195 (landing ship, medium (rocket))
May 04      Morrison (DD-560) (destroyer)
May 04      Luce (DD-522) (destroyer)
May 04      LSM(R)-190 (landing ship, medium (rocket))
May 04      LSM(R)-194 (landing ship, medium (rocket))
May 25      Bates (APD-47) (high-speed transport)
May 25      LSM-135 (landing ship, medium)
May 28      Drexler (DD-741) (destroyer)
Jun 10      William D. Porter (DD-579) (destroyer)
Jun 16      Twiggs (DD-591) (destroyer)
Jun 21      LSM-59 (landing ship, medium)
Jun 21      Barry (APD-29) (high-speed transport) [11]
Jul 29      Callaghan (DD-792) (destroyer) [12]

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Aug 11, 2013 3:25 am

Oliver Keyes has made an implicit appeal for leniency. It's pretty smarmy stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... _Ironholds
Comment by Ironholds

A lot of the proposed decision here seems perfectly reasonable - the principles are certainly things that should be reiterated, for example - and I've got no issue with the idea that I should be sanctioned for my actions, which as I've said, were highly inappropriate: I make no bones about that. Having said that, I do have a few concerns.
As long as the sanctions mean nothing, I'm totally fine with them.
Probation is the most I'll accept. No prison time for white boys.
Findings

The first centres around the 3rd finding of fact. In order, it states that I have:

"a history of making a highly inappropriate remarks on-wiki";
"[that same history] off-wiki";
"Logged out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia project".
Keep in mind that this history would have anyone besides a member of the royalty indeffed a long, long time ago.
These statements are all presented with equal footing - I make inappropriate remarks on-wiki, off-wiki and logged out. They're very different situations, however. In support of the first point, the proposed decision provides a single diff from August 2011 - of an edit that was almost immediately reverted, by me. In support of the third statement, the decision contains two diffs, one from July 2011 and one from August. I have no issue with those being factored in given my off-wiki conduct, even with how old they are, but presenting it as a continuing pattern of behaviour with a single diff, or with two diffs, that are two years old, seems problematic. I would request that the finding be reworded, unless further evidence has been presented that suggests on-wiki problems have continued. If that is the case, it has not been presented to me, and is not incorporated into the proposed decision.
The only reason that there's not vastly more evidence is the stupid "no logging" rule that's in place for IRC.
There's nobody that thinks that these are the only shitty remarks you've made on IRC in the past few years.
We just can't find them all because of self serving rules that are designed to reduce accountability.

At this point, you've admitted to the misconduct you are accused of. You should expect to be banned. Anyone else would be.
My second issue is around my ban proposal; if the Committee feels that's appropriate, that's your prerogative, but I'm surprised to see that my statements are being treated in precisely the same way as Kiefer's. I'd argue they're two different classes of statement and two very different users.
Why wouldn't you be treated in precisely the same way?!
Are you promulgating the separation of the classes right there in a public ARBCOM finding?
In my case, yes, I have behaved inappropriately - tremendously so, on occasion. Much of this occurred very long in the past (the logs that the Arbitration Committee presented to me as evidence did not include year/month/day timestamps - were these provided to the Committee?) but some of it recently. Of the evidence presented to me, the most recent inappropriate statements happened on IRC, which previous statements by the Arbitration Committee suggests is, in line with the policy on off-wiki venues, treated as generally irrelevant - or only really considered as aggravating elements to other disputes.
Much of it is hidden by the ban on IRC logging, even in official WMF channels that are linked to and that editors are pointed to for official WMF contacts.
That you want to keep them unlogged is more telling than anything else you could say here.
I've been using IRC since at least 2008 without particular problems. The first occasion on which my behaviour was presented as a substantial issue was this Arbitration Case. Having been made aware of the consequences of my actions - both in terms of project perception, and the opinions of users I very much respect - I'd like to think I've corrected for them. I've withdrawn from the relevant IRC channels, I've kept my cool during this case, and I suspect that if there was any recent evidence of me acting problematically on-wiki it would already have been presented. My statements were inappropriate, and I am solving for that.
I call shenanigans. This is the first time you've been caught. Even your supporters have said, in kinder words than I'm about to, that you're a dickhead on IRC. "Oh, he's got a harsh sense of humor" is merely code for "he's a dickhead I like" and we all know it.
Kiefer's actions are (I would argue) more problematic than mine - but most of them aren't presented here.
Let me spell this out for you, you flailing simpleton:
* Kiefer is not a WMF employee.
* Kiefer is not a paid community liaison.
* Kiefer is not an administrator.
* Kiefer is not holding court in an official WMF IRC admin channel.
Do you get it?
The Arbitration Committee acknowledged receipt of my evidence of his off-wiki commentary, but has neither explicitly or implicitly recognised it: I would ask for a statement on that, if the Committee is willing to make one. Even if we only limit the case to his on-wiki statements, the consequences of them are not (I suspect) a surprise to anyone here; his behaviour was brought up in an RfC several years ago, and his block log and a cursory search of AN/I indicates it's continued to be something of concern to the community since. There's no question that he's been aware people find his behaviour problematic for some time. During the arbitration case itself, he's been repeatedly blocked for his behaviour and has engaged with myself and other users in a highly confrontational manner.
Buh, buh, buh he did it worse than me, mum.
Can your behavior not stand on its own?
In light of the differing situations, and different responses to the case, it seems odd to be treating both parties as entities that should be sanctioned equally.
The only difference is that your behavior is far, far below what is expected of an administrator and WMF employee.
You guys traded barbs, mostly initiated by YOU.
Absence of findings

My final (and perhaps largest) concern is around what the proposed decision doesn't say. As mentioned above, I submitted a body of evidence to the Arbitration Committee regarding Kiefer's off-wiki actions - this does not seem to be mentioned in the proposed decision as an area of concern, while my actions are. My primary hypothesis as to why this is is that the venues are different: that the Committee is implicitly acknowledging that some off-wiki venues are more worthy of concern and factoring in than others.
Perhaps it's because you were being a giant douchebag in an official admin channel, trashing someone there who could not respond do to his lack of ADVANCED PERMISSIONS?
Perhaps they just found your mewling and fawning statements to be unconvincing?
If this is the case - and I disagree with it, but that's by-the-by - the Committee needs to come out and say as much explicitly. Historically, the Committee has not only not distinguished between off-wiki venues but has actively found that IRC is not considered subject to on-wiki restrictions, and vice versa. If the Committee is choosing to implicitly reverse one or both of these positions the result is going to be substantial ambiguity in what is or is not permitted and where. In the long-term, that's more damaging than any finding of fact. Ironholds (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
You're as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
STFU and take your punishment.
I'll bet you've had an historic problem of being constitutionally unable to take responsibility for your actions.

P.S. Note that there has never been a formal, public apology for his remarks...ever.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Wer900
Gregarious
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Wer900

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Wer900 » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:18 am

Oliver Keyes should have just accepted the three-month ban with parole provisions I asked for, and not said another word. That was EXTREMELY lenient.

Also, it seems that only Kirill is voting in favor of Ironholds's bannination; all of the others seem to support the status quo. In the principles section, though, I saw Risker voting in favor of the principle that the community's primary goal is to create a high-quality encyclopedia (with teh civiliteh more important, of course). Funny for someone who only edits the drama boards and Arbitration cases.
Obvious civility robots are obvious

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Zoloft » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:26 am

Wer900 wrote:Oliver Keyes should have just accepted the three-month ban with parole provisions I asked for, and not said another word. That was EXTREMELY lenient.
Not to be impolite, but who listens to you on Wikipedia? Or me, for that matter?

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


Wer900
Gregarious
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Wer900

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Wer900 » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:32 am

Zoloft wrote:
Wer900 wrote:Oliver Keyes should have just accepted the three-month ban with parole provisions I asked for, and not said another word. That was EXTREMELY lenient.
Not to be impolite, but who listens to you on Wikipedia? Or me, for that matter?
People who care about content rather than power players like Apteva (T-C-L) of dash-dispute fame, who is reputed for announcing a violation of WP:NPA (T-H-L) when one editor refers to another by name. I have never
Obvious civility robots are obvious

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:42 am

Vigilant wrote:STFU and take your punishment.
Don't worry, there won't be any.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Aug 11, 2013 5:37 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Vigilant wrote:STFU and take your punishment.
Don't worry, there won't be any.
I've got a shiny dollar says you're right.
I'll bet that Nick is not long for en.wp if this goes the way we think it will.

They'll save a villain and lose a saint.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Sun Aug 11, 2013 6:41 am

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:I made some modest suggestions as the "principles" of the decision:
Reports that an editor may be violating Wikipedia's policy regarding the protection of children must be communicated in private to the Arbitration Committee or to the Wikimedia Foundation. Users must not discuss such allegations on-wiki; users who do so may receive sanctions up to and including an indefinite block, regardless of the correctness of the allegations.
This is weak.

I would suggest something more substantive:
In the past, the Arbitration Committee or its leading members have been informed of apparent violations of the child-protection policy, such as on-Wikipedia
  • alerting a child that the adult shall visit his community
    telling a child how to get around parental attempts to stop emailing, suggesting alternative social-media sites without age restrictions, and then continuing to email and IM the child (despite the parents' and child's wishes to stop),
    etc.
Even when the alerted members of the Arbitration Committee do nothing, editors are reminded that they will be indefinitely blocked if they raise the issue on-Wiki. They should go to Wikipediocracy (T-H-L), which has a history of exposing child predators.
This is really the issue in this case, after all. And none of you have done a thing to block the editor.

Uneven enforcement of civility

I proposed this principle in the workshop. Adopting it would clarify why you guys omit any discussion of personal attacks and incivility directed at me, to which I've responded in diffs you select.

Non-administrators shall accept personal attacks (especially false accusations) and incivility against themselves and other Wikipedia users, particularly when NPA and Civility violations are committed by elites (arbitrators, their clerks, bureaucrats, administrators, their familiars, and sock-puppets posing as new editors), per WP:Non-retaliation and per the uneven enforcement of civility endorsed by ArbCom in 2012. Non-administrators shall stop asking that administrators be blocked or warned for violating WP:NPA and WP:Civility, when accepting a block for civil disobedience. Listing examples of administrative abuse disrupts Wikipedia.
Unless this principle is adopted, there's no reason for you to omit the diffs from Beeblebrox (T-C-L) ("bullshitiness"), from Brown Haired Girl (misquoting me), etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) 1:25 am, Today (UTC+2)
Kiefer, are you by any chance related to this guy?

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Jim » Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:36 am

Has anyone else noticed the timing of this proposed decision, after ages of nothing, it pops in while he's at Wikimania trying to big himself up with his "friends" at the WMF - or am I reading more into it than I should?

It's almost as though someone, knowing that it will probably get backtracked and swept under the carpet, or commuted to 4 hours vandal patrol as community service, wanted to milk the maximum embarrassment they could out of it...

Maybe not, and I've caught Wnt syndrome, seeing ulterior motives under every bed... :dizzy:

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by DanMurphy » Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:07 pm

They have already voted that the Wikimedia Foundation's community liaison for product development Oliver Keyes by stripped of his advanced permissions (being an "administrator") "for conduct unbecoming an administrator and for bringing the project into disrepute."

They are one vote shy of indefinitely banning him. I wonder if his WMF employment contract names loss of "community trust" as a reason for termination? Somehow, I doubt it.

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by Jim » Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:21 pm

DanMurphy wrote:They have already voted that the Wikimedia Foundation's community liaison for product development Oliver Keyes by stripped of his advanced permissions (being an "administrator") "for conduct unbecoming an administrator and for bringing the project into disrepute."
They are one vote shy of indefinitely banning him.

Wow - I hadn't checked it since this morning. Looks like I might be wrong about it getting swept away...
I wonder if his WMF employment contract names loss of "community trust" as a reason for termination? Somehow, I doubt it.
I doubt you're wrong here, though.

dogbiscuit
Retired
Posts: 2723
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod

Re: Down with Ironholds?

Unread post by dogbiscuit » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:42 pm

If the Wikipedia liaison is banned from Wikipedia, then he can hardly carry on his job.

More to the point is that Sue Gardner has clearly nailed her mast to the colours with her Ironholds endorsement at Wikimania. If Sue thinks abusive behaviour is fine and dandy, then I think that she ought to be a bit more supportive of abusive efforts by others with good intentions for The Project - I'd certainly expect Greg to get a free pass.
Time for a new signature.

Post Reply