Down with Ironholds?

[Jim]

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

Salvio and Risker talk about it here:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz_and_Ironholds/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators (T-H-L)

I have been told, in private, that the proposal to ban the Ironholds account, while allowing Oliver to edit the project using his User:Okeyes (WMF) account may cause misunderstandings. The reason for the exception is rather simple, actually: though I think that Oliver should not allowed to edit en.wiki at all, at the same time, I also believe that we lack the authority to tell the Foundation how to manage their personnel and so, in my opinion, benning the User:Okeyes (WMF) account would be outside of ArbCom's remit. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It was me who raised the question. I do not believe that the Arbitration Committee has a place in telling anyone's employer how to handle their employees, even the WMF; in fact, the community has determined (and Arbcom supported) that such interference in real-world employment (even with the WMF, as seen in the Racepacket case) is grounds for removing editors from the project for extended periods if not permanently. I misunderstood Salvio's intent in his proposal for indefinite blocking, and I now understand that he does not believe that Ironholds should be permitted on the project, period, but also doesn't want to run afoul of the WMF.
I also believe that *this* iteration of the committee, after many years of experience for the most part, should know better than to deliberately set up a situation where a new committee has to review a contentious indefinite block practically at the start of their term; this has historically, year after year, caused significant problems in cohesiveness of newly formed committees and could potentially even affect the outcome of the next election. Risker (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

[DanMurphy]

Just imagine the boilerplate on Mr. Keyes' WMF userpage:

Hello! I'm Oliver Keyes, a community liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation. I also have a regular volunteer account on the English-language Wikipedia under the handle "Ironholds", but it's currently banned from editing because as a volunteer I was found guilty of severe violations of community norms. But as a WMF Foundation employee I've been found guilty of nothing at all and I'm here to help you navigate this wonderful and exciting project.

[Vigilant]

The severity of the infractions is sufficient to require temporary removal from the project; however, almost all of the examples given occurred more than a year ago, and Ironholds has recognized the inappropriateness of and apologized for the more recent episode. This is one of those rare cases where I believe a set-time ban would be appropriate. Risker (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Against which, they happened after he passed his (fifth) RFA.

No, he hasn't apologized to the person he said these things about.
And it took him SEVEN tries at RfA.

Come on, Anne. It's like you're not paying attention.

[Peter Damian]

Just imagine the boilerplate on Mr. Keyes' WMF userpage:

Hello! I'm Oliver Keyes, a community liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation. I also have a regular volunteer account on the English-language Wikipedia under the handle "Ironholds", but it's currently banned from editing because as a volunteer I was found guilty of severe violations of community norms. But as a WMF Foundation employee I've been found guilty of nothing at all and I'm here to help you navigate this wonderful and exciting project.

"As always, Dan Murphy puts it best".

[Wer900]

But as usual, teh civiliteh reigns supreme and Kiefer will be banned.

[Triptych]

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

He could try socking.

[Vigilant]

If they cannot sanction wmf employees then those accounts become untouchables. Unaccountable to the community. That's an unbelievable precedent.

[Jim]

If they cannot sanction wmf employees then those accounts become untouchables. Unaccountable to the community. That's an unbelievable precedent.

That's the insoluble problem. It's either a community run by the members, or a community run by the members except when the owners choose to overrule them.

Answers on a postcard, please...

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

If they cannot sanction wmf employees then those accounts become untouchables. Unaccountable to the community. That's an unbelievable precedent.

Regarding Okeyes (WMF), (T-C-L)Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) wrote

@Salvio giuliano (T-C-L):

Oliver Keyes has clarified that he is only a contractor and not an employee of the WMF,

I'm a contractor or staffer, not an employee. There's a substantial legal difference.

Ironholds (T-C-L) (talk) 4:10 pm, Today (UTC+2)

so WMF's "Get Out of Jail Free (T-H-L)" card is inapplicable.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)9:07 pm, Today (UTC+2)

[Poetlister]

Sue Gardner has clearly nailed her mast to the colours

If that's a subtle joke, I'm afraid I've missed it.

[SB_Johnny]

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.

The mind has to reel on this. A dysfunctional hobbyist community's dysfunctional supreme court is about to impose a (surprisingly reasonable) sanction on a high profile employee of the dysfunctional organization that is supposed to support the efforts of the dysfunctional community of hobbyists who elected the dysfunctional supreme court.

We really have to find a way to bottle the understanding of this and give it away for free... it's so unbelievably bad that it's well, hard to believe. Maybe a shakes-spear-ian play is in order.

[Zoloft]

Sue Gardner has clearly nailed her mast to the colours

If that's a subtle joke, I'm afraid I've missed it.

She hoisted her own petard as she sailed out of port?

[SB_Johnny]

Sue Gardner has clearly nailed her mast to the colours

If that's a subtle joke, I'm afraid I've missed it.

She hoisted her own petard as she sailed out of port?

I've actually been on the fence about Sue Gardner until pretty recently, but it's pretty clear at this point that she is to Erik Möller as Sarah Palin was to John McCain.

Oliver Keyes will either be thrown under the bus (in which case he'll almost certainly lash out in all sorts of interesting ways), or he'll be kept aboard because they'd prefer him to piss out of the tent. Either way, he Hastens the Day(TM).

[Wer900]

Administrators are separate but equal, according to Timotheus Canens:

Administrators are held to a higher standard of conduct, and can reasonably be required to refrain from engaging in conduct outside enwiki that would bring the project into disrepute. Ironholds' logged-out edits and problematic IRC comments fails that standard, and the appropriate remedy for that is a desysop, which we have (so far) unanimously supported.

For a site-ban, however, Ironholds' misconduct must be such that would warrant a ban when committed by an editor without the admin bit. The jurisdiction of this committee over off-wiki communications (on IRC or otherwise) by ordinary editors is questionable at best when such communications have only a tenuous relationship to matters on this project. The single on-wiki incident and two logged-out edits noted in the FoF falls short of justifying a site ban. It is worth noting that in the last case of an administrator engaging in vandalism while logged out, the Committee did not even desysop the user in question. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

[Triptych]

Administrators are separate but equal, according to Timotheus Canens:

Administrators are held to a higher standard of conduct, and can reasonably be required to refrain from engaging in conduct outside enwiki that would bring the project into disrepute. Ironholds' logged-out edits and problematic IRC comments fails that standard, and the appropriate remedy for that is a desysop, which we have (so far) unanimously supported.

For a site-ban, however, Ironholds' misconduct must be such that would warrant a ban when committed by an editor without the admin bit. The jurisdiction of this committee over off-wiki communications (on IRC or otherwise) by ordinary editors is questionable at best when such communications have only a tenuous relationship to matters on this project. The single on-wiki incident and two logged-out edits noted in the FoF falls short of justifying a site ban. It is worth noting that in the last case of an administrator engaging in vandalism while logged out, the Committee did not even desysop the user in question. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Right. Kiefer banned, Ironholds not. This little prick Ruijie Song/Timotheus Canens is the worst of the arbs. He was the instantaneous spearhead of the mass checkuser attack on Malleus, as well he was the one to desysop Kevin without any process at all for the cardinal sin of unblocking a common editor: Cla68. This jackoff was at one point just another among the loathsome breed of serially polemic masturbators on the Palestinian/Israeli eternal hot topic, until he learned to sanitize, oversight, and cover up his long and multiply-accounted edit history. His fluent English makes me wonder if his supposed Chinese origin as implied on his page is some elaborate double feint. Vile, vile, vile "Timotheus."

[Wer900]

Administrators are separate but equal, according to Timotheus Canens:

Administrators are held to a higher standard of conduct, and can reasonably be required to refrain from engaging in conduct outside enwiki that would bring the project into disrepute. Ironholds' logged-out edits and problematic IRC comments fails that standard, and the appropriate remedy for that is a desysop, which we have (so far) unanimously supported.

For a site-ban, however, Ironholds' misconduct must be such that would warrant a ban when committed by an editor without the admin bit. The jurisdiction of this committee over off-wiki communications (on IRC or otherwise) by ordinary editors is questionable at best when such communications have only a tenuous relationship to matters on this project. The single on-wiki incident and two logged-out edits noted in the FoF falls short of justifying a site ban. It is worth noting that in the last case of an administrator engaging in vandalism while logged out, the Committee did not even desysop the user in question. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Right. Kiefer banned, Ironholds not. This little prick Ruijie Song/Timotheus Canens is the worst of the arbs. He was the instantaneous spearhead of the mass checkuser attack on Malleus, as well he was the one to desysop Kevin without any process at all for the cardinal sin of unblocking a common editor: Cla68. This jackoff was at one point just another among the loathsome breed of serially polemic masturbators on the Palestinian/Israeli eternal hot topic, until he learned to sanitize, oversight, and cover up his long and multiply-accounted edit history. His fluent English makes me wonder if his supposed Chinese origin as implied on his page is some elaborate double feint. Vile, vile, vile "Timotheus."

In most places, judges serve only on good behavior. The Senate of the Philippines even removed that country's Chief Justice after convicting him of financial crimes. It seems that no comparable method of ensuring good behavior for arbitrators exists, allowing people like Ruijie Song to profit while the mutual masturbators at RfC and AN/I do nothing to change the status quo.

Also regarding what you said, have you noticed that many top drama-creators change their account names, while content creators rarely do so? For example, Francophilie&Androphilie became PinkAmpers&, and somebody whose name I forgot became PumpkinSky. Regarding Song's Chinese origin, it's possible that he has lived most of his life in the United States, thereby granting him fluent English. Even if he did not live in the US until going to Columbia University, it's important to remember that he went to CU—he's not an ignorant village bumpkin, he's an educated, urban man(-child).

[EricBarbour]

This little prick Ruijie Song/Timotheus Canens is the worst of the arbs. He was the instantaneous spearhead of the mass checkuser attack on Malleus, as well he was the one to desysop Kevin without any process at all for the cardinal sin of unblocking a common editor: Cla68. This jackoff was at one point just another among the loathsome breed of serially polemic masturbators on the Palestinian/Israeli eternal hot topic, until he learned to sanitize, oversight, and cover up his long and multiply-accounted edit history. His fluent English makes me wonder if his supposed Chinese origin as implied on his page is some elaborate double feint. Vile, vile, vile "Timotheus."

I might also mention in passing that I suspect the "little prick" has been a paid editor for the Chinese government, using
sockpuppets to remove unpleasant political information about China from both zh-WP and en-WP.

Yes, another possible spy on Wikipedia. Tarantino can probably tell you more. SlimVirgin's not the only one -- we keep
researching these powerful insiders, and finding that some have obscured connections to governments or corporations.

[Triptych]

Regarding Song's Chinese origin, it's possible that he has lived most of his life in the United States, thereby granting him fluent English. Even if he did not live in the US until going to Columbia University, it's important to remember that he went to CU—he's not an ignorant village bumpkin, he's an educated, urban man(-child).

I criticize him and he may be Chinese, but I do not criticize the Chinese. The Chinese drive the world economy. The Chinese have a masterful political system that came to terms with immense problems of poverty that would've collapsed any western nation. I trust China and despise those of my country's politicians that depict it as our foe. I have a great friend who is Chinese, and we are supposed to ride the Qinghai-Tibet Railway sometime, the highest in the world. It is only "Timotheus Canens" who irks me, by his Wikipedia actions.

[Wer900]

This little prick Ruijie Song/Timotheus Canens is the worst of the arbs. He was the instantaneous spearhead of the mass checkuser attack on Malleus, as well he was the one to desysop Kevin without any process at all for the cardinal sin of unblocking a common editor: Cla68. This jackoff was at one point just another among the loathsome breed of serially polemic masturbators on the Palestinian/Israeli eternal hot topic, until he learned to sanitize, oversight, and cover up his long and multiply-accounted edit history. His fluent English makes me wonder if his supposed Chinese origin as implied on his page is some elaborate double feint. Vile, vile, vile "Timotheus."

I might also mention in passing that I suspect the "little prick" has been a paid editor for the Chinese government, using
sockpuppets to remove unpleasant political information about China from both zh-WP and en-WP.

Yes, another possible spy on Wikipedia. Tarantino can probably tell you more. SlimVirgin's not the only one -- we keep
researching these powerful insiders, and finding that some have obscured connections to governments or corporations.

Why does it seem that almost every rock we lift we find paid editors? And why are there so many trolls under bridges enabling them?

[Triptych]

Why does it seem that almost every rock we lift we find paid editors? And why are there so many trolls under bridges enabling them?

Shorter Timotheus Canens: "Because administrators and common editors must be treated equally, Kiefer Wolfowitz should be banned and Ironholds not."

[Wer900]

Why does it seem that almost every rock we lift we find paid editors? And why are there so many trolls under bridges enabling them?

Shorter Timotheus Canens: "Because administrators and common editors must be treated equally, Kiefer Wolfowitz should be banned and Ironholds not."

Plessy v. Ferguson (T-H-L)
Animal Farm (T-H-L)

That's all I have to say.

[Peter Damian]

I'm having difficulty taking this on board. Keyes says in August 2011 http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=2790553 , by editing the user page of someone now banned, "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".

Kiefer has never every uttered anything so crass, AFAIK. But he is banned, and Keyes is not? August 2011 is not that long ago. And if it is too long ago, why is my August 2009 'ban' still upheld?

[The Devil's Advocate]

I have occasionally noticed that Tim is very free-wheeling with the Checkuser tool. He got it upon becoming an Arb and has been using it widely. Note how in mid-January he blocked some fairly obvious class project accounts and didn't recognize his error until ten hours later. One would hope that he has learned how to use the tool better since those early days, but I am not so confident in his abilities.

[Vigilant]

I'm having difficulty taking this on board. Keyes says in August 2011 http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=2790553 , by editing the user page of someone now banned, "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".

Kiefer has never every uttered anything so crass, AFAIK. But he is banned, and Keyes is not? August 2011 is not that long ago. And if it is too long ago, why is my August 2009 'ban' still upheld?

Two different classes of people. Completely clear from this ruling.

However, Oliver keyes will never regain admin status.
It'll be pretty hard to be taken seriously as a community liaison after getting your ass deadmined.

[SB_Johnny]

However, Oliver keyes will never regain admin status.
It'll be pretty hard to be taken seriously as a community liaison after getting your ass deadmined.

It will be interesting to watch how the WMF handles this compared to how they handled the Fae situation.

[mac]

Since the Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) account has the ipblock-exempt tag, doesn't that mean that the Okeyes (WMF) account agreed to be checkusered from time to time? I sorta recall that from the Riley Huntley case, but my memory is poor.

Here is a list of Okeyes (WMF)'s flags:

abusefilter, accountcreator, afttest, autoreviewer, filemover, ipblock-exempt, reviewer, rollbacker, editinterface, global-ipblock-exempt, 12579 edits since: 2011-10-23

It would be interesting to see if Mr Keyes has been using any alternate accounts.

[cyofee]

However, Oliver keyes will never regain admin status.
It'll be pretty hard to be taken seriously as a community liaison after getting your ass deadmined.

It will be interesting to watch how the WMF handles this compared to how they handled the Fae situation.

The difference is that while Fae was flushed down the toilet when he tried to get WMF to intervene, Sue is publicly behind Ironholds.

[Triptych]

I'm having difficulty taking this on board. Keyes says in August 2011 http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=2790553 , by editing the user page of someone now banned, "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".

Kiefer has never every uttered anything so crass, AFAIK. But he is banned, and Keyes is not? August 2011 is not that long ago. And if it is too long ago, why is my August 2009 'ban' still upheld?

Two different classes of people. Completely clear from this ruling.

Well, there is still to go AGK/Anthony G. Kelly, Timotheus Canens' puppet in crime from WP:BASC, so yes.

It'd be cool if he talked it up, a subservient echo to Timotheus' "administrators are held to an higher standard, except..." We'd then have more fake logic perpetuating the "admins above all others" case histories, but knowing dense follower AGK it'll be just be supports/opposes toeing Timotheus' line, with perhaps a bit of "this has all been explained before," and he'll move on to formatting and rearranging the page.

[DanMurphy]

"Kiefer Wolfowitz" voted banned by 7-0. Oliver Keyes voted not-banned by 3-4. Oliver Keyes' administrator permissions removed by a vote of 7-0.

Pretty much what you would have assumed.

What does any of this have to do with writing an encyclopedia? Damned if I know.

[Triptych]

"Kiefer Wolfowitz" voted banned by 7-0. Oliver Keyes voted not-banned by 3-4. Oliver Keyes' administrator permissions removed by a vote of 7-0.

Pretty much what you would have assumed.

What does any of this have to do with writing an encyclopedia? Damned if I know.

Only that the administrators are gravely damaging it. Kiefer brought attention to some adult male who was advising a youngster whose parents had cautiously cleared his address book that he might still be contacted if the child remembered his email address. Just prior to that, the child had appeared to seek to end the relationship, saying "I learned my lesson." The arbs crucified Kiefer unanimously for this. The other supposed infringements were a list of nigglingly minor instances of incivility, mainly amassed by librarian Wormthatturned (who purported to "recuse" in the case) and of those nearly all directed at editors who were mutually uncivil to Kiefer.

In the meantime for Ann and Ollie and Sue and Anthony, it's "party on" time in Hong Kong with the rest for their charity-funded and transportation-subsidized hullabaloo in which, judging from IRC transcripts, one must wonder what sort of action is going on in the stairwells and pinned up against the walls.

[HRIP7]

"Kiefer Wolfowitz" voted banned by 7-0. Oliver Keyes voted not-banned by 3-4. Oliver Keyes' administrator permissions removed by a vote of 7-0.

Pretty much what you would have assumed.

Kiefer's ban was a foregone conclusion, but I am pretty surprised – positively so – that the committee unanimously decided to de-admin Ironholds. As for the ban, a close 3–4 result seems a reasonable outcome, given the fairly sparse evidence.

I think the committee did well here.

[thekohser]

...I'd certainly expect Greg to get a free pass.

I already have a free pass -- I just can't say that the accounts are me, and I have to be a bit careful with which IP addresses I use.

[thekohser]

Wikimedia Foundation's Oliver Keyes stripped of administrator status
-- Gregory Kohs, Examiner.com

[Wer900]

I have occasionally noticed that Tim is very free-wheeling with the Checkuser tool. He got it upon becoming an Arb and has been using it widely. Note how in mid-January he blocked some fairly obvious class project accounts and didn't recognize his error until ten hours later. One would hope that he has learned how to use the tool better since those early days, but I am not so confident in his abilities.

Is it any wonder, now, why Ironholds's logs are not being examined for courtesy deletions? Is it any wonder why Beeblebrox and Demigurge1000 were not added to the case? I hope not.

[mac]

Wikimedia Foundation's Oliver Keyes stripped of administrator status
-- Gregory Kohs, Examiner.com

I normally do not revel in the misfortune of others, but this guy was scum and had to go. Plus I love this song, and it leapt to mind for some reason.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Only that the administrators are gravely damaging it. Kiefer brought attention to some adult male who was advising a youngster whose parents had cautiously cleared his address book that he might still be contacted if the child remembered his email address. Just prior to that, the child had appeared to seek to end the relationship, saying "I learned my lesson." The arbs crucified Kiefer unanimously for this. The other supposed infringements were a list of nigglingly minor instances of incivility, mainly amassed by librarian Wormthatturned (who purported to "recuse" in the case) and of those nearly all directed at editors who were mutually uncivil to Kiefer.

In the meantime for Ann and Ollie and Sue and Anthony, it's "party on" time in Hong Kong with the rest for their charity-funded and transportation-subsidized hullabaloo in which, judging from IRC transcripts, one must wonder what sort of action is going on in the stairwells and pinned up against the walls.

*sigh* I really wish people would show a little more understanding and not misrepresent the situation. Kiefer isn't being "crucified" for criticizing Demiurge encouraging a juvenile to defy his parents or for saying the Ironholds needs to behave better on IRC. He seems unable to talk about this sort of thing without making it seem as if he is labeling the other person a child molester, he even said Demiurge was "acting like a child predator" and apparently thinks that using the phrase "acting like" makes much of a difference. Additionally, Kiefer has been less than honest in how he has presented a number of his accusations regarding the IRC conversations Ironholds has had. Not that he's the only one doing the latter, but to act as if Kiefer is being condemned just for raising legitimate complaints is showing a lack of perspective.

Him being banned from Wikipedia is not the best approach, but it is not as though he is being wrongly attacked for mild or provoked incivility as an excuse to silence calm and reasonable dissent. Kiefer is less Martin Luther King (T-H-L) and more Huey P. Newton (T-H-L).

[Peter Damian]

Kiefer isn't being "crucified" for criticizing Demiurge encouraging a juvenile to defy his parents or for saying the Ironholds needs to behave better on IRC. He seems unable to talk about this sort of thing without making it seem as if he is labeling the other person a child molester, he even said Demiurge was "acting like a child predator" and apparently thinks that using the phrase "acting like" makes much of a difference.

'Acting like' does make a difference, as does 'predator' (you used the word 'molester'). A predator is someone who preys on children in some way, without there being necessarily any suspicion of 'molestation' or sexual abuse.

If you could trust the process, it would have been better to have approached Arbcom privately, but as Brad and I know (I see he is reading this thread) every email is studiously ignored. Eh Brad?

[Triptych]

Kiefer brought attention to some adult male who was advising a youngster whose parents had cautiously cleared his address book that he might still be contacted if the child remembered his email address. Just prior to that, the child had appeared to seek to end the relationship, saying "I learned my lesson." The arbs crucified Kiefer unanimously for this. The other supposed infringements were a list of nigglingly minor instances of incivility...

*sigh* I really wish people would show a little more understanding and not misrepresent the situation. Kiefer isn't being "crucified" for criticizing Demiurge encouraging a juvenile to defy his parents or for saying the Ironholds needs to behave better on IRC. He seems unable to talk about this sort of thing without making it seem as if he is labeling the other person a child molester, he even said Demiurge was "acting like a child predator" and apparently thinks that using the phrase "acting like" makes much of a difference.

Well, I feel like I have represented things as I see them, and the way I see them is that Arbcom may ban Kiefer Wolfowitz for decrying that other editor's interactions with that child, but the child's parents would give Kiefer an handshake and a hug for it. And that is something Mr. Wolfowitz can take with him in his wikibanishment.

You are right though, that one can't loosely utter things like "behaving like a child predator" without getting righteously hammered on it, but that remark occurred not loosely but way deep in a detailed examination of the evidence, with reference to primatology, autism, and Asperger's Syndrome, in which he remarked that he at first defended the editor, until more curious diffs became known.

I agree with Peter Damian that Kiefer could not have relied on Arbcom processes in this matter.

[dogbiscuit]

Kiefer brought attention to some adult male who was advising a youngster whose parents had cautiously cleared his address book that he might still be contacted if the child remembered his email address. Just prior to that, the child had appeared to seek to end the relationship, saying "I learned my lesson." The arbs crucified Kiefer unanimously for this. The other supposed infringements were a list of nigglingly minor instances of incivility...

*sigh* I really wish people would show a little more understanding and not misrepresent the situation. Kiefer isn't being "crucified" for criticizing Demiurge encouraging a juvenile to defy his parents or for saying the Ironholds needs to behave better on IRC. He seems unable to talk about this sort of thing without making it seem as if he is labeling the other person a child molester, he even said Demiurge was "acting like a child predator" and apparently thinks that using the phrase "acting like" makes much of a difference.

Well, I feel like I have represented things as I see them, and the way I see them is that Arbcom may ban Kiefer Wolfowitz for decrying that other editor's interactions with that child, but the child's parents would give Kiefer an handshake and a hug for it. And that is something Mr. Wolfowitz can take with him in his wikibanishment.

You are right though, that one can't loosely utter things like "behaving like a child predator" without getting righteously hammered on it, but that remark occurred not loosely but way deep in a detailed examination of the evidence, with reference to primatology, autism, and Asperger's Syndrome, in which he remarked that he at first defended the editor, until more curious diffs became known.

I agree with Peter Damian that Kiefer could not have relied on Arbcom processes in this matter.

I've said this before. In any organisation, avoiding the appearance of wrongdoing is considered necessary for the protection of everyone involved. Unfortunately, as we see with the Catholic Church (other churches are available) we cannot presume all these apparently righteous individuals are beyond reproach. That is why WMUK had issues and it took a lot of effort but it eventually dawned that they were very exposed by people giving a solid appearance of acting improperly and having put themselves into the position of being accountable as a charity, they had exposed themselves to outside scrutiny (however pathetic that was).

Basically, don't make a habit of deliberately befriending users who you happen to know to be children together with using classic techniques of grooming (don't tell your parents, our secret and so on) and then you won't get called on giving the appearance of being a predator.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Only that the administrators are gravely damaging it. Kiefer brought attention to some adult male who was advising a youngster whose parents had cautiously cleared his address book that he might still be contacted if the child remembered his email address. Just prior to that, the child had appeared to seek to end the relationship, saying "I learned my lesson." The arbs crucified Kiefer unanimously for this. The other supposed infringements were a list of nigglingly minor instances of incivility, mainly amassed by librarian Wormthatturned (who purported to "recuse" in the case) and of those nearly all directed at editors who were mutually uncivil to Kiefer.

In the meantime for Ann and Ollie and Sue and Anthony, it's "party on" time in Hong Kong with the rest for their charity-funded and transportation-subsidized hullabaloo in which, judging from IRC transcripts, one must wonder what sort of action is going on in the stairwells and pinned up against the walls.

*sigh* I really wish people would show a little more understanding and not misrepresent the situation. Kiefer isn't being "crucified" for criticizing Demiurge encouraging a juvenile to defy his parents or for saying the Ironholds needs to behave better on IRC. He seems unable to talk about this sort of thing without making it seem as if he is labeling the other person a child molester, he even said Demiurge was "acting like a child predator" and apparently thinks that using the phrase "acting like" makes much of a difference. Additionally, Kiefer has been less than honest in how he has presented a number of his accusations regarding the IRC conversations Ironholds has had. Not that he's the only one doing the latter, but to act as if Kiefer is being condemned just for raising legitimate complaints is showing a lack of perspective.

Him being banned from Wikipedia is not the best approach, but it is not as though he is being wrongly attacked for mild or provoked incivility as an excuse to silence calm and reasonable dissent. Kiefer is less Martin Luther King (T-H-L) and more Huey P. Newton (T-H-L).

Comparing me with Huey Newton is gross stupidity, even making allowances for The Devil's Advocate's usual perverse apologetics.

The removal of administration status and 3 votes to ban Oliver Keyes occured because of diffs I provided to the ArbCom, I believe. ArbCom repeatedly censored this evidence, but you can see it in the case's page history. Now Salvio and the other administrators are citing the evidence openly without even apologizing for their censoring the evidence or banning me from the case's evidence/workshop phases.
(Similarly, Salvio blocked me for "edit warring" on the article Wikipediocracy, without blocking you or MathScience for the worse editwarring, and of course you two were reversed because your edit warring removed a reliable source.)

Demiurge1000 does behave like a child predator.

As I have suggested here earlier, Demiurge1000 could also have lost a gay son (or a gay twin brother)---who perhaps killed himself because he did not have access to pictures of penises or men ejaculating as a group on a woman?

It is difficult otherwise to explain why Demiurge1000 is anti-anti-pornography (particularly children's access to pornography), in his RfA comments in 2011 (arguing with Herostratus about a 16 year old's access to bukake images) and on IRC (lightening the mood while Russavia and other exhibitionists explained the importance of penis images for children).

Demiurge1000 has dropped hints when he will be visiting the hometown of at least one child on-Wiki, and as others have reminded you, and also told another child how to foil his parents' attempts to keep him from emailing strangers (and then Demiurge1000 continued emailing and IMing the child off-Wiki).

None of Demiurge1000's activities violate "Wikipedia:Child Protection", which has no prohibition on private contacts (email, IM, meetings, etc.). I have only discussed Demiurge1000's concrete behaviors.

My refusal to speculate about Demiurge1000's motivations is why this ArbCom has tried to claim that I am using innuendo to accuse Demiurge1000 of being a child predator, which I have never done. I have at most stated that he behaves like a child predator; he also behaves like a copy-editor who removes extra spaces.

In any event, I have not violated WP:Child Protection because Demiurge1000's behavior does not violate WP:Child Protection. I mailed lots of evidence on Demiurge1000 to ArbCom, after alerting Newyorkbrad and Worm That Turned to the email scandal on-Wiki. Demiurge1000 is still busy suggesting himself as a mentor to young editors, with the approval of ArbCom and PhilKnight.

[Wer900]

Everyone needs to give that lying cheat Timotheus Canens a hard time on his talk page.

[Zoloft]

Everyone needs to give that lying cheat Timotheus Canens a hard time on his talk page.

Let's not rouse flash mobs here, please.

[Mancunium]

It is difficult otherwise to explain why Demiurge1000 is anti-anti-pornography (particularly children's access to pornography), in his RfA comments in 2011 (arguing with Herostratus about a 16 year old's access to bukake images) and on IRC (lightening the mood while Russavia and other exhibitionists explained the importance of penis images for children).

Demiurge1000 has dropped hints when he will be visiting the hometown of at least one child on-Wiki, and as others have reminded you, and also told another child how to foil his parents' attempts to keep him from emailing strangers (and then Demiurge1000 continued emailing and IMing the child off-Wiki).

Yes, this person is acting like a predator, and should be reported. I don't know where he lives, but in the USA it is mandatory to report such concerns: link

Mandated Reporting

Each State has laws requiring certain people to report concerns of child abuse and neglect. While some States require all people to report their concerns, many States identify specific professionals as mandated reporters; these often include social workers, medical and mental health professionals, teachers, and child care providers. Specific procedures are usually established for mandated reporters to make referrals to child protective services.

Among the documents on the US federal government's Child Welfare site is the PDF 'Penalties for Failure to Report and False Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect'.

Discusses laws that impose penalties, in the form of either fines or jail time or both, on mandatory reporters who fail to report cases of suspected child abuse and neglect as required by the reporting laws. State laws also may impose penalties on any person who knowingly makes a false report of abuse or neglect. Summaries of laws for all States and U.S. territories are included.

You are probably well out of Wikipedia, Kiefer. Thank you for all you have done.

[Hex]

Kiefer's ban was a foregone conclusion, but I am pretty surprised – positively so – that the committee unanimously decided to de-admin Ironholds. As for the ban, a close 3–4 result seems a reasonable outcome, given the fairly sparse evidence.

This is right on the mark.

Also, since nobody's talking about it - remember that Keyes would still be an administrator if it wasn't for this site providing a safe harbor for a whistleblower. "Chatson" whoever he(?) is posted that IRC log excerpt here, and Kiefer took the ball and ran with it. Unfortunately for him it led to a ban, but at the very least it has resulted in the removal of one bad apple from the list of administrators. If you're reading this, Chatson, thanks.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

It is difficult otherwise to explain why Demiurge1000 is anti-anti-pornography (particularly children's access to pornography), in his RfA comments in 2011 (arguing with Herostratus about a 16 year old's access to bukake images) and on IRC (lightening the mood while Russavia and other exhibitionists explained the importance of penis images for children).

Demiurge1000 has dropped hints when he will be visiting the hometown of at least one child on-Wiki, and as others have reminded you, and also told another child how to foil his parents' attempts to keep him from emailing strangers (and then Demiurge1000 continued emailing and IMing the child off-Wiki).

Yes, this person is acting like a predator, and should be reported. I don't know where he lives, but in the USA it is mandatory to report such concerns: link

Mandated Reporting

Each State has laws requiring certain people to report concerns of child abuse and neglect. While some States require all people to report their concerns, many States identify specific professionals as mandated reporters; these often include social workers, medical and mental health professionals, teachers, and child care providers. Specific procedures are usually established for mandated reporters to make referrals to child protective services.

Among the documents on the US federal government's Child Welfare site is the PDF 'Penalties for Failure to Report and False Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect'.

Discusses laws that impose penalties, in the form of either fines of jail time or both, on mandatory reporters who fail to report cases of suspected child abuse and neglect as required by the reporting laws. State laws also may impose penalties on any person who knowingly makes a false report of abuse or neglect. Summaries of laws for all States and U.S. territories are included.

You are probably well out of Wikipedia, Kiefer. Thank you for all you have done.

Where does one report somebody who behaves like a child predator in the UK?

Thanks for your kind words. Ceoil, Eric, Tim, SandyGeorgia, and others have left messages earlier, and I am happy to have received heartening comments by such a distinguished group.

It was surprising to me that ArbCom picked so many examples of uncivil exchanges where I responded to an abusive administrator, particularly the exchange with Beeblebrox (also in my talk page archives), as examples of behavior so horrific that I must be banned.

It clarifies that ArbCom did endorse the uneven enforcement of civility.

[DanMurphy]

I would like to congratulate "Kiefer" on being loosed from the bonds of servitude. Don't look back.

[Wer900]

I would like to congratulate "Kiefer" on being loosed from the bonds of servitude. Don't look back.

Kiefer's story, now that I think of it, is indeed an inspiring one of how someone sacrificed his own reputation in order to seek the benefit of others, and partially succeeded. I hope for your unbanning in a short time, but it's unlikely that the power players will like that.

In the meantime, I posted the following on Timotheus Canens's talk page, to test if he has a sense of honor:

Congratulations, Timotheus Canens! You have, with your recent judgment on the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds proven yourself to be a supporter of the separate-but-equal status of content contributors vis-à-vis those of power and influence on Wikipedia, as well as their sockpuppets, meatpuppets, paid editing clients, and shills. In addition, you have maintained the legal fiction that Ironholds (talk · contribs) is somehow completely separate from Okeyes (WMF) (talk · contribs)—a pathetic lie formulated in order to indemnify a WMF employee of the grave responsibilities that come with his post. You seek nothing but power and influence, just like those you support, and will go to the ends of the earth to seek it, ignoring the fact that Ironholds made a statement in his vandalism far more potent and degrading than anything that Kiefer.Wolfowitz ever said. As with the other Arbitrators, you also declined to investigate power-players like Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs), who appear to have the ability to violate Wikipedia policies blatantly (contacting users privately against their will, writing civility essays about their right to tell people to fuck off) while still being empowered to enforce them at venues like AN/I and AE, filled with mutual masturbators who form warring cabals that aim principally at content editors.

You may hide behind the blanket of "judicial independence" for your abject refusal to do what is right and give Oliver Keyes sanctions commensurate with his misconduct on IRC channels as well as on Wikimedia sites (better yet, acknowledge that based on the existence of a freenode: prefix on Wikipedia, coupled with the fact that Wikimedia-branded channels on freenode have Wikimedian chanops and focus on Wikimedia, that said channels are admissible as evidence on a regular basis). You may revision-delete or oversight this post as "[g]rossly insulting, harmful, or degrading material" in order to pacify civility robots, or simply to bury evidence of your own wrongdoing. You can block me for 24 or 48 hours to shut me up, as you are an exalted, honored Arbitrator and I am nobody but a content editor who lacks significant power and toils away so that people like yourself can extol the benefits of Wikipedia to the public. You can even have administrator friends create hundreds of socks and confirm them in order to rig the coming ArbCom elections in favor of yourself and your friends. But what you can't do is fool yourself into thinking that none of this happened—that you, the great Timotheus Canens, have been a fount of honor, virtue, and service whom many have looked up to. You can yet change your behaviors and undo your unjust behavior towards Kiefer.Wolfowitz, and on a broader scale you may even go after power players and AN/I bottom-feeders—yet it is from these groups that you derive most of your power, and for that reason you likely have no inclination of changing your behavior.

I would like to think I'm wrong, but every indication is that I'm right. You just lost your credibility today, Timotheus Canens. It'll be hard to earn it back. Wer900 • talk 20:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

And, in case it is revdeleted, the wikitext version:

Congratulations, Timotheus Canens! You have, with your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =568123820 recent judgment] on the ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Proposed decision|Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds]]'' proven yourself to be a supporter of the separate-but-equal status of content contributors vis-à-vis those of power and influence on Wikipedia, <s>as well as their sockpuppets, meatpuppets, paid editing clients, and shills</s>. In addition, you have maintained the legal fiction that {{user|Ironholds}} is somehow completely separate from {{user|Okeyes (WMF)}}&mdash;a pathetic lie formulated in order to indemnify a WMF employee of the grave responsibilities that come with his post. You seek nothing but power and influence, just like those you support, and will go to the ends of the earth to seek it, ignoring the fact that Ironholds made a statement in his vandalism far more potent and degrading than anything that Kiefer.Wolfowitz ever said. As with the other Arbitrators, you also declined to investigate power-players like {{admin|Beeblebrox}} and {{user|Demiurge1000}}, who appear to have the ability to violate Wikipedia policies blatantly ([http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php ... id=2715259 contacting users privately against their will], writing civility essays about their right to tell people to [[User:Beeblebrox/fuck off|fuck off]]) while still being empowered to enforce them at venues like AN/I and AE, filled with mutual masturbators who form warring cabals that aim principally at content editors.<p>You may hide behind the blanket of "judicial independence" for your abject refusal to do what is right and give Oliver Keyes sanctions commensurate with his misconduct on IRC channels as well as on Wikimedia sites (better yet, acknowledge that based on the existence of a freenode: prefix on Wikipedia, coupled with the fact that Wikimedia-branded channels on freenode have Wikimedian chanops and focus on Wikimedia, that said channels are admissible as evidence on a regular basis). You may revision-delete or oversight this post as "[g]rossly insulting, harmful, or degrading material" in order to pacify civility robots, or simply to bury evidence of your own wrongdoing. You can block me for 24 or 48 hours to shut me up, as you are an exalted, honored Arbitrator and I am nobody but a content editor who lacks significant power and toils away so that people like yourself can extol the benefits of Wikipedia to the public. You can even have administrator friends create hundreds of socks and confirm them in order to rig the coming ArbCom elections in favor of yourself and your friends. But what you can't do is fool yourself into thinking that none of this happened&mdash;that you, the great Timotheus Canens, have been a fount of honor, virtue, and service whom many have looked up to. You can yet change your behaviors and undo your unjust behavior towards Kiefer.Wolfowitz, and on a broader scale you may even go after power players and AN/I bottom-feeders&mdash;yet it is from these groups that you derive most of your power, and for that reason you likely have no inclination of changing your behavior.<p>I would like to think I'm wrong, but every indication is that I'm right. You just lost your credibility today, Timotheus Canens. It'll be hard to earn it back. ~~~~

As Zoloft said, don't jump on the dogpile.

[Hex]

Kiefer's story, now that I think of it, is indeed an inspiring one of how someone sacrificed his own reputation in order to seek the benefit of others, and partially succeeded.

I don't think Kiefer intended to sacrifice himself.

[Wer900]

Kiefer's story, now that I think of it, is indeed an inspiring one of how someone sacrificed his own reputation in order to seek the benefit of others, and partially succeeded.

I don't think Kiefer intended to sacrifice himself.

He knew what it was getting into. As stated earlier, a ban of Kiefer was pretty much a foregone conclusion. And yet he pursued the case to the end.

But then again, we need to realize that ArbCom is not the spectator sport it is for power players. We need to realize the magnitude of Wikipedia for the real world, which is often the primary source of public information on a topic.

[Mancunium]

Where does one report somebody who behaves like a child predator in the UK?

Unfortunately, the UK's laws protecting minors are weaker than those in the USA. Rather than a government website, one is referred to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children: link

The guidance makes clear reference to the duty to act on any child welfare concerns in para 5.18: “If somebody believes or suspects that a child may be suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm then s/he should always refer his or her concerns to the local authority children’s social care services. In addition to social care, the police and the NSPCC have powers to intervene in these circumstances.”

See also this BBC report, dated 13 January 2013: link

Child abuse: NSPCC urges swift reporting of suspicions

Most people who suspect children are being abused do not report their suspicions quickly enough, a children's charity is warning.

The NSPCC is urging people to act on their concerns rather than waiting for certainty "which might never come".

Fewer than one in five would report their suspicions straight away, a new survey for the charity suggests.

Psychologist Linda Papadopoulos says Jimmy Savile was able to abuse partly because people doubted what they saw.

"Jimmy Savile was allowed to abuse in part because people were not certain what they were seeing was abuse, and in part because the children themselves were not listened to or believed," she said.

"It's vital that people listen to what children are saying, and that they report concerns immediately even if they are not certain."

A report released on Friday revealed a half a century of abuse by the television presenter Jimmy Savile in hospitals, children's homes and BBC studios.

Hundreds of victims came forward in the autumn after allegations against the media figure were broadcast.

More than 200 crimes were recorded across 28 police force areas and almost three-quarters of the victims were under 18, the report said.

'Elusive certainty'

A survey of 2,000 people carried out by YouGov for the NSPCC online last week found that 17% of people would report concerns as soon as they arose.

The charity says its own data shows that almost half of those contacting its helpline wait more than a month to get in touch, with some waiting much longer.

It is launching a TV campaign called "Don't wait until you're certain", urging people to act quickly on their suspicions.

Peter Watt, from the NSPCC, said: "Child sexual abuse is not a problem that died with Jimmy Savile. It is a problem that continues today, with children across the UK suffering at the hands of a minority of adults.

"Whilst the uplift in reports of abuse and new figures indicating that people are more willing to speak out is very welcome, it's also clear that people are still waiting for that elusive certainty before taking action. People clearly have the desire to act but are unsure how or when to do it.

"The truth is you will probably never be certain because of the hidden nature of abuse, especially sexual abuse."