Down with Ironholds?

[Malleus]

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.

Kiefer isn't stupid , so he certainly knew what he was getting into; any non-admin appearing before ArbCom knows what to expect. I'm sure he also knows that ever appealing his ban would be a complete waste of time.

[The Devil's Advocate]

'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.

I don't think many here would be quite so willing to accept this type of reasoning if the situation were reversed. That type of argument might mitigate his legal liability for saying such things, but it doesn't change that such terms carry certain connotations and no amount of hedging can change that.

[Peter Damian]

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.

+1

And welcome to the club, K.

[Wer900]

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."

It does open the door for legal action against ArbCom, although the farcicial "Contributor Defense Fund" (which doesn't protect ordinary editors, but rather vandalism reverters and power players) will likely help them.

[Peter Damian]

It beggars belief. I looked at the links referred to here which are meant to prove that “Kiefer.Wolfowitz also has an extensive history of making comments which are below the level of civility that is expected on Wikipedia, which include personal attacks, often made in an attempt to belittle other editors”.

Listen here, small fry.
Read what I wrote about "Bayesian decision problem" on that page, consulting for the next weeks dictionaries and encyclopedias, and come back when you know something. You are just not worth my time in your present state. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You are writing especially obtusely now. Your feelings about my taking time off are irrelevant to blocking---but perhaps I am engaging in wishful thinking imagining that Wikipedia be run by sane competent administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kafziel, you are deliberately quoting me out of context, by omitting the smile faced wink after the word "lithium". Run along, you pathetic disgrace to the Marine Corps, and admire your insult vocabulary elsewhere. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

18 days, not a fortnight. The dishonesty or stupidity BHG can display beggars belief. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've linked pages documenting WMF declarations that a primary goal for the survey is recruitment. Such rudeness and laziness has been a symptom of brain damage, in my experience, e.g. of teaching algebra to cancer survivors and traumatic injury survivors, and I trust that your behavior is a momentary lapse. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The ban seems like a punishment for using words like ‘obtusely’, or ‘Bayesian decision problem’.

[DanMurphy]

Goodness "The Devils Advocate" is a repulsive little worm (I saw this because he deliberately pinged me).

In this diff, from over a week ago, User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz added a link to a somewhat opinionated blog piece by Wikipediocracy trustee User:Dan Murphy. The article concerned Oliver Keyes, a WMF liason who goes by the username User:Ironholds on Wikipedia. Kiefer and Ironholds are parties in an arbitration case in the process of wrapping up. The blog article mentions Keyes by name and accuses him of violent misogynist rhetoric based off several conversations on IRC. The blog article in question, is being used to support the statement that WO is a Wikipedia criticism site, a fact that can be supported by many other citations. I tried to remove the link since another citation was being used to support the statement, but it was restored. WO is only mentioned in the blog article in two instances, when noting that WO member Andreas Kolbe had written about the vandalism of Sarkeesian's BLP and Dan disclosing his ties to WO. Dan's article remains the only source discussing the situation. Editors have cited the fact Dan's blog is attached to The Christian Science Monitor, where Murphy works as a journalist, to argue that it is a reliable source and should be included. There was a discussion initiated on the talk page, but it has received very little attention, while the link is still there. Given the context, both of who wrote the article and who added it, and the statement being easily supported by more independent and reliable sources, it is my opinion that this is a gratuitous BLP violation and should be removed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Kicking Kiefer when he's down and can no longer respond AND lying about me to boot. Classy.

TDA - I hope we figure out who you are some day so we can attach your name to your apologetics for pedophiles, misogynists, and racists.

[Midsize Jake]

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.

When you consider that his reputation is greatly enhanced, I would also assume not. What he sacrificed was an account on a website. For some people that's no small thing, but the admirable thing here was that he had his priorities straight, unlike so many others over there.

[Mancunium]

'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.

I don't think many here would be quite so willing to accept this type of reasoning if the situation were reversed. That type of argument might mitigate his legal liability for saying such things, but it doesn't change that such terms carry certain connotations and no amount of hedging can change that.

Have you talked about this with the child protection authority in your jurisdiction?

There are few places in the world where there is not either an explicit or an implicit legal duty for people to report their concerns about the possibility of child abuse.

There is certainly a moral duty to do so.

Turning a blind eye to Demiurge1000's documented behaviour with minors, as the Wikimedia Foundation does, may be encouraging, enabling, and protecting serious criminal activity.

Try to think about this, for a moment, like a decent human being.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

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.

Kiefer isn't stupid , so he certainly knew what he was getting into; any non-admin appearing before ArbCom knows what to expect. I'm sure he also knows that ever appealing his ban would be a complete waste of time.

I had planned to retired long ago, and the insanity of recent months clarified that Wikipedia had become not only a waste of time but also almost entirely negative for me. I was not sacrificing anything, and certainly not my reputation, since I have contempt for much of the community and certainly for the elites. A ban of me was never an issue for me, since it could only

• (1) spotlight the problems of Wikipedia and
  (2) reduce temptations to backslide into editing Wikipedia.

Keyes
Oliver Keyes / Ironholds (T-C-L) is a sociopath, like thousands in the world, and was of no concern to me, even after I responded to his statement about lighting me on fire by welcoming him to try his luck, as a "cowardly little retard".

I was going to ignore the ArbCom RfAR until I saw the number and severity of Keyes's deadly misogynistic statements, which I would not allow to be stated in my presence, any more than I would allow a racist to advocate castrating, torturing, and hanging n*gg*rs in my presence (or in any organization with which I was associated).

Wikipediocracy writers did all the work on locating the IRC quotes and WMF vandalism. I merely passed them on to the Arbitration case page, where they seem to have been read before they were promptly removed--but not revision-deleted!
ArbCom does some good things (as I've noted before)!

Demiurge1000
Two years ago, I had noticed Demiurge1000 (T-C-L)'s interest in caning schoolboys, the messages from his adoptees about his being gay and his liking to cane boys, and his opposition to limitations on pornographic images for minors. But I decided that he was just suffering PTSD from the upper-class British school-system and that he was harmless. My main concern was his mendacity and political agitation, however.

My statement about Demiurge1000's manipulation of young men for political purposes was misinterpreted as an accusation of paedophilia, and I was blocked.
When discussions here, by editors experienced with child predators, made it clear that there was cause for concern, I made comments on Wikipedia. My action followed my realization that many of the children he associates with have Asperger's syndrome or similar problems.

On Wiki, I asked Newyorkbrad (T-C-L) and Worm That Turned (T-C-L) (also with an email) to deal with Demiurge1000's behavior, and nothing happened (apart from WTT's perfunctory email response, which is confidential).

At the beginning, I had wished that my discussing Demiurge1000's behavior would lead to

• (a) Demiurge1000 being banned or
  (b) WP:Child Protection being strengthened

, and I did not care about being blocked or banned. But the rules of the case and the deleting of evidence and banning me from the proceedings clarified that the case was just an opportunity for making a few points: Then I announced my retirement with a "retired" userbox (before my Retired Extremely Dangerous userbox).

I sent ArbCom only a small selection of the material that has been collected by Wikipediocracy writers, enough to make that Demiurge1000 has violated the spirit of WP:Child Protection (or so I thought, then).

Anybody reading the case should understand that

• (1) Wikipedia accepts sexual innuendo and private contacts between adults and children and that
  (2) Wikipedia forbids on-Wiki criticism of private contacts between adults and children and that
  (3) ArbCom does nothing about private contacts and sexual innuendo between adults and children (until the behavior is even more egregious than Demiurge1000's).

This puts the Wikipedia's moral standing at or below the level of the leeches living in hippo rectums.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

A final comment:
Please remember that Newyorkbrad has often stopped some of the worst decisions by Arbcom, and often does good work. You may wish to consult my last comment on my talkpage to him, which does acknowledge that I had missed his hilarious understatement (when I was blocked) that The Rambling Man should perhaps consider moderation after editing dozens of times in an RfA....
Salvio guiliano's name is impossible to spell, but he seems to have been decent in procedure and has shown some understanding of concerns about fairness.

Best regards, Kiefer

[The Devil's Advocate]

Goodness "The Devils Advocate" is a repulsive little worm (I saw this because he deliberately pinged me).



Kicking Kiefer when he's down and can no longer respond AND lying about me to boot. Classy.

TDA - I hope we figure out who you are some day so we can attach your name to your apologetics for pedophiles, misogynists, and racists.

As far as I know, the case has to be closed before he is officially banned, so I believe he can still comment. I would have initiated it sooner, but I had forgotten about it until Kiefer brought it up. Even so, it not as if they can ban him again. The only thing that might happen is that the link would be removed from the article.

[Randy from Boise]

A bit surprising that KW's ban went to 12 months from 6, and very surprising that Ironholds was desysopped. There was even surprising traction for his being banned.

I expect he'll be looking for a new job shortly.

RfB

[The Adversary]

Did anyone notice this for Wikimania: Balancing Code and Community: A Liaison's Life.

It was accepted as a talk, but then suddenly withdrawn on the 23 July by Deryck Chan.

Without an explanation.

Seeing that "The Community Liaison is tasked with representing the community in discussions" ......I would have loved to hear mr Keyes informing us just how he had "represented the community"s views on the VE roll-out..

[DanMurphy]

Did anyone notice this for Wikimania: Balancing Code and Community: A Liaison's Life.

It was accepted as a talk, but then suddenly withdrawn on the 23 July by Deryck Chan.

Without an explanation.

Seeing that "The Community Liaison is tasked with representing the community in discussions" ......I would have loved to hear mr Keyes informing us just how he had "represented the community"s view on the VE roll-out..

It's a good point. But it's quite clear (as I'm sure you'll agree) that their actual orders are to herd the community and act as PR people for the Wikimedia Foundation.

[Wer900]

Meanwhile, Demigurge1000 and Beeblebrox make fools of themselves on Timotheus Canens (T-C-L)'s talk page.

[The Adversary]

Did anyone notice this for Wikimania: Balancing Code and Community: A Liaison's Life.

It was accepted as a talk, but then suddenly withdrawn on the 23 July by Deryck Chan.

Without an explanation.

Seeing that "The Community Liaison is tasked with representing the community in discussions" ......I would have loved to hear mr Keyes informing us just how he had "represented the community"s view on the VE roll-out..

It's a good point. But it's quite clear (as I'm sure you'll agree) that their actual orders are to herd the community and act as PR people for the Wikimedia Foundation.

Off course. But it would have been a wonderful opportunity to point out the gulf between theory and reality.

Sigh.
No wonder it was withdrawn.

[Reaper Eternal]

Meanwhile, Demigurge1000 and Beeblebrox make fools of themselves on Timotheus Canens (T-C-L)'s talk page.

...while you demonstrate some major hypocrisy by being just as uncivil as Beeblebrox and yet condemning him.

[The Adversary]

Meanwhile, Demigurge1000 and Beeblebrox make fools of themselves on Timotheus Canens (T-C-L)'s talk page.

Hmmm, Wer900; you don´t seriously expect an arb to publicly say he was wrong?
My 2-cents: just walk away from that talk-page, before it starts looking like you were born yesterday.

[Triptych]

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

I see what you did there.

What you did there is, having recognized the permeating corruption of the system, and the significance of Kiefer-Keyes, is: they steer right, attack from left; they somehow steer left, claim credit; they try to go up the middle, attack from left and claim credit.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

A better image of the Hellbender salamander (T-H-L):

[EricBarbour]

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.

I don't agree. Mr. Keyes should be pushed out, because he's been an unquestionable, holy little terror. Kiefer was not.
Arbcom chickened out again, just as I predicted. Buk buk buk buk.

(Risker's comment about five RFAs shows how pathetic Arbcom is. He had two RFAs under another name, you moron!!!!)

[Poetlister]

perhaps I am engaging in wishful thinking imagining that Wikipedia be run by sane competent administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if there were nothing else, that looks to me like grounds for a ban. How can Wikipedia function if people are nasty to the admin corps collectively?

[neved]

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

It is a good article. I think you should have reminded about Fae banning to your readers.

[The Joy]

perhaps I am engaging in wishful thinking imagining that Wikipedia be run by sane competent administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if there were nothing else, that looks to me like grounds for a ban. How can Wikipedia function if people are nasty to the admin corps collectively?

U.S. President John Adams felt the same way:

Alien and Sedition Acts (T-H-L)

[Triptych]

perhaps I am engaging in wishful thinking imagining that Wikipedia be run by sane competent administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if there were nothing else, that looks to me like grounds for a ban. How can Wikipedia function if people are nasty to the admin corps collectively?

U.S. President John Adams felt the same way: Alien and Sedition Acts.

I'm not immediately seeing the analogy to those, but an analogy to lèse-majesté laws occurred to me, those are when a citizen insults or makes fun of the ruler or the ruling class. That is indeed an aspect of the administrator culture. Talk back to an admin? Get blocked. Engage in a sharp debate with admins about how they're applying a policy, or criticize one for personally violating policy, ala WP:INVOLVED? The target is now on your back and you'll get blocked down the road by the admin or his or her IRC buddy on a trumped-up separate offense.

Kiefer's "wishful thinking imagining that Wikipedia be run by sane competent administrators" is so mild, it seems unthinkable to me that anyone could even be irritated by that, let alone perceive it as grounds for blocking. But then there are the hypersensitive and defective personalities like Bwilkins who say the most atrocious things themselves but perceive the most horrendous of personal attacks for the mildest cross word uttered in their presences.

I think the remark is most easily likened to criticizing politicians, ala "wishful thinking imagining that this country be run by sane competent politicians." In my country that's an inconsequential remark. I'm curious to know if there are other cultures (except of course the most oppressive regimes) where that sort of statement still shocks anyone's sensibilities? Lèse-majesté much?

[EricBarbour]

U.S. President John Adams felt the same way:

Alien and Sedition Acts (T-H-L)

One of the ugliest incidents in the early history of the nation, a complete embarrassment.
What really pissed me off about John Adams (TV miniseries) (T-H-L): the Acts and their effect,
as well as the entire crisis with the revolutionary French government, was barely discussed in the series.

[SB_Johnny]

I'm not immediately seeing the analogy to those, but an analogy to lèse-majesté laws occurred to me, those are when a citizen insults or makes fun of the ruler or the ruling class. That is indeed an aspect of the administrator culture. Talk back to an admin? Get blocked. Engage in a sharp debate with admins about how they're applying a policy, or criticize one for personally violating policy, ala WP:INVOLVED? The target is now on your back and you'll get blocked down the road by the admin or his or her IRC buddy on a trumped-up separate offense.

Well, to be fair, when you're an asshole to an admin, that's generally a sign that you're an asshole to non-admins too, so making your assholery plainly apparent to an admin will of course bring said assholery to their attention, and they'll quite rightly block you.

There are, of course, a certain subset of the admins who have appointed themselves to the WP:CIVIL inquisition, and apparently get some sort of joy out of using their block buttons.

The interesting thing about Ironholds (and many if not all of the WP:CIVIL inquisitors) is that he will consider the exact same behaviors of two people differently depending on whether they're cabal (admins, WMF employees, wannabes, etc.) or not. If they're cabal, it's just dry wit and people just need to lighten up. If they're not cabal, it's assholery, and the asshole needs to be blocked.

(This probably needs a separate thread.)

[Mancunium]

perhaps I am engaging in wishful thinking imagining that Wikipedia be run by sane competent administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if there were nothing else, that looks to me like grounds for a ban. How can Wikipedia function if people are nasty to the admin corps collectively?

U.S. President John Adams felt the same way: Alien and Sedition Acts.

I'm not immediately seeing the analogy to those, but an analogy to lèse-majesté laws occurred to me, those are when a citizen insults or makes fun of the ruler or the ruling class. That is indeed an aspect of the administrator culture. Talk back to an admin? Get blocked. Engage in a sharp debate with admins about how they're applying a policy, or criticize one for personally violating policy, ala WP:INVOLVED? The target is now on your back and you'll get blocked down the road by the admin or his or her IRC buddy on a trumped-up separate offense.

Kiefer's "wishful thinking imagining that Wikipedia be run by sane competent administrators" is so mild, it seems unthinkable to me that anyone could even be irritated by that, let alone perceive it as grounds for blocking. But then there are the hypersensitive and defective personalities like Bwilkins who say the most atrocious things themselves but perceive the most horrendous of personal attacks for the mildest cross word uttered in their presences.

I think the remark is most easily likened to criticizing politicians, ala "wishful thinking imagining that this country be run by sane competent politicians." In my country that's an inconsequential remark. I'm curious to know if there are other cultures (except of course the most oppressive regimes) where that sort of statement still shocks anyone's sensibilities? Lèse-majesté much?

Scandalum magnatum (T-H-L)

At one time, the honour of peers was especially protected by the law; while defamation of a commoner was known as libel or slander, the defamation of a peer (or of a Great Officer of State) was called scandalum magnatum. The Statute of Westminster of 1275 provided that "from henceforth none be so hardy to tell or publish any false News or Tales, whereby discord, or occasion of discord or slander may grow between the King and his People, or the Great Men of the Realm."[21] Scandalum magnatum was punishable under the aforesaid statute as well as under further laws passed during the reign of Richard II.[22] Scandalum magnatum was both a tort and a criminal offence. The prohibition on scandalum magnatum was first enforced by the King's Council. During the reign of Henry VII, the Star Chamber, a court formerly reserved for trial of serious offences such as rioting, assumed jurisdiction over scandalum magnatum, as well as libel and slander, cases. The court, which sat without a jury and in secret, was often used as a political weapon and a device of royal tyranny, leading to its abolition in 1641; its functions in respect of defamation cases passed to the common law courts. Already, however, the number of cases had dwindled as the laws of libel, slander and contempt of court developed in its place. In the reign of Charles II, scandalum magnatum came briefly back into fashion; it was used by the future James II against Titus Oates, by Lord Gerard against his cousin Alexander Fitton, and by the Duke of Beaufort against John Arnold. By the end of the 18th century, however, scandalum magnatum was obsolete. The prohibition on it was finally repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1887.[23]

[The Joy]

What Mancunium said. Ironholds is like old John Adams and Kiefer is like Thomas Jefferson. I guess that makes Risker an Abigail Adams?

I'm going to have to stop with the history analogies and metaphors, aren't I? They don't seem to work with most of y'all.

Tl;dr: You can't say bad things about people high in the hierarchy. They should make an actual Star Chamber (T-H-L) to deal with administrators and WMF employees since the "justice system" for the commoners doesn't work.

[everyking]

Ironholds is still editing and doesn't seem to have lashed out or anything. (Of course, for all I know he may be saying some abominable things in IRC, but I hope he's learned his lesson about that.) Good for him! If he's got the fortitude and maturity to handle desysopping without stomping off and starting a sockpuppet account, there may be hope for him yet.

Personally, I thought the desysopping was deserved, but I think it's a bit alarming that the ArbCom came so close to banning him. I didn't see that he did anything that was awful enough to warrant that. He seems unfit to wield authority, but I don't doubt that he's a productive editor.

[EricBarbour]

but I don't doubt that he's a productive editor.

Many people here would disagree with you, strenuously. His content writing has been indifferent at best, and he was
responsible for one massive error in an article that lasted for years.

[Zoloft]

Ironholds is still editing and doesn't seem to have lashed out or anything. (Of course, for all I know he may be saying some abominable things in IRC, but I hope he's learned his lesson about that.) Good for him! If he's got the fortitude and maturity to handle desysopping without stomping off and starting a sockpuppet account, there may be hope for him yet.

Personally, I thought the desysopping was deserved, but I think it's a bit alarming that the ArbCom came so close to banning him. I didn't see that he did anything that was awful enough to warrant that. He seems unfit to wield authority, but I don't doubt that he's a productive editor.

People (remember, those fleshy things behind the cheesy account names?) don't usually sockpuppet because they lose their admin bits. They sockpuppet when they are banned. You lost your admin bits and did not sockpuppet. You just kept going to RfAs until you got the admin bit back... there are exceptions of course, like Law (T-C-L) and Pastor Theo (T-C-L).

[Mancunium]

Ironholds is still editing and doesn't seem to have lashed out or anything. (Of course, for all I know he may be saying some abominable things in IRC, but I hope he's learned his lesson about that.) Good for him! If he's got the fortitude and maturity to handle desysopping without stomping off and starting a sockpuppet account, there may be hope for him yet.

Personally, I thought the desysopping was deserved, but I think it's a bit alarming that the ArbCom came so close to banning him. I didn't see that he did anything that was awful enough to warrant that. He seems unfit to wield authority, but I don't doubt that he's a productive editor.

Keyes thinks he is still an administrator: link

About me
I've been an editor since 2006, and an admin since early 2011.

[Silent Editor]

Ironholds is still editing and doesn't seem to have lashed out or anything. (Of course, for all I know he may be saying some abominable things in IRC, but I hope he's learned his lesson about that.) Good for him! If he's got the fortitude and maturity to handle desysopping without stomping off and starting a sockpuppet account, there may be hope for him yet.

Personally, I thought the desysopping was deserved, but I think it's a bit alarming that the ArbCom came so close to banning him. I didn't see that he did anything that was awful enough to warrant that. He seems unfit to wield authority, but I don't doubt that he's a productive editor.

Keyes thinks he is still an administrator: link

About me
I've been an editor since 2006, and an admin since early 2011.

So, who's bold enough to update it for him?

[Randy from Boise]

Ironholds is still editing and doesn't seem to have lashed out or anything. (Of course, for all I know he may be saying some abominable things in IRC, but I hope he's learned his lesson about that.) Good for him! If he's got the fortitude and maturity to handle desysopping without stomping off and starting a sockpuppet account, there may be hope for him yet.

Personally, I thought the desysopping was deserved, but I think it's a bit alarming that the ArbCom came so close to banning him. I didn't see that he did anything that was awful enough to warrant that. He seems unfit to wield authority, but I don't doubt that he's a productive editor.

Keyes thinks he is still an administrator: link

About me
I've been an editor since 2006, and an admin since early 2011.

So, who's bold enough to update it for him?

I've nudged him on his talk page already.

He should be big boy enough to do it himself.

RfB

ADDENDA: Looks like it is fixed.

ADDENDA 2: Or not. Hmmm.

[Zoloft]

Ironholds is still editing and doesn't seem to have lashed out or anything. (Of course, for all I know he may be saying some abominable things in IRC, but I hope he's learned his lesson about that.) Good for him! If he's got the fortitude and maturity to handle desysopping without stomping off and starting a sockpuppet account, there may be hope for him yet.

Personally, I thought the desysopping was deserved, but I think it's a bit alarming that the ArbCom came so close to banning him. I didn't see that he did anything that was awful enough to warrant that. He seems unfit to wield authority, but I don't doubt that he's a productive editor.

Keyes thinks he is still an administrator: link

About me
I've been an editor since 2006, and an admin since early 2011.

So, who's bold enough to update it for him?

I've nudged him on his talk page already.

He should be big boy enough to do it himself.

RfB

ADDENDA: Looks like it is fixed.

ADDENDA 2: Or not. Hmmm.

SB_Johnny just clips it like Bob Barker.

[neved]

Ironholds is still editing and doesn't seem to have lashed out or anything. (Of course, for all I know he may be saying some abominable things in IRC, but I hope he's learned his lesson about that.) Good for him! If he's got the fortitude and maturity to handle desysopping without stomping off and starting a sockpuppet account, there may be hope for him yet.

Personally, I thought the desysopping was deserved, but I think it's a bit alarming that the ArbCom came so close to banning him. I didn't see that he did anything that was awful enough to warrant that. He seems unfit to wield authority, but I don't doubt that he's a productive editor.

Keyes thinks he is still an administrator: link

About me
I've been an editor since 2006, and an admin since early 2011.

So, who's bold enough to update it for him?

I've nudged him on his talk page already.

He should be big boy enough to do it himself.

RfB

ADDENDA: Looks like it is fixed.

ADDENDA 2: Or not. Hmmm.

SB_Johnny just clips it like Bob Barker.

Yeah right.

[Zoloft]

Ironholds is still editing and doesn't seem to have lashed out or anything. (Of course, for all I know he may be saying some abominable things in IRC, but I hope he's learned his lesson about that.) Good for him! If he's got the fortitude and maturity to handle desysopping without stomping off and starting a sockpuppet account, there may be hope for him yet.
     
Personally, I thought the desysopping was deserved, but I think it's a bit alarming that the ArbCom came so close to banning him. I didn't see that he did anything that was awful enough to warrant that. He seems unfit to wield authority, but I don't doubt that he's a productive editor.

Keyes thinks he is still an administrator: link

About me
I've been an editor since 2006, and an admin since early 2011.

So, who's bold enough to update it for him?

I've nudged him on his talk page already.
     
He should be big boy enough to do it himself.
     
RfB
     
ADDENDA: Looks like it is fixed.
     
ADDENDA 2: Or not. Hmmm.

SB_Johnny just clips it like Bob Barker.

Yeah right.

Technical 13 (T-C-L) reverts.

(SB Johnny, he was an admin, so removing that from his user page is inappropriate. You could change it to something like was an admin from 2011-13 if you find it particularly dishonest for him to leave it, or leave it and give him time to make it "right".)

[Vigilant]

Add this in its place.

I was an admin until August of 2013, when I was desysoped by ARBCOM for conduct unbecoming. I barely avoided being indefinitely blocked.

It has the advantage of being true.

I love this bit on his talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =568510515

Well, I'm quite happily transferring away from this role (hopefully in the next couple of months...although they've been saying that since March). Whoever my replacement is, please try to be less of an ass to them? ;p. It's not about taking it in stride or not - it's about avoiding contributing to an unpleasant and toxic environment that makes well-intentioned staffers want to simply leave. In my experience being rude to people is an excellent way to ensure they're less enthusiastic about involving the community in the future, which is a pity because community involvement is (I believe) what we need, in all our decisions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You would know, wouldn't you, Oliver.

Even though you shat all over people reporting bugs and complaining about the giant clusterfuck that is VE.

You've been an enormous asshole to so many people, even when it was YOUR FUCKING JOB to be professional and understanding to the customer base's concerns.

P.S. Fix your user pages to reflect that you are no longer an admin or I'll have someone run it by ARBCOM and ask that you be further sanctioned (you were just severely admonished) for willfully impersonating an admin after being desysopped. Guess if you think I'm fucking around with you, Oliver...

[Mancunium]

(SB Johnny, he was an admin, so removing that from his user page is inappropriate. You could change it to something like was an admin from 2011-13 if you find it particularly dishonest for him to leave it, or leave it and give him time to make it "right".)

Whenever I check out some random WP editor it almost always leads to some little horror like Technical 13/Don Fortier's FB page: link, where the current "Status Update" reads:

So, walking home tonight from where the bus drops me off, I found three twenty dollar bills folded up in the middle of the road. I was like woo-hoo! $60! So, I decided to treat Marion Fortier and Rachael Simmons to supper at Applebee's in Augusta, Maine. We get there and get seated. Our waitress comes around and asks what we would like for drinks. Rachael stumbles with her words for a bit trying to remember what we had last time and I say to the waitress, "I'll have a Pomegranate Lemonade with no ice." Rachael says, "Yeah, that's it; I'll have that too" The waitress then turns to me and asks, "And what will you have?" I had to tell her about 6 times before she figured it out. Then she runs off without asking what Marion would like. She comes back and we tell her that we would like an orange juice for Marion.

This is the prelude to a detailed description of all his petty complaints about the dangerous seating, the wrong orders being brought to the table, the quality and temperature of the food-- and the unfortunate waitress, with whom they spent most of the meal arguing, and who they repeatedly sent back to the kitchen. He concluded his night out by accosting the restaurant's manager:

He did not ask me what could be done to ensure a better visit "if" I was to come back nor did he offer any discount on my disappointing visit or like many places do, offer a discount or a coupon for a "next" visit to encourage disappointed customers to give them another chance. I felt like I was simply being patronized and he wasn't taking my complaint seriously. I paid the $36 bill and we left. I left no tip whatsoever, and will likely not return to that location.

Now there are twenty-four dollars burning a hole in his pocket. What will Technical 13 with the rest of his windfall?

[EricBarbour]

Whenever I check out some random WP editor it almost always leads to some little horror like Technical 13/Don Fortier's FB page:

Wikimedia loves people like him. OCD, mental rigidity, a unique form of "stupidity".
Easy to exploit. Fresh meat for the crocodiles.

[CoachFastball]

What is so shocking? A ban for Kiefer was beyond overdue, albeit unfortunate. Some of his ways were becoming tiresome and deleterious to the project. OTOH, comments made by Ironholds were too subpar. That fight between the two were usages of quotes to seem intimidating and/or tough. Anyone that thinks Keyes should've been banned are not aware of the scenario. That is what I did with it. No need to stir up the dramahz when it's been stirred enough. I am quite satisfied by the outcome and indeed was quite expected. Now, let's hope that none of us recruit boys or young men

[Vigilant]

Now, let's hope that none of us recruit boys or young men

What are your thoughts on how Demiurge1000 behaves towards editors under the age of majority?

[Jaranda]

What is so shocking? A ban for Kiefer was beyond overdue, albeit unfortunate. Some of his ways were becoming tiresome and deleterious to the project. OTOH, comments made by Ironholds were too subpar. That fight between the two were usages of quotes to seem intimidating and/or tough. Anyone that thinks Keyes should've been banned are not aware of the scenario. That is what I did with it. No need to stir up the dramahz when it's been stirred enough. I am quite satisfied by the outcome and indeed was quite expected. Now, let's hope that none of us recruit boys or young men

Uhh... ?? I agree a ban for Kiefer was unfortunate, but I don't agree with the outcome. Kiefer was one of the rare breed of Wikipedians who weren't afraid to speak their minds and that made him a target for those Jimbo process wonks worshippers that took over the project the past few years (almost everyone with common sense either left the project, or focusing on content only). He might have gotten a bit too personal at times, but absolutely nothing that led to a full scale ban. I do agree he should have contacted ArbCom first with the child protection issue and avoid it being mentioned on WP, as it is a very sensitive manner (for the child's sake), but according to his word above, he did but nothing happened.

[Vigilant]

What is so shocking? A ban for Kiefer was beyond overdue, albeit unfortunate. Some of his ways were becoming tiresome and deleterious to the project. OTOH, comments made by Ironholds were too subpar. That fight between the two were usages of quotes to seem intimidating and/or tough. Anyone that thinks Keyes should've been banned are not aware of the scenario. That is what I did with it. No need to stir up the dramahz when it's been stirred enough. I am quite satisfied by the outcome and indeed was quite expected. Now, let's hope that none of us recruit boys or young men

Uhh... ?? I agree a ban for Kiefer was unfortunate, but I don't agree with the outcome. Kiefer was one of the rare breed of Wikipedians who weren't afraid to speak their minds and that made him a target for those Jimbo process wonks worshippers that took over the project the past few years (almost everyone with common sense either left the project, or focusing on content only). He might have gotten a bit too personal at times, but absolutely nothing that led to a full scale ban.

The real scandal is the disparity of treatment between Oliver Keyes and Kiefer.

ARBCOM enshrined the separation of the classes with this decision.
The IP edits that Keyes made to Ottava's page are way beyond the pale.
But, like a corrupt police department, they all looked the other way when one of their own committed the crime.
Having his corruption reach the light of day, the boys in blue had no choice but to expel him from the bunko squad.

[Jaranda]

What is so shocking? A ban for Kiefer was beyond overdue, albeit unfortunate. Some of his ways were becoming tiresome and deleterious to the project. OTOH, comments made by Ironholds were too subpar. That fight between the two were usages of quotes to seem intimidating and/or tough. Anyone that thinks Keyes should've been banned are not aware of the scenario. That is what I did with it. No need to stir up the dramahz when it's been stirred enough. I am quite satisfied by the outcome and indeed was quite expected. Now, let's hope that none of us recruit boys or young men

Uhh... ?? I agree a ban for Kiefer was unfortunate, but I don't agree with the outcome. Kiefer was one of the rare breed of Wikipedians who weren't afraid to speak their minds and that made him a target for those Jimbo process wonks worshippers that took over the project the past few years (almost everyone with common sense either left the project, or focusing on content only). He might have gotten a bit too personal at times, but absolutely nothing that led to a full scale ban.

The real scandal is the disparity of treatment between Oliver Keyes and Kiefer.

ARBCOM enshrined the separation of the classes with this decision.
The IP edits that Keyes made to Ottava's page are way beyond the pale.
But, like a corrupt police department, they all looked the other way when one of their own committed the crime.
Having his corruption reach the light of day, the boys in blue had no choice but to expel him from the bunko squad.

Heh I edited my posting above, but yes I agree with you 100%. ArbCom should have focused on simply the conflict between Ironholds and Kiefer and Ironholds behavior, which the original case was based. Anything related to Kiefer should have been dealt elsewhere. This case however, isn't a good example for enshrining "the separation of the classes" clause as Ironholds got desysopped for behavior based offensives instead of misuse of the tools, which is unprecedented IMO. I can't recall an ArbCom case which a user was desysopped for unacceptable behavior except in emergency cases. There has been worse ArbCom abuses.

[Vigilant]

What is so shocking? A ban for Kiefer was beyond overdue, albeit unfortunate. Some of his ways were becoming tiresome and deleterious to the project. OTOH, comments made by Ironholds were too subpar. That fight between the two were usages of quotes to seem intimidating and/or tough. Anyone that thinks Keyes should've been banned are not aware of the scenario. That is what I did with it. No need to stir up the dramahz when it's been stirred enough. I am quite satisfied by the outcome and indeed was quite expected. Now, let's hope that none of us recruit boys or young men

Uhh... ?? I agree a ban for Kiefer was unfortunate, but I don't agree with the outcome. Kiefer was one of the rare breed of Wikipedians who weren't afraid to speak their minds and that made him a target for those Jimbo process wonks worshippers that took over the project the past few years (almost everyone with common sense either left the project, or focusing on content only). He might have gotten a bit too personal at times, but absolutely nothing that led to a full scale ban.

The real scandal is the disparity of treatment between Oliver Keyes and Kiefer.

ARBCOM enshrined the separation of the classes with this decision.
The IP edits that Keyes made to Ottava's page are way beyond the pale.
But, like a corrupt police department, they all looked the other way when one of their own committed the crime.
Having his corruption reach the light of day, the boys in blue had no choice but to expel him from the bunko squad.

Heh I edited my posting above, but yes I agree with you 100%. ArbCom should have focused on simply the conflict between Ironholds and Kiefer and Ironholds behavior, which the original case was based. Anything related to Kiefer should have been dealt elsewhere. This case however, isn't a good example for enshrining "the separation of the classes" clause as Ironholds got desysopped for behavior based offensives instead of misuse of the tools, which is unprecedented IMO. I can't recall an ArbCom case which a user was desysopped for unacceptable behavior except in emergency cases. There has been worse ArbCom abuses.

Keyes' behavior was vastly worse.
He intentionally logged out to sock as an IP so he could grossly vandalize a user's talk page.
I don't know how else to show this.

Further, as an admin and WMF employee, you'd think he'd be he;d just a trifle more accountable than some run of the mill editor. Wouldn't you?

[neved]

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.

There are more actions on Sue talk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =570196576

I was very concerned to read in the Christian Science Monitor the flippant tone and substance of the response by Sue Gardner to shocking and disturbing expressions of misogyny and sexualized-violence by WMF employee and Wikipedia editor Oliver Keyes (aka Ironholds), whose apparent years-long pattern of misogynistic, violent, and defamatory rhetoric I learned about thanks to the efforts of Kiefer Wolfowitz.
I was especially disillusioned when Gardner wrote, "I also don't think it's useful to quote back sections of IRC dialogue. It's an ephemeral medium." She actually seems to be saying that she didn't think it was convenient to have abusive and inappropriate IRC dialogue quoted back to her and reported on by the MSM or anyone else, and that she wished it were an ephemeral medium - when in reality it isn't. Her trying to hide this discussion on her talk page only serves to amplify the disillusion.
Why would I give my daughter permission - let alone encourage her - to become involved in editing Wikipedia or engaging in any way over any project for any reason with the WMF, when there is apparently official tolerance of the online abuse and degradation of women on Wikipedia and its related mediums (like quasi-official IRC)...by Wikimedia Foundation employees?! This is a question all responsible parents should ask, b/c unless I am mistaken, Gardner has not denounced Oliver Keyes' statements as inappropriate, nor has she advocated for an end to officially-tolerated online abuse of women by WMF staff, volunteers and/or supporters? If she has, I would appreciate being directed to that official statement and wonder why it has not been reported on by the media? (I do not believe a non-transparent user-driven "arbitration" can substitute for an official response from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner.) Azx2 22:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


A few have accused Ironholds of being a misogynist, but not a single women. Female editors have in fact said he's the very opposite, check for example this page and search for the word "progressive" to see several such statements. Having spoke to Sue at a London meetup, she's as caring a person as one could hope to meet. And you only have to check her contributions , including from today, to see she writes with sensitivity and compassion about all kinds of progressive causes. Its understandable that folk are passionate about this topic, but that makes it all the more important to do a little research before publicly asking such ultra hostile loaded questions against a woman who edits in her real name and is probably too busy to defend herself against this sort of thing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It does amuse me that, while we have newcomers with, shall we say, interesting imagery on their user and talk pages (are both of those your daughters, Azx2?), making wild accusations like this, what we actually see on IRC on a day to day basis is that the most active of the people in charge of IRC are all female. Do they make the right decisions, do they make the wrong decisions, well I have no comment for now, but I wonder if this Azx2 person has ever spoken to those women about their decisions, before making these attacks here.

Oh, and the Christian Science Monitor made the mistake of allowing that ridiculous piece to be published under their byline, by an individual who has already declared that he wants money or "editorial control" otherwise he would rather gouge his eye out with a fork than contribute to Wikipedia.

Do you feel the same way, Azx2? What are you here for? Money? Editorial control? Something else? We would be interested to know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

[Midsize Jake]

Indeed. It does amuse me that, while we have newcomers with, shall we say, interesting imagery on their user and talk pages (are both of those your daughters, Azx2?), making wild accusations like this...

Well, of course he'd think it was weird that Azx2 (T-C-L) would have photos of Michele Merkin (T-H-L) on his user page - she's over 16!

[Hex]

Just happened across this, thought it would be worth adding to this woeful chronicle of Ironholds and his IRC antics.

Ironholds was the one who outed Law via an IRC chat.