Before today, I'd thought that The Rambling Man (T-C-L) was helpful.EricBarbour wrote: because several of them (... Rambling Man, ... etc.) are longtime and notorious editwarriors.
I blame Wikipediocracy for such beliefs. Where is Prioryman when you need him?Wikipedia is being over-run with teenagers that should be studying or flipping burgers.*Kiefer*.Wolfowitz 12:06 pm, Today (UTC−7)
Demiurge1000 was attracted by the musings of Beavis and Butthead:Just for info, there's already been one, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-H-L). The close did mention disruption at RfA, particularly in the context of "opinion of young editors", and also a need to be "a little more respectful to those around him".
So this would either be a second RFC/U (which is entirely permissible, of course), an arbcom case, or a discussion at WP:AN (T-H-L) requesting some sort of formal restrictions on his behaviour at RfA. Read the first RFC/U to see the kind of reaction there might be from some editors to any such proposals. --Demiurge1000 (T-C-L) 04:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
You might ask Gwickwire or other young men who have followed Demiurge1000's advice about their experiences. Please insist that email be sent through the user interface, so that it can be monitored by the Wikimedia Foundation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)</span></small> 06:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
A pawn to be thrown away? Or another boy to be groomed until he gets banned and has ripened vulnerability?User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz rambling on
Yes, and one day you'll learn that patronising people and insulting their ability to write will haunt you all the way to Hades. The Rambling Man (T-C-L) 17:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
*Can we look into a RFC/U or something against this user? In the past, I'd just dismissed their actions of those of an eccentric: now I think they're here just to be disruptive. Lukeno94 (T-C-L) 21:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
It's interesting, someone else has contacted me about the legitimacy of the Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) account, citing several "coincidental" editing techniques. I'm not bothered; I just think KW is trolling around for kicks and we're all being sucked in by his bizarre approach. Having said that, I won't be engaging with KW again, it's clear he's just making a WP:POINT (T-H-L) that has no basis in reality. The Rambling Man (T-C-L) 21:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
::*I've no idea if they're related to anyone else; but your latter couple of sentences are precisely why I'm thinking about this. That said, it'll go around and around in circles and end up with a complete farce - oh wait, that's what's happening already! *headdesk* Lukeno94 (T-C-L) 21:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
::*:Why don't you kids plan your toilet papering (T-H-L) by email? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) 21:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
KW, your response to WTT here is a masterpiece:Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Fram (like Fetchcomms before him) has proposed an interaction ban between myself, Demiurge1000, and GiantSnowman.
Fram does seem either to have been underestimated by me or to have responded exceptionally well to criticism.
Signs and wonders
*KW, I would support the interaction ban, but I believe that it would do little good if either of you have retain fora to carry on commenting on the other. Would you be amenable to not commenting on [[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge]] off wiki either? [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 13:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
*:I am glad that you support an interaction ban. I share your concern about any misuse of Wikipedia's IRC. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It is funny; I had a conversation once with someone (on IRC, appropriately enough) who wasn't a fan of Wikipediocracy; they complained that, among other things, WO members with advanced permissions on Wikipedia use them at other WO members' request. I asked them what the difference was between that and the use of the !admin, !checkuser, !oversight, etc. stalk words on IRC; I guess the parallel didn't occur to them.Vigilant wrote:Its funny that WP brass think that WO is toxic, yet you guys never deal with the utter cesspool that is IRC.
I completely agree that the twenty-somethings that comprise the bulk of the Administrative caste cut their teeth on WP as teenagers. I don't really think this is surprising, however, or even necessarily problematic. The level of administrative abuse is actually quite low, all things considered. I think there are probably some bad actors among New Page Patrollers and definitely a couple who go beyond the bounds of policy on matters of suspected or confirmed Conflict of Interest, but I don't think that most administrators have been tweaked by playing a Wikipedia Video Game rather than Grand Theft Auto or World of Warcraft during their formative years.DanMurphy wrote:
This may sound a little crazy, but there's also a lot of insiders who are fully adults now, but started when they were 15-16 whatever. I've long toyed with the thought that their deep involvement with and adaptation to Wikipedia's culture in their formative years did something to them (though haven't been able to really put my finger on it and, yes, it sounds crazy).
Hey, welcome, Writ Keeper!Writ Keeper wrote:It is funny; I had a conversation once with someone (on IRC, appropriately enough) who wasn't a fan of Wikipediocracy; they complained that, among other things, WO members with advanced permissions on Wikipedia use them at other WO members' request. I asked them what the difference was between that and the use of the !admin, !checkuser, !oversight, etc. stalk words on IRC; I guess the parallel didn't occur to them.Vigilant wrote:Its funny that WP brass think that WO is toxic, yet you guys never deal with the utter cesspool that is IRC.
Also: hey, what's up, Wikipediocracy?
That's my impression as well.DanMurphy wrote:It comes to mind because that Luke account is clearly a puffed up, shrieking teenager who started on Wikipedia when he was about 17. The notion of engaging in "debate" with such is profoundly distasteful to many adults.
Welcome.Writ Keeper wrote:It is funny; I had a conversation once with someone (on IRC, appropriately enough) who wasn't a fan of Wikipediocracy; they complained that, among other things, WO members with advanced permissions on Wikipedia use them at other WO members' request. I asked them what the difference was between that and the use of the !admin, !checkuser, !oversight, etc. stalk words on IRC; I guess the parallel didn't occur to them.Vigilant wrote:Its funny that WP brass think that WO is toxic, yet you guys never deal with the utter cesspool that is IRC.
Also: hey, what's up, Wikipediocracy?
It would be wrong to agree to a gag order unlessSweet Revenge wrote: KW, your response to WTT here is a masterpiece:*KW, I would support the interaction ban, but I believe that it would do little good if either of you have retain fora to carry on commenting on the other. Would you be amenable to not commenting on [[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge]] off wiki either? [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 13:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
*:I am glad that you support an interaction ban. I share your concern about any misuse of Wikipedia's IRC. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
There's just too much weirdness with young editors. Demiurge1000 should just close his Wikipedia account and stick to writing snide remarks at Ann Coulter.comKiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:LovelyWoden.Ragnarok wrote:More Young editors at Sam wiki http://samwiki.wikkii.com/wiki/User_talk:Demiurge1000
Where he seems to be making edits on behalf of banned user Hurricanefan24 (T-C-L) but then that whole wiki seems to be a gathering place for banned young editors an ideal place for Demi to make friends.Dark Suit Samus's father must be thrilled to have his son getting IMs from Demiurge1000.
I meant your edits, dummy. Phazon Suit Samus 13:12, 1 July 2011 (MIST)
Oh hi Loudclaw, how are you? Demiurge1000 15:27, 1 July 2011 (MIST)
Awful. Phazon Suit Samus 12:15, 14 July 2011 (EST)
Whyyyyyyyyyyy? Demiurge1000 12:20, 14 July 2011 (EST)
Summer sucks. Tell me about Outer Space in a Sub Page. Make them in the same way as you so in Simple. Phazon Suit Samus 10:19, 16 July 2011 (EST)
You tried to IM me, didn't you? I've learned my lesson. I don't IM you anymore. Dark Suit Samus 13:41, 20 October 2011 (EST)
How much of the "abuse by admin" goes along these lines?Randy from Boise wrote:I completely agree that the twenty-somethings that comprise the bulk of the Administrative caste cut their teeth on WP as teenagers. I don't really think this is surprising, however, or even necessarily problematic. The level of administrative abuse is actually quite low, all things considered. I think there are probably some bad actors among New Page Patrollers and definitely a couple who go beyond the bounds of policy on matters of suspected or confirmed Conflict of Interest, but I don't think that most administrators have been tweaked by playing a Wikipedia Video Game rather than Grand Theft Auto or World of Warcraft during their formative years.DanMurphy wrote:
This may sound a little crazy, but there's also a lot of insiders who are fully adults now, but started when they were 15-16 whatever. I've long toyed with the thought that their deep involvement with and adaptation to Wikipedia's culture in their formative years did something to them (though haven't been able to really put my finger on it and, yes, it sounds crazy).
There's nothing that continued scrutiny can't fix.
RfB
:So far, only WTT has raised a concern about an interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself, and he supports a ban. Is there consensus for a standard interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 16:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::Patience! The discussion should stay open for at least 24 hours and have some more participants (e.g. giving Demiurge a chance to respond may be a good idea). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 16:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:::Thank you, most kind! I do understand the annoyance you may feel here; you block one disputant having previously blocked the other, another admin unblocks them without discussing it with you, that disputant then repeats the problematic behaviour, the other disputant then comes to your talk page moaning about it, and so on and so on. Having said that, though, if you do choose to get involved in "policing" particular people (as GS puts it), you shouldn't be too put out when the people being policed keep turning up at your police station's front desk questioning one thing or another. And, more to the point, if Dennis ''had not'' overturned your 6th May block without discussing it with you, then the disruption at the RfA would not have happened, nor would KW's comments aimed at The Rambling Man and Luke, nor would my informing Luke of the existence of the earlier RfC/U, nor would KW's questionable comments after that. So, you ask, "how do you propose we defuse or avoid a problematic situation", the answer is that you had it right the first time, and you were over-ruled! --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::::I think we established below that the issue was GiantSnowman's choice of words and he has admitted as much, not KW's participation. Even if someone didn't like his !vote, it should have just been overlooked. To assign all the drama of the last few days with my unblocking of KW some time back stretched credulity to the breaking point. I forgot to add, I do believe that I unblocked '''you''' once after Fram blocked you, but you didn't complain about an early unblock there. ;-) [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] / [[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]] / [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|©]] / [[Special:EmailUser/Dennis Brown|@]] 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::The block was set to run until a couple of days from now, I think. If you had not overturned it, the comment would not have been made, and, more to the point, the following problematic behaviour would not have happened either. We're here because you overturned the block in the belief that the behaviour would not repeat; you were wrong. You may feel the !vote should have been overlooked, but others don't agree; it's not at all unreasonable for other editors to reply to a comment that belittles the efforts of an editor just because of their choice of topic area. (This sort of attitude was mentioned right back in 2011 at the RFC/U - KW agreed to try to fix it - has he?) Yes, GS did not make that reply in the right manner, and has apologised for it; but he was certainly not the only one to share that concern. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
'''Oppose'''. The evidence presented is utterly inadequate to justify imposing an involuntary interaction ban. My comment to Luke was to inform him of the existence of an earlier RFC/U, after he had asked TRM about proposing one; I mentioned parts of the close of that RFC/U (worked out with great care by an independent administrator acceptable to all parties) about issues similar to those that concerned him; informed him of available options; and cautioned him to be aware of the sorts of responses that any of those options might receive from some other editors. This was not in the least combative. (KW's replies, by contrast; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =558092978] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =558075063]). Fram's other links are to (1) the RFC/U which Worm and I prepared in 2011, which was widely agreed to have been helpful in highlighting at least some issues that KW needed to address; and (2) KW's arbcom evidence where he attacked Worm, me, DGG, Elen of the Roads, and Scottywong (if any of those other editors react unwisely to an unusual RfA comment from KW in the future, will they be subject to interaction ban proposals too?).
Neither of the other incidents listed, including the RfA madness which Stfg rightly describes as "grotesque" and which is the background to this whole incident, had ''anything to do with me'' - I did not comment at either. It's all very well (and indeed true) to theorise that if person X and person Y were blind to each other's existence then there would be less drama, but forcing an interaction ban down the throat of one of them, without any evidence of that person being responsible for disruption (I've never been blocked in any dispute I've had with KW, nor even close I believe), is more likely to ''cause'' drama than prevent it. As Stfg says, interaction bans rarely work very well. Leaping to an involuntary one, for the sake of perceived convenience, without evidence justifying it, would be very unwise.
I also '''Oppose''' the suggested interaction ban between KW and GS. Plenty of other administrators have been described as "dishonest" or "abusive" or similar by KW, and as GS points out, some of them have had confrontations with him more than once. (The Rambling Man is a rather recent addition as far as I can remember, so may not fit in that category.) Why pick on GS? (One over-reaction for which he has apologised, and perhaps a mistaken comment somewhere in the distant past?) Is there a possibility that perhaps it's not all the targets of KW's ire that are at fault, but someone else? --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:Demiurge1000 has a history or recruiting inexperienced young men or boys to serve as his footsoldiers in his manipulative games. Consider his involvement with Worm That Turned, gwickwire, and now Lukeno94, or his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia, e.g. on Wikipedia's IRC. Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 20:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::Sorry, is this some kind of accusation of [[Child grooming|grooming]] Wikipedia editors? "his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia".... This needs serious intervention now, as KW's wild accusations have crossed the line. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::That is a horrendous accusation and needs to be oversighted. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 20:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:::It's worse than horrendous, KW should be blocked for accusations of this nature. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::::Demiurge1000 did egg on those editors, didn't he? How did it work out for them? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 20:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, a not unfair reading of what you wrote is a suggestion that the guy is a pedophile... was that your intent? (I thought it was just that he was identifying minds most easy to manipulate to play the world of wiki warcraft).Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Now I'm indefinitely blocked.
From WP:AN:So far, only WTT has raised a concern about an interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself, and he supports a ban. Is there consensus for a standard interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 16:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::Patience! The discussion should stay open for at least 24 hours and have some more participants (e.g. giving Demiurge a chance to respond may be a good idea). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 16:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:::Thank you, most kind! I do understand the annoyance you may feel here; you block one disputant having previously blocked the other, another admin unblocks them without discussing it with you, that disputant then repeats the problematic behaviour, the other disputant then comes to your talk page moaning about it, and so on and so on. Having said that, though, if you do choose to get involved in "policing" particular people (as GS puts it), you shouldn't be too put out when the people being policed keep turning up at your police station's front desk questioning one thing or another. And, more to the point, if Dennis ''had not'' overturned your 6th May block without discussing it with you, then the disruption at the RfA would not have happened, nor would KW's comments aimed at The Rambling Man and Luke, nor would my informing Luke of the existence of the earlier RfC/U, nor would KW's questionable comments after that. So, you ask, "how do you propose we defuse or avoid a problematic situation", the answer is that you had it right the first time, and you were over-ruled! --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::::I think we established below that the issue was GiantSnowman's choice of words and he has admitted as much, not KW's participation. Even if someone didn't like his !vote, it should have just been overlooked. To assign all the drama of the last few days with my unblocking of KW some time back stretched credulity to the breaking point. I forgot to add, I do believe that I unblocked '''you''' once after Fram blocked you, but you didn't complain about an early unblock there. ;-) [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] / [[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]] / [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|©]] / [[Special:EmailUser/Dennis Brown|@]] 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::The block was set to run until a couple of days from now, I think. If you had not overturned it, the comment would not have been made, and, more to the point, the following problematic behaviour would not have happened either. We're here because you overturned the block in the belief that the behaviour would not repeat; you were wrong. You may feel the !vote should have been overlooked, but others don't agree; it's not at all unreasonable for other editors to reply to a comment that belittles the efforts of an editor just because of their choice of topic area. (This sort of attitude was mentioned right back in 2011 at the RFC/U - KW agreed to try to fix it - has he?) Yes, GS did not make that reply in the right manner, and has apologised for it; but he was certainly not the only one to share that concern. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
'''Oppose'''. The evidence presented is utterly inadequate to justify imposing an involuntary interaction ban. My comment to Luke was to inform him of the existence of an earlier RFC/U, after he had asked TRM about proposing one; I mentioned parts of the close of that RFC/U (worked out with great care by an independent administrator acceptable to all parties) about issues similar to those that concerned him; informed him of available options; and cautioned him to be aware of the sorts of responses that any of those options might receive from some other editors. This was not in the least combative. (KW's replies, by contrast; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =558092978] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =558075063]). Fram's other links are to (1) the RFC/U which Worm and I prepared in 2011, which was widely agreed to have been helpful in highlighting at least some issues that KW needed to address; and (2) KW's arbcom evidence where he attacked Worm, me, DGG, Elen of the Roads, and Scottywong (if any of those other editors react unwisely to an unusual RfA comment from KW in the future, will they be subject to interaction ban proposals too?).
Neither of the other incidents listed, including the RfA madness which Stfg rightly describes as "grotesque" and which is the background to this whole incident, had ''anything to do with me'' - I did not comment at either. It's all very well (and indeed true) to theorise that if person X and person Y were blind to each other's existence then there would be less drama, but forcing an interaction ban down the throat of one of them, without any evidence of that person being responsible for disruption (I've never been blocked in any dispute I've had with KW, nor even close I believe), is more likely to ''cause'' drama than prevent it. As Stfg says, interaction bans rarely work very well. Leaping to an involuntary one, for the sake of perceived convenience, without evidence justifying it, would be very unwise.
I also '''Oppose''' the suggested interaction ban between KW and GS. Plenty of other administrators have been described as "dishonest" or "abusive" or similar by KW, and as GS points out, some of them have had confrontations with him more than once. (The Rambling Man is a rather recent addition as far as I can remember, so may not fit in that category.) Why pick on GS? (One over-reaction for which he has apologised, and perhaps a mistaken comment somewhere in the distant past?) Is there a possibility that perhaps it's not all the targets of KW's ire that are at fault, but someone else? --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:Demiurge1000 has a history or recruiting inexperienced young men or boys to serve as his footsoldiers in his manipulative games. Consider his involvement with Worm That Turned, gwickwire, and now Lukeno94, or his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia, e.g. on Wikipedia's IRC. Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 20:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::Sorry, is this some kind of accusation of [[Child grooming|grooming]] Wikipedia editors? "his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia".... This needs serious intervention now, as KW's wild accusations have crossed the line. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::That is a horrendous accusation and needs to be oversighted. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 20:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:::It's worse than horrendous, KW should be blocked for accusations of this nature. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::::Demiurge1000 did egg on those editors, didn't he? How did it work out for them? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 20:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't think it reads that way at all. Its just that we are so used to the place being a perverts recruitment ground. What he said was that they were being recruited as footsoldiers in demijohn's manipulative games, not so that he could bone them up the arse.DanMurphy wrote: Well, a not unfair reading of what you wrote is a suggestion that the guy is a pedophile... was that your intent? (I thought it was just that he was identifying minds most easy to manipulate to play the world of wiki warcraft).
Given the way that place works, the moment Demiurge and his buddies saw that they were probably screaming "Yahtzee!" at their computer screens.
There's some faux outage from DarknessShines and TheRamblingMan (is SilverSeren far?), but the sexual innuendo is all in their pointy heads.Demiurge1000 has a history or recruiting inexperienced young men or boys to serve as his footsoldiers in his manipulative games. Consider his involvement with Worm That Turned, gwickwire, and now Lukeno94, or his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia, e.g. on Wikipedia's IRC. Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Go get 'em TailGunner Joe.What the actual fuck did I just read? Apart from the sheer idiocy of Kiefer assuming that I am in any way affiliated with Demiurge (I am not, and never have been), and the fact I've used the IRC here about 3 times, all when the servers are down, that has to be one of the most disgraceful accusations I've ever seen, regardless of any sexual nature (or lack of) in the comment. Kiefer should be blocked, and blocked for a while, for that comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not this particular boy...Quite. Anyone that empathises with KW's grooming comments needs close inspection. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Tell me how this is vastly different than IRCI will note here that Luke has never attempted to contact me in any way ; and my only contact with Luke has been my one post currently visible on his talk page, the purpose of which I describe in detail above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm also going to note that Lilburne is here after KW canvassed multiple times at an off-wiki forum (including, now, complaining about being indefinitely blocked there), where KW did indeed use the g word, and where he also had some more-than-unpleasant comments to make about Luke. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
My favorite dingleball in boldKW blocked
I have indefinitely blocked KW for this edit, which goes far beyond the bounds of acceptability, and really should be oversighted, or at least revdel'd (the edit summary is also a personal attack). Indefinite does not mean infinite, and I am not averse to the block being reduced in time (in fact, I will support a fixed length of time, once community consensus arrives at an appropriate length. This entire discussion has been acrimonious, but that is so heinous that someone who is not involved needed to step in. Horologium (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
* Good block. How many times do we have to play his game before we and/or he figures it out. Go Phightins! 21:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
* Idiotic. But not surprising. Intothatdarkness 21:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
* Good block. Kiefer's repeated ridicule of younger people has grown tiresome. AutomaticStrikeout ? 21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
* Looks like a good block to me and that should be over-sighted immediately as it looks to be an attempt to out the other user based on unverifiable opinion or some such ridiculousness. Technical 13 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
With the circling of the wagons, they're now in a tough spot.21:18, 3 June 2013 King of Hearts (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: content hidden and edit summary hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
Given his blocking rationale, he might want to reword that bit.I have little patience for people who perceive everything from a purely emotional point-of-view. I can be extremely abrupt and abrasive with such people, as I find it very hard to relate to them. I have emotions, but they don't control me.
And more. A teabagger, to boot.My Wikipedia philosophy is quite complex, and defies easy categorization. My ideal for a more perfect Wikipedia would be to create many wikis for pop culture topics and transwiki many of the related articles on Wikipedia to them. (Some of these already exist in a fairly substantial format, such as Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia). I see no reason why all 703 episodes of the live-action Star Trek (and 17 of the 22 animated episodes) should have articles on Wikipedia, when Memory Alpha exists. (Before you go hating on me for that, note that I own all 720 episodes on DVD, as well as all but three of the movies.) This does not make me a deletionist, however. I also believe in structurism, and a combination of two opposing philosophies mergism and seperatism; merging in small articles rather than deleting them and seperating large articles rather than deleting content. I also agree with the tenets of exclusionism, although that also leads back to transwikism again.
I'm sure you'll get a fair hearing from this admin.I am more-or-less neolibertarian, in political terms. I support a vigorous and engaged foreign policy, and recognize that there are some issues in which the federal government should be involved. For the most part, however, I believe that government should not interfere in religion, commerce, industry, or personal relationships (or any combinations thereof).
It's bizarre that people think that I was talking about sexual grooming.DanMurphy wrote: Well, a not unfair reading of what you wrote is a suggestion that the guy is a pedophile... was that your intent? (I thought it was just that he was identifying minds most easy to manipulate to play the world of wiki warcraft).
Given the way that place works, the moment Demiurge and his buddies saw that they were probably screaming "Yahtzee!" at their computer screens.
Fellow retired navy noncom Randy "respect mah authoritah" Everett named him an "awesome Wikipedian" to boot. I wonder if he's a scout leader like Randy?Vigilant wrote:Some funny stuff.
From the blocking admin's user page:"My beliefs and biases" sectionGiven his blocking rationale, he might want to reword that bit.I have little patience for people who perceive everything from a purely emotional point-of-view. I can be extremely abrupt and abrasive with such people, as I find it very hard to relate to them. I have emotions, but they don't control me.
A bit further. Dear lord.And more. A teabagger, to boot.My Wikipedia philosophy is quite complex, and defies easy categorization. My ideal for a more perfect Wikipedia would be to create many wikis for pop culture topics and transwiki many of the related articles on Wikipedia to them. (Some of these already exist in a fairly substantial format, such as Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia). I see no reason why all 703 episodes of the live-action Star Trek (and 17 of the 22 animated episodes) should have articles on Wikipedia, when Memory Alpha exists. (Before you go hating on me for that, note that I own all 720 episodes on DVD, as well as all but three of the movies.) This does not make me a deletionist, however. I also believe in structurism, and a combination of two opposing philosophies mergism and seperatism; merging in small articles rather than deleting them and seperating large articles rather than deleting content. I also agree with the tenets of exclusionism, although that also leads back to transwikism again.I'm sure you'll get a fair hearing from this admin.I am more-or-less neolibertarian, in political terms. I support a vigorous and engaged foreign policy, and recognize that there are some issues in which the federal government should be involved. For the most part, however, I believe that government should not interfere in religion, commerce, industry, or personal relationships (or any combinations thereof).
He doesn't look puffed up. Or 18, but I'm not doubting that part.DanMurphy wrote:It comes to mind because that Luke account is clearly a puffed up, shrieking teenager who started on Wikipedia when he was about 17. The notion of engaging in "debate" with such is profoundly distasteful to many adults.
Ah, he was born late in 1994. Among the youngest of the 1994 births. I'm sure he's a good lad and helps his mom around the house and all. Wikipedia is bad for his education and his sense of self. Hopefully, he'll learn that some day. I suppose the grownups who enable this are the ones we should focus on, not the kids who aren't getting guidance.Moonage Daydream wrote:He doesn't look puffed up. Or 18, but I'm not doubting that part.DanMurphy wrote:It comes to mind because that Luke account is clearly a puffed up, shrieking teenager who started on Wikipedia when he was about 17. The notion of engaging in "debate" with such is profoundly distasteful to many adults.
How is it that David Gerard, Slim Virgin, Mongo, Tony Sidaway, etc were never blocked under this rationale?Good block If this were the sole disruptive incident in his career I'd have said this was over the top, and have favored a more limited block, but given the long history of stirring up trouble for trouble's sake, this seems like the right move. Also, the egregious nature of these comments, carefully crafted to be provocative to the point of offensiveness, and yet deliberately containing enough circumlocution to give him some wiggle-room of deniability shows that he knew exactly the kind of effect he was going for in his comments, and that sort of deliberate manipulation isn't something we need at a place where our primary goal should be the building of knowledge. Any contributions lost from Keifer will be more than made up by other people who now won't be driven away from the project by behavior such as this. --Jayron32 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Technical 13 is a 33 year old guy with FOUR kids and a high school diploma.The one that is suppose to protect people's sexual preference. The comment and it's edit summary imply that the user it is directed at is a pedophile or at very least homosexual. I honestly do not care if that user is homosexual or not, but declaring that the user is would fall under 1.Removal of non-public personal information, 2. Removal of potentially libelous information, and 5. Removal of vandalism I would suspect... Wouldn't you agree? Technical 13 (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Could that be the faint whiff of IRC taint drifting our way?Handy admin
For contentious RFC's Ironholds
Howdy, and welcome.Writ Keeper wrote:Also: hey, what's up, Wikipediocracy?
Indeed. If anything, it's worse. All the posts here are visible to the world, but who knows what goes on in the murky world of #wikipedia-en if they're not in there? It is a perpetual mystery to me why the basic Wikipedia IRC channels aren't publicly logged. There are a vast number of projects using IRC for communication that publish channel logs on the web, why aren't we one of them?Writ Keeper wrote:It is funny; I had a conversation once with someone (on IRC, appropriately enough) who wasn't a fan of Wikipediocracy; they complained that, among other things, WO members with advanced permissions on Wikipedia use them at other WO members' request. I asked them what the difference was between that and the use of the !admin, !checkuser, !oversight, etc. stalk words on IRC; I guess the parallel didn't occur to them.Vigilant wrote:Its funny that WP brass think that WO is toxic, yet you guys never deal with the utter cesspool that is IRC.
KeiferWolfowitz said "Demiurge1000 has a history or recruiting inexperienced young men or boys to serve as his footsoldiers in his manipulative games. Consider his involvement with Worm That Turned, gwickwire, and now Lukeno94, or his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia, e.g. on Wikipedia's IRC. Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?"lilburne wrote:Don't think it reads that way at all.DanMurphy wrote: Well, a not unfair reading of what you wrote is a suggestion that the guy is a pedophile... was that your intent?
One of them had or has something on his talk page asking Demiurge1000 to cease IM'ing him.Triptych wrote:KeiferWolfowitz said "Demiurge1000 has a history or recruiting inexperienced young men or boys to serve as his footsoldiers in his manipulative games. Consider his involvement with Worm That Turned, gwickwire, and now Lukeno94, or his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia, e.g. on Wikipedia's IRC. Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?"lilburne wrote:Don't think it reads that way at all.DanMurphy wrote: Well, a not unfair reading of what you wrote is a suggestion that the guy is a pedophile... was that your intent?
It's close enough to raise an eyebrow but I also do not see a pedophilia insinuation. I looked at the exchange about instant messaging, didn't know what to make of that. Nothing then.
The accursedly-spelled Horologium block is non-policy as Kiefer says, there is criticism but not personal attack, and should be overturned immediately. As non-policy.
Worse what I wrote has been repeatedly misquoted as "young boys".Triptych wrote:KeiferWolfowitz saidlilburne wrote:Don't think it reads that way at all.DanMurphy wrote: Well, a not unfair reading of what you wrote is a suggestion that the guy is a pedophile... was that your intent?It's close enough to raise an eyebrow but I also do not see a pedophilia insinuation. [....]"Demiurge1000 has a history or recruiting inexperienced young men or boys to serve as his footsoldiers in his manipulative games. Consider his involvement with Worm That Turned, gwickwire, and now Lukeno94, or his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia, e.g. on Wikipedia's IRC. Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?"
Demiurge1000 wrote:I don't consider it entirely appropriate for you to demand that a user that you believe is a (very) young child should contact you privately off-wiki.
Funny how these things cycle around, isn't it?Fetchcomms wrote:When did I ever state I believe this user is a very young child? When did I ever demand anything? Why are you presuming what I have to discuss is placing him in danger? For heaven's sake, I had information he posted oversighted for more than one person's safety. Demiurge1000, are you trying to get him hurt by making these claims about his age? Who said anything about parents? I never asked for real names, IP addresses, etc.; I asked for one email. And yes, you bloody well do have to give out your IP to reply unless you use Gmail, to which this user seems to have an aversion. So can we please stop throwing around these implied allegations?
Fetchcomms was about the most decent and fair-minded administrator on Wikipedia, and a good man. It's a pity but understandable that he retired.Mason wrote:... Just a few short years ago, Demiurge1000 was accusing a different editor of acting inappropriately about young boys, which that editor naturally took a great deal of offense to:
Demiurge1000 wrote:I don't consider it entirely appropriate for you to demand that a user that you believe is a (very) young child should contact you privately off-wiki.Funny how these things cycle around, isn't it?Fetchcomms wrote:When did I ever state I believe this user is a very young child? When did I ever demand anything? Why are you presuming what I have to discuss is placing him in danger? For heaven's sake, I had information he posted oversighted for more than one person's safety. Demiurge1000, are you trying to get him hurt by making these claims about his age? Who said anything about parents? I never asked for real names, IP addresses, etc.; I asked for one email. And yes, you bloody well do have to give out your IP to reply unless you use Gmail, to which this user seems to have an aversion. So can we please stop throwing around these implied allegations?
Precisely!dogbiscuit wrote:In other spheres, avoiding the appearance of impropriety is considered important, regardless of how trustworthy people are considered. Raising these matters are not normally considered accusations of improper behaviour.
Organisations normally have rules to avoid well-meaning individuals dropping themselves in it, or being tempted.
In an environment where people are not allowed to know who is at the other end of the virtual telephone line, what could possibly go wrong?
I should think some of the IRC chats could land some of the participants in severe hot water - participants having conversations of a sexual nature suddenly look very different when it might be between a 45 year old man and a 13 year old boy, even if Sue Gardener believes that the children are our future.
Article space on subjects that are appealing to that demographic. One of the most common places on the internet for predators is computer games, tv series etc.Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Vigilant,
If an editor were a sexual predator, what areas of Wikipedia would be most appealing?
The Tea House?
Why do you ask ME?!Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Vigilant,
If an editor were a sexual predator, what areas of Wikipedia would be most appealing?
The Tea House?
Sorry for the vagueness.Vigilant wrote:Why do you ask ME?!Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Vigilant,
If an editor were a sexual predator, what areas of Wikipedia would be most appealing?
The Tea House?
This made me laugh so hard I almost literally feared an heart event. Kudos to Vigilant for answering the question.Vigilant wrote:Why do you ask ME?!Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Vigilant,
If an editor were a sexual predator, what areas of Wikipedia would be most appealing?
The Tea House?
TeaHouse is a great place to start.
Private IRC channels is another.
Generally hanging around in IRC with the same older men for long periods of time.
Editor mentoring/adopting is a great daisy chain of trust relationships and intimacy. Creepy tests, etc
Culminating in a meeting at a wikimania event.
The Rambling Man and Lukeno94 had convinced the RfA-paysans that (1) I was a bad writer.Triptych wrote:This made me laugh so hard I almost literally feared an heart event. Kudos to Vigilant for answering the question.Vigilant wrote:Why do you ask ME?!Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:V____,
If an editor were a sexual predator, what areas of Wikipedia would be most appealing?
The Tea House?
...
I think you're fucked now. None of the administrators wants to get "thwapped" by Ironholds. :pIronholds wrote:comment; it's very early days, here, but given the overwhelming consensus I'd strongly suggest nobody unblock unless they want to get thwapped. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Ironholds's stupidity/dishonesty and authoritarianism are entertaining for students of the Peter Principle:mac wrote:I think you're fucked now. None of the administrators wants to get "thwapped" by Ironholds. :pIronholds wrote:comment; it's very early days, here, but given the overwhelming consensus I'd strongly suggest nobody unblock unless they want to get thwapped. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Just as The Rambling Man (T-C-L) seems to have introduced "sexual grooming" as a malicious misrepresentation, Ironholds seems to have introduced the "young boys", a big lie that has been repeated at AN without challenge.I have blocked you indefinitely for this edit. That edit (and the edit summary) is far out of the bounds of acceptability. I will be posting on the noticeboard thread in a minute about this block.Horologium (T-C-L) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
You have no idea what you're talking about. Read what I wrote. I accused nobody of being sexually used by DU1000---certainly not WTT. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) 21:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Comprehension seems low today, Kiefer. I, for one, understood what you meant. Intothatdarkness (T-C-L) 21:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
"Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?" How did you expect that to be interpreted? AutomaticStrikeout (T-C-L) 21:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
When read in the full context of what was going on there, I take it to be a question as to whether an experienced user should be encouraging new users to fight his battles for him. But people will read what they wish into things. That's always (IMO) been one of KW's written weaknesses. His style is opaque at times and easy to misunderstand or twist. Intothatdarkness 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
So substitute "young people" if it makes you happy, and strike the offending phrase.
Please focus on the issue, which is recruiting pawns. Should he have been advising Luke to pursue an RfC targetting me? Should he have been egging on gwickwire? etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
One of the "young boys"Demiurge has, according to Kiefer, been questionably behaving towards is a member of the arbitration committee. That sort of undermines the argument, here. The fact of the matter is that grooming was ''immediately surfaced as a possible interpretation of your statement'' - and instead of doing anything in response, you goaded people. You either knew full well what you were saying or just fancied poisoning the well a tiny bit more. Neither attitude is appropriate. Ironholds (T-C-L) 22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
