Randy from Boise wrote:This whole Ironholds Joke/K-Wolf Threat/Wheelwarring/Incivility/IRC brouhaha is sliding towards an ArbCom case.
Some possible outcomes:
1. Ironholds loses WMF job.
I think this is a foregone conclusion.
He's belligerent to a fault, regardless of venue or subject material.
He is uniquely unsuited for the job.
The thing I really, really love about this situation is that the hiring of this manchild exposes the obviously oblivious manner in
which the vestigial Human Resources department goes about its business.
The WMF are, once again, on the horns of a dilemna of their own making.
1) Either the terminate this spedling with extreme prejudice, thus lending weight to this discussion and the wikipediocracy sponsored motion. Inconceivable!
2) Or they refuse to do anything substantive about Oliver Keyes and he continues to provide incontrovertible evidence to the double standards that exist between the admin and editor classes.
Here's what's very funny to me.
Oliver Keyes made a "joke" in a channel with up to 1600 advanced permissioned participants about burning an editor to death. This is far from his first fuckup, e.g. "let them drink demon jizz", "I despise Jimmy Wales", etc, etc
The defense ranged from "it was private" to "no logging" to "not in his official capacity". All feeble excuses for intolerable behavior.
Kiefer's response was completely predictable when being provoked with a death threat.
The outcome is that the editor, Kiefer, is seriously being considered for an indef block.
The admin and WMF employee *might* face a deadminning.
Indef block and effective banning is not the same as loss of admin privileges.
The only inference possible is that admins are a higher class of people than editors and are thus immune to sanctions such as indefinite blocks or banning. It is only after they are stripped of their permissions that they are eligible for these punishments.