Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Workshop

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * This section should be used by the Arbitrators to ask questions of the parties from now on.

=Proposed final decision=

Decorum
1) Wikipedia users are expected to interact with each other civilly, calmly and in a spirit of cooperation. Actions which sour the editing environment, such as direct or indirect attacks, are forbidden.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Conduct outside Wikipedia
2) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * From a previous case - it should be clear in the principles where the boundary lies. Worm TT( talk ) 07:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As it is written, this principle absolutely nails the crux of the issue. Kurtis (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. There is a clear and obvious connection between KW's statement in July 2011, "I and Peter are both academics, and we are both well aware of the seriousness of plagiarism" (worth reading the further documentation of this at the RfC/U, especially how he repeatedly makes this spurious allegation against Peter who edits under his real name), and his similar behaviour in June and July 2013, . Note the deliberate and awkward-sounding repetition of the target's full real name in two of these cases, two years apart. The intent is to intimidate his on-wiki opponents by suggesting a threat to their real-life reputation, employment, or status. This is egregious harassment; it is nothing to do with trivial incivility. It has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Past blocks have been unsuccessful in persuading KW to rethink this approach to Wikipedia editing, and he has even continued with it during this case itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Conduct on Arbitration cases
3) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Given the number of closed sections and reversions, this may be useful, perhaps not in it's current form. Worm TT( talk ) 09:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if anything I've said directly resulted in this proposed principle, and if that is the case, then I apologize. I really don't enjoy speaking out against anyone, let alone productive contributors, but I honestly think Kiefer's antics have often veered into outright bullying territory. I couldn't stand by and let it continue, especially not after being so involved in the situation myself. This case was opened to examine the conduct of both parties, not just their dispute on IRC. I brought up Kiefer's participation at RfA and his previous RfC because I felt that it was important in understanding the rift between himself and Ironholds. Of course I feel bad that my contributions to the evidence page almost singlehandedly shifted the whole focus of the case towards him, but I did what I felt was right. I truly believe that we as a community need to be less tolerant of incivility, especially when it involves belittling others. Kurtis (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The belittling of other editors is indeed a problem, and is well demonstrated by the evidence you presented, the "sufficient intellect" quip being just one glaring example of KW's views on those who do not share his views or interests. However, as I noted above, the blatant harassment and attempts at real-world intimidation are an even more serious problem. The RfC/U was not first mentioned by you, and it was obvious that it would figure in this case given the way in which the problems first mentioned in it have not just continued, but intensified, in the intervening two years. I agree with WTT that a principle similar to this is appropriate, given that one party to the case has behaved impeccably during it (even in the face of further provocation), has accepted his past mistakes and has given good faith assurances that he will learn from them and change his ways completely; and the other has signally failed to do any of these things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nature of the case
1) The case request revolved around the poor conduct outside Wikipedia of both Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds, which led to sanctions when Kiefer.Wolfowitz responded to off-wiki comments on Wikipedia. The case was accepted to review the conduct on Wikipedia of the two named parties.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support with one caveat: this case was accepted to review both their on-wiki and off-wiki conduct. Kurtis (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds
2) Comments made on IRC by administrator Ironholds have been below the level of civility that is expected on Wikipedia. Ironholds has acknowledged this and has voluntarily withdrawn from IRC to ensure it does not happen again.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Although I fear the comments may appear worse still when taken out of context, Kiefer makes a very good point. It would be difficult to find more threatening language than this, outwith websites (like 4chan) that expect their users to use it. AGK  [•] 12:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by Kiefer.Wolfowitz
 * The euphemism "below the level of civility" is just bullshit.
 * Ironholds discussed ...
 * being anally sodomized by a named Wikipedia editor (in his imagination),
 * making a list of people to be shot (naming Jenifer Aniston, Sharon Osbourne, two successive Popes),
 * sexually degrading a Wikipedia editor, leaving her bruised all over, etc.
 * punching a hole in the windpipe of a woman to prolong her suffocation.


 * Furthermore, the problem is that Ironholds is just a violent extremist on IRC, but others behave much the same way. Of course, IH is a role model for bad behavior. He discusses sexual violence and humiliating others in ways that seem to be taken as a joke by the other participants, which include many administrators, clerks, and arbitrators, and indeed Sue Gardner  (credit ). Evidence of IH's role-model for bad behavior (and charitable acknowledgment that IRC's scandals are not just his fault) has been supressed, and I've reworded the censored paragraph to make sense. 12:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Crystal_Clear_action_edit_remove.png Paragraph removed by clerk


 * Jimbo Wales has already given ArbCom authority to monitor WP:IRC, and you all have to take responsibility for your failure to do anything---indeed for actively covering up such disgraceful and dangerous behavior. At very least, you should communicate to the community and the WMF and the world that Wikipedia's IRC is dangerous to children and the project and that the WMF needs to ensure it cleans itself up or severs its relationship with Wikipedia.


 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  09:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've redacted one comment, which was not relevant to the case, and also indented all the paragraphs in this section. AGK  [•] 12:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Ironholds is only staying away from the channels in question; He is not staying away from IRC totally, for example he is still communicating in #mediawiki-visualeditor. → Aza Toth 20:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. See my original statement to arbcom. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In principle, I would support a finding along these lines. However, I'm not sure if Worm That Turned has access to the IRC logs, considering that he's recused himself from this case. If that's the case, then the other arbitrators would likely have an entirely different perspective on how Ironholds communicates off-wiki. Kurtis (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I have no access to the logs in question, email on the case has gone to the -b list, which correctly does not include me. I do take the logs I've seen with a pinch of salt as I am aware logs have been manipulated in the past, so I personally appreciated Ironholds to corroborating some of his statements. It may be that the committee has seen much worse behaviour than I have, therefore this may not be sufficient. Worm TT( talk ) 10:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz
3) Recent comments made both on- and off-wiki by Kiefer.Wolfowitz have been below the level of civility that is expected on Wikipedia. This behaviour was raised in a 2011 RfC/U, where Kiefer.Wolfowitz agreed voluntarily with two viewpoints "that he should try to minimize the behavior and be a little more respectful to those around him ... and also that he should say things in a nicer and non-demeaning manner". Despite this agreement, Kiefer.Wolfowitz has amassed a significant block log, largely for incivility and disruptive editing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * KW
 * David selectively quotes from the RfC/U on which he and Demiurge1000 collaborated over months.
 * David quotes only part of 's statement, leaving out its criticisms of his own behavior.
 * Third, he misquotes 's statement---which Paris flagged as being a paraphrase of 's statement, which was better formulated and written---as though I had agreed with it, and of course I did not.
 * He failed to alert ArbCom that he affirmed falsehoods in this RfC/U, and has kept affirming them. He apologized for beginning the RfC/U with WP:NPA violations---half truths so distorted they angered and should have angered ---without striking them, leaving them to poison the well, similar to his submitting non-actionable "evidence" with which to prejudice these proceedings.
 * Fixed formatting of above response. Please don't add extra sections, because it just confuses things. AGK  [•] 12:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed formatting of above response. Please don't add extra sections, because it just confuses things. AGK  [•] 12:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Perhaps rephrasing the syntax of this finding would be a good idea, but in principle yes. This is a no-brainer. Kurtis (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ironholds reminded
1) Ironholds is reminded that conduct outside Wikipedia can reflect poorly on himself, both as a Wikipedia administrator and as a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would suggest something stronger than this, actually; something like "Ironholds is reminded that conduct outside Wikipedia can reflect poorly on himself, both as a Wikipedia administrator and as a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation, and cause community disquiet and disruption. Future instances that cause on-wiki disruption will lead to a desysopping" or suchlike. Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I can't see that anything more than a reminder is required here. His actions off-wiki do not cross the line I highlighted above and his on-wiki behaviour has not been sub-par. What's more, he does appear to regret his actions and has suggested that he will be staying away from IRC in a social context. Worm TT( talk ) 07:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironholds even admits directly above that he's made some poor choices. I think a simple reminder would suffice; no need to threaten him with a desysop. Kurtis (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned
2) For persistent incivility, personal attacks, harassment and disruptive editing, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Banning me while welcoming Oliver Keyes (User:Ironholds, User:Okeyes (WMF)) and User:Demiurge1000 would clarify ArbCom's ability to handle WP:Civility, violence, misogyny, and child protection.
 * How did ArbCom's covering up of Qworty work out for Wikipedia? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  08:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Last month, Kiefer.Wolfowitz managed to turn a sensible interaction ban request into a possible indefinite block on himself. It's a long thread on the administrators noticeboard, but one that is worth reading as it gives a clear view of how the community tried to handle this user. My final view was that Kiefer.Wolfowitz needed to be indefinitely blocked until he accepted that his actions were problematic - he needs to have that "epiphany" moment as well articulated by User:Dennis Brown. Worm TT( talk ) 07:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My comments regarding this can be found at WTT's talk page. If you or the Arbitration Committee feel it is absolutely necessary to ban Kiefer, it shouldn't be on the back of this case, the synopsis for which reads at the moment "User was badmouthed on IRC by WMF staffer, User complained vociferously, User banned for their troubles, WMF staffer let off with caution". That's going to turn into a monumental PR disaster for the project amongst the community, in the press, everywhere. Nick (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've responded to Nick's comments there. He brings up some important issues, ones that I had considered and disagreed with his conclusions. It's important to remember that I'm recused in this case, I'm bringing these proposals as a concerned editor. Whether the unrecused arbitrators take note is up to them. I do find it a shame that no one else has proposed anything whatsoever at the workshop. Worm TT( talk ) 09:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had some proposals I was thinking about - the main tenet would have been that Kiefer stops raising issues surrounding child protection and should try not to make statements which could conceivably be interpreted as accusing editors of inappropriate relationships with minors. The only reason I've not suggested this is because child protection is one of the most serious moral and legal issues the project faces, and in the absence of a properly formulated mechanism and policies for protecting minors (especially on IRC), investigating complaints and censuring editors who breach that policy, stopping anybody from raising child protection issues is inappropriate, regardless of how incessantly and forcefully they raise those issues. The statement that ArbCom don't consider themselves to be the governing body for IRC channels related to the English Wikipedia (and/or conduct on IRC that directly affects English Wikipedia) effectively prevents them from formulating and enforcing a proper child protection policy. Nick (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironholds has ducked out of IRC while this case continues, so reducing the risk that ArbCom will pass a measure restricting his return to IRC and the usual hijinks. Nobody has accused him of pedophilia. On the other hand, I,, and I believe have stated that it is inappropriate for him to mingle misogyny, grotesque sexuality, and violence on IRC (or on Wikipedia, e.g. as an IP, I've added), where he is a role model for kids---particularly since he identifies himself on IRC and here a Wikipedia administrator and WMF "community liason" employee.
 * The one case where the editor has pursued a relationship against the wishes of the parents and child (on-Wiki and off-Wiki) needs to be addressed, not by banning me and others for stating the obvious. On Wikipediocracy, I have already noted that Death in Venices relationship lacked physical contact, per WP:AGF. Kiefer'  .Wolfowitz  07:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would merely note that I "ducked out" of IRC to remove the risk that I'd further act like an ass, not out of any wish to avoid sanctions. If I wished to avoid sanctions, I wouldn't be proposing stronger sanctions against myself than this proposed result provides for. Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, this entire case — which is more or less a non-starter based on the evidence — is nothing but a convenient pretext for this preconceived result. The outcome has nothing to do with the evidence in this case and everything to do with the unspoken agenda here... To wit: KW has made a nuisance of himself on several unrelated issues and is to be disposed of for his series of shrill complaints against the Wikipedia status quo. This is nothing but the calculated silencing of a critic and every Arbcom member going down this road is complicit. Carrite (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Either that, or we're dealing with a very problematic contributor who belittles people for no real reason. I refuse to stand by and allow someone to ridicule others without even being called out on it. It has nothing to do with silencing a critic of ArbCom, and I say this as someone who is against elitism and hierarchies in general. I don't want a community run by self-important vested contributors any more than an administrative caste &mdash; both are bad for Wikipedia in the long run. Kurtis (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * During the case Kiefer.Wolfowitz's comments have conformed with WTT's characterisation of "deniable innuendo". Most recently he has added problematic evidence about a non-party, with wikilinks to pedophilia-related articles. That evidence has been rev-deleted. What might have started off as conscientious whistleblowing seems to have got out of control. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (Trying to post in response to Nick's first post above.) I have to agree with Worm that a ban for Kiefer.Wolfowitz is overdue; either a ban or, as Dennis put it, an epiphany, which would be wonderful but is even longer overdue. But I also have to agree with Nick that issuing a ban on the back of this case will send a bad, bad signal, even a "PR disaster" on all levels. It would look, if not exactly be, like the notorious banishment of Peter Damian for going after a (since discredited) arbitrator. Especially of course if Ironholds is let off with a caution, but really even if Ironholds should be sanctioned (which is not to be expected, though compare Floquenbeam's suggestion below). Can't we have a separate RFAR with Kiefer broadly construed as the focus instead? Later? That wouldn't stop the conspiracy theorists from spinning it as an attempt to get rid of a critic, but then nothing ever stops that, and it shouldn't be considered. But focusing as the current case inevitably does on Ironholds vs Kiefer pulls the whole Kiefer issue out of shape, and is fair to neither him nor his critics. (I wouldn't have minded a separate Ironholds case either, but I guess I'm a little late to that party.) Bishonen &#124; talk 11:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
 * I would hate to sign on to this, but we're not left with very many viable options at this time. The hard fact is that Kiefer generates too much heat for his own good, and as things stand right now, his current participation is a net negative for the project. An admonishment isn't going to cut it in this case. Kurtis (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Following Kiefer.Wolfowitz's recent announcement of his "retirement", his edits have been unduly provocative. Here are two or three examples. The first diff shows him casting aspersions on Dcoetzee. The second shows his very public on-wiki "spin" concerning a blog piece attacking Ironholds. The third shows him unnecessarily spamming a WP article with the same blog piece. Mathsci (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Civility and decorum
1) All users are expected to conduct themselves calmly, civilly, and reasonably. Actions performed out of ill will or malice are prohibited, and those performing such actions may be warned or sanctioned in accordance with Wikipedia policy and precedent from Arbitration Committee cases. Functionaries on Wikimedia sites, or Wikimedia Foundation employees, are expected to uphold and follow these standards of conduct rigorously and are not immune to sanctions as severe as those given to editors without special rights.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Actions performed out of ill will or malice are prohibited How do we decide what the motive behind an edit was? Is motive important when (and Salvio and Brad please note, I'm resisting the temptation to break into Latin here) the facts speak from themselves?  Roger Davies  talk 01:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in most circumstances, it's impossible to prove to a certainty what the real motive behind an action was. Courts of law often adopt an approach which examines the conduct of the defendant and make assumptions based on the circumstances of the fact (for instance, to determine if an unlawful killing is actually murder, a Court may examine where the killer shot the victim if in the head, it's quite probable he wanted to kill him; if in the legs, maybe not, how many times, what the relationship between the two was and many other aspects). However, unless we have a full confession, all determinations as to motive will necessarily be based on inference and may be wrong. Regarding your second question, on the other hand, I believe that there is no general answer. In certain cases, it may be necessary to examine the reason behind an edit; in others, that's entirely superfluous (for instance, I don't care why A insulted B or why B edit warred, whether it was because he thought he was right, or because he was simply bored or even wanted to irritate his opponent). In my opinion, it's entirely possible that an action which, at first glance, appears legitimate may in reality be motivated by malice (the most common example would be an editor targeting someone else's edits to harass him); in these cases, motive is important and, if proven, actions performed out of malice or spite should indeed lead to sanctions.   Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Classes of venues and standards of evidence
2) Failure to follow the standards set out in Wikipedia policy as referenced in principle (1) may result in sanction, even if it is not conducted on a site owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Four classes of venue shall exist for the purpose of defining sanctions: the English Wikipedia itself (class A); other websites owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, its chapters, or other affiliates (class B); unaffiliated websites, or sections thereof, dedicated primarily to the discussion of the Wikimedia Foundation, its websites, or its affiliates (class C); or unaffiliated sites not specifically dedicated to the Wikimedia movement (class D). Sanctions should be most vigorously applied to users for misconduct on the English Wikipedia, with progressively weaker sanctions applied for the same level of misbehavior in class B and C venues. Misconduct in class D venues may only be sanctioned in cases of multiply repeated and egregious misbehavior, or that which defames or degrades editors severely.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Iye iye iye. And you think ArbCom hasn't enough on its plate already? Apart from which, the big difficulty with non-En-Wiki venues is ensuring that logs, screenshots etc are accurate as it's trivially easy to tamper with them and the committee does not have, for example, sysop op access to the message bases. Not that that would help on IRC as no central logs are kept.  Roger Davies  talk 01:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * On a technical point, IRC is not a website. That may sound pedantic, but there is an important difference between posting something to a public blog or forum where the intention is for it to remain visible permanently and for as many people as possible to see it; and posting something to a limited-access chatroom where it is intended only as part of a real-time conversation between those present. As Sue Gardner pointed out when approached about this on her talk page, IRC is ephemeral. The situation is more akin to Wikipedia editors having a real life conversation which happens to be recorded - either surreptitiously without their knowledge or consent (as in some of these cases) or with their later agreement (as in others). It does not excuse inappropriate comments, but the format and intent of the conversations does affect their seriousness. (To give just one reason why; if, hypothetically, I make an off-colour joke about KW at a WMUK meetup and know that the proceedings are being recorded for later broadcast, one may reasonably assume my intention is to offend him - but if I make the same joke in the same situation while unaware that I am being recorded, one may reasonably assume my intention is merely to make those present think I am a buffoon.)


 * On a separate point, if this proposed principle is accepted, then Wikipediocracy becomes a "class C" website by these definitions, and therefore all of KW's actions there become directly acceptable as evidence, rather than (with a few exceptions) merely being acceptable for providing insight into KW's aims and into whether his claims about the intentions of his on-wiki actions are genuine or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In response to Roger, the technical IRC channels where error messages are directed and discussions about bugs are held have logging software running in them (a series of bots) and this could be extended to any channels the ArbCom feels they should have some sort of oversight over. Nick (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Roger Davies &mdash; I'm assuming you meant "ai yai yai", right? ;-)
 * That would be my reaction as well. We have enough bureaucracy as it is. Why make things more complicated? And, aside from things that are relevant to Wikipedia (or in exceptional cases, certain types of baggage that we'd prefer not to be associated with), who cares what people do elsewhere? Kurtis (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Roger, we already have as a source for untampered log files. Other, more permanent media can simply be obtained by ArbCom directly or, in the case of hidden information, obtained through contact with the governing authorities of the site. Demiurge1000, it is fine if Kiefer's statements on Wikipediocracy, as well as mine or anyone on there's, are considered. As for you "website" statement, in-person comments are similarly irrevocable, but we do not expect the sort of gruesome imagery in such statements as Ironholds has made on IRC. Why should online and in-person behavioral standards be any different? Wer900 • talk 18:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To extend my previous comments, ArbCom doesn't even have much of a caseload. The number of cases you accept and try each year, as has the number of cases that there are to be tried, due to the increasing disillusionment with the byzantine process that must be gone through in order to reach the Arbitration Committee. You don't have much on your plate at all, and you should be taking many, many more cases. It's also time that the meaning of "off-wiki" was codified. There are literally hundreds of travesties that you have conveniently swept under the rug, instead going for, in most cases, useless bickering between rival cabals. This case is the rare exception, and you are favoring the powerful and influential party in any case by dancing around the actual issues. @Kurtis, there's no "bureaucracy" in my criteria. Thousands of hours more are wasted every year trying to determine an uncertain relationship that I am trying to codify in the most precise manner possible. Wer900 • talk 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that said site is run by a banned sockpuppeteer who has it out for me (and has had for...over a year now) what's the actual evidence that they're untampered, or not plausibly going to be tampered? Ironholds (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence that they are necessarily tampered. Tell me who runs WikipediaLogs, as nobody on Wikipediocracy knows. Also, tell my why it is only logs that favor you have good provenance, while all others are "tampered with" or destroyed. I'm not making an accusation, but why wouldn't you or some of your supporters fudge IRC logs from Kiefer.Wolfowitz in order to support your cause? Why should only your version of history be accepted as evidence? Wer900 • talk 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipediocracy needs more background information, then. I'm not posting private information on-wiki; if the arbitration committee wants to know, I'm happy to send them what I have. I didn't say anything about the provenance of logs that favour me; I'm not aware of logs that it is being argued favour me. And to my knowledge Kiefer doesn't use IRC. I'm not entirely sure where your claim about "[my] version of history" is coming from; again, I have not used IRC logs to attempt to justify my actions. I haven't used IRC logs to attempt to explain Kiefer's. Nothing private, nothing realistically falsifiable has been submitted at my end. Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You failed to answer the question properly. Why is it that you question the provenance of our IRC logs? Why would it not be possible (and easier) for fabrications to be produced by your supporters? Who is this banned sockpuppeteer? Was he merely a common AN/I parasite or did he have something more political in mind with his sockpuppetry? What is his record with honesty on the encyclopedia? Furthermore, why is logging forbidden on many Wikipedia-related channels? Why is said forbidding of logging not a poorly-disguised attempt by admins and power players to hide their own wrongdoings and question the provenance of IRC logs at the same time? You know, full well, that much of the case against you rests on IRC logs (although there is plenty of evidence on-wiki that can result in sanction). Virtually all of the on-wiki evidence brought up by your supporters against Kiefer.Wolfowitz is a demonstration that he has a political goal rather than a personal one, and evidence in itself that your supporters are out to silence a critic. By dishing dirt on Kiefer, you aim to unfairly discredit IRC logs that are particularly damning of you. We haven't gone through all of those logs yet, and there are reams of statements by you that may not even have been logged. Wer900 • talk 19:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't answer broad questions about why IRC is or is not logged; I don't control IRC and wasn't around in 2001. For the rest of your questions, I'm simply going to disengage. I'm not dishing dirt on anyone, and the way you're phrasing this - with numerous assumptions of bad faith - indicates to me that this conversation is unlikely to be productive. If you want to ask me precise questions that do not assume bad faith, feel free; until then I'm going to choose to focus my efforts elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you can, Ironholds. You are a WMF employee, and numerous people like you are on IRC and even operate channels. If you cared about the accountability of the admin corps and yourself, you would definitely support logging. Instead, you are running around, shrieking about how the provenance of 90% of the evidence against you is poor. Wer900 • talk 20:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence standards
3) Evidence may be submitted from all four classes of venue, provided that private information is excised before its public presentation on the English Wikipedia. Evidence without such privacy redactions may be submitted to the Arbitration Committee or designated officers through private channels.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * See responses above. Plus, who does the excising? How do the committee that that is all that has been excised etc etc ...  Roger Davies  talk 01:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * In reply to Roger Davies: Excising can be done by the user, provided that a copy without redactions is sent to ArbCom. Wer900 • talk 20:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Moved by Penwhale at 21:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Conduct on Arbitration cases (proposed by Wer900)
4) Editors are expected to abide by normal standards of editing as discussed in principle (1) on Arbitration cases, and may not engage in battleground conduct on any arbitration pages. Arbitrators who have recused themselves from cases are expected to make all efforts not to influence the outcome of a case, by refusing to participate in proceedings, public or private, and by refraining from submitting evidence from any venue class.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No. This principle is entirely wrong and will not be adopted. AGK  [•] 16:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * KW
 * This goes against the principle that Arbitrators should be able to throw their weight around, without worrying about the usual prohibitions on mixing roles in professions, adult life, and other role-playing games.
 * It also goes against precedent of Worm That Turned biasedly summarizing former ANI discussions ("you were told by 10 administrators") and closing ANI discussions ("nothing to see here, somebody should close" when he closed!) in which he is involved. Stare decisis. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * There is a long held tradition that community members do not loose the right to present evicence before arbcom when they join the body. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  15:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If this principle were to be enacted then an arbitrator who was a party to a case (or case request) would not be able to present evidence in their defence. Recused arbitrators take no part in, and indeed are not privy to, the internal discussions among active arbitrators or any other part of the decision making process. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing a discussion while involved has nothing at all to do with whether a sitting arbitrator may comment on a case they are recused from. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators are people too. Who says they can't have opinions of their own? Kurtis (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
5) Vandalism of Wikimedia pages is impermissible and may be sanctioned by the relevant authorities on the English Wikipedia. The performance of vandalism through any means, but in particular covert methods, is unbecoming of an editor in good standing, and in particular of a Wikimedia functionary or employee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Ironholds has harassed several editors in various venues
1) Ironholds has made several sexual and/or misogynistic comments, as well as performed more general harassment, of various editors on Wikimedia-focused IRC channels, which are class C venues under principle (2). Such statements have often been targeted to cause discomfort to various Wikimedia editors, including women.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Ironholds has committed vandalism
2) Ironholds has, through IP addresses, engaged in vandalism of several pages on the English Wikipedia, and has impersonated and maliciously refactored the statements of other Wikimedia users.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * KW
 * Rephrase as "Ironholds identified himself on a WMF project as using an IP which has twice vandalized Wikipedia (human penis) and WMF (Ottava Rima); Ironholds identification is supported by IRC logs listing the same IP and similar behavior on IRC logs."
 * (Another log has a sober administrator using the IP once, and is called a "sockpuppet of Ironholds" by mutual friends, but this is trivial.) Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  15:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the page history for diffs, which have been removed. Look at the IPs editing human penis and User:Ottava Rima's pages (all wikis, please), and then Google the IPs committing vandalism---not too difficult. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the page history for diffs, which have been removed. Look at the IPs editing human penis and User:Ottava Rima's pages (all wikis, please), and then Google the IPs committing vandalism---not too difficult. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This needs to be explicitly supported by diffs presented in this section and (optionally) a permalink to the specific location they have been presented elsewhere if not all are presented here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP in question appears to be a dynamic or semi-dynamic IP from an internet provider. The fact that there is a six years and a year diffrence between between when oliver used the IP in question and the evidence presented makes me think that the diffs were not made by him. (The OR diff leads to nothing and I can not find any IP edits from that IP on his meta talk page) --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  15:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take Guerillero's word on this one. Plus, I trust Ironholds not to do anything stupid. Kurtis (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn finding
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I have removed this finding. Please do not re-add it without the express permission of an arbitrator. AGK  [•] 11:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * These "findings" and those above use exaggerated rhetoric and are not based on any reliable evidence.  Without diffs they are unhelpful and misleading for arbitrators.  Mathsci (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz has been repeatedly uncivil
4) Kiefer.Wolfowitz has made many statements that some users have considered to be hurtful or derisive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ironholds banned from community processes
1) For a period of three months, Oliver Keyes may not participate in community processes, broadly construed, with the exception of article talk pages in the context of editorial debate. Concurrently, Oliver Keyes is forbidden to use IRC channels that are class C under principle (2).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Seems unnecessary. AGK  [•] 12:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Can you provide any examples in the last few years of community processes being abused by me? My (admittedly, possibly naive) perspective is that ArbCom remedies should best be used to prevent harm where there is an expectation that harm is more likely to occur than would be the norm. Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * In reply to AGK Over 70% of Oliver Keyes's edits are to process pages. This will hit hard on the mainstay of his editing and force him to once again contribute content rather than seeking revenge by gathering supporters on ANI. Wer900 • talk 19:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In reply to Ironholds See above. We don't want you to right away start witch hunts against your opponents, which is what ANI is often used for. A process prohibition seems right on the mark.Wer900 • talk 19:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC) (comments moved here by Penwhale at 22:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm...somewhat confused. The edit counter suggests that ~14 percent of my contributions are to the Wikipedia namespace. Most of my contributions are to the article namespace, both recently and historically. As to AN/I; I'm not sure where the assumption of bad faith - that I'd "start witch hunts against [my] opponents" is coming from, but I find it unnecessarily rude, and not supported by historical evidence. I am primarily an article namespace editor, and a look at probably the last 100 contributions I've made to AN/I (lord knows how long the timespan between edit 1 and 100 there would be - I'd predict at least a year) would demonstrate that almost all of the time I get involved as a single commentator, not someone who starts up sections or drums up support or opposition to an idea. The idea that I'd march around seeking "revenge" doesn't seem to be founded on any evidential basis, and isn't something I'm interested in. Ironholds (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't try to disingenuously hide information, Oliver. With your account, something like 65% of your edits are to the User talk space, which in many cases is nothing more than an extension of community processes in "seekrit" locations. A 34% figure is obtained for the user talk namespace with your Ironholds account. Going back to your Okeyes account, the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespace each account for 16% of your edits. Face it, Ironholds: upwards of 90% of your edits are to community process pages, broadly construed, and even ignoring the user talk pages you edited (which is nonsensical, given how community process often happens there) 32% of your edits are to process pages. Only 0.27% of your edits are actually in article space. A community process ban makes complete sense, excluding of course VisualEditor feedback responses as that is in the scope of your employment. I will be going through your AN/I records shortly. Wer900 • talk 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not being disingenuous; I'm being confused. Yes, with my Foundation account a big chunk of my contributions are to the user talk namespace. This isn't an attempt at secrecy, this is because a large chunk of my contributions involve distributing newsletters. I'm not surprised that only 0.27 percent of my edits there are to the article space, because staffers shouldn't be editing the article space; where I've contributed there it's been largely in conducting tests of the VisualEditor to replicate bugs. But what you're saying here seems to be that I'm prohibited from participating in non-article discussions not because I've done anything wrong there, but because in a different capacity I have to participate there, and when you factor the edits of both accounts in the result is a non-article namespace count higher than that which you would like to see from a user. This seems irrational; you've not been able to demonstrate any misuse of the discussion namespaces, and banning me from working there as a volunteer is not going to make much of a difference as to the type of contributions I make, because these days most of my volunteer edits are new page patrolling anyway. I can't see any basis for this restriction. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at your WMF account's automated-edit stats. Only 15% of your edits are made with AWB, presumably all to give newsletters to people. Now, tell me why over 75% of your total edits are *not* to community process. Your role in Wikipedia community process has been less than positive, as has been pointed out by Kiefer.Wolfowitz in the evidence section. Wer900 • talk 19:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See Mass talk post tool. I don't understand your request ("tell me..."). Kiefer has, yes, identified occasions on which I've fallen below optimal standards on-wiki. I make no bones about that. But your argument for me being prohibited from involvement in community processes is only valid if I pose an active threat, and none of the on-wiki comments he identifies are less than two years old, so that's not particularly helpful. Ironholds (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then tell me, Ironholds, what would be a better sanction for you? I don't think there is one, given that you have the audacity to write your own admonishment and the history you have in community process as Ironholds. Besides, how else can we enforce your good behavior on IRC? Wer900 • talk 20:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is meant by "community processes" here? Does it for example include VisualEditor/Feedback that Oliver edits as part of the duties he is employed to perform? The wording here appears to prohibit Oliver taking part in editorial debate in locations other than an article talk page (e.g. WikiProject talk pages, AfDs, talk pages of article drafts in userspace, etc), if that is not the intention then it needs to be clarified. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, then we can add a special exception for VisualEditor pages. Wer900 • talk 19:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wer900 is neither a member of the arbitration committee nor a party. Please could a clerk or arbitrator move his comments here from the sections reserved for arbitrators and parties? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC) ✅ by Penwhale. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds suspended from adminship and other functionary roles
2) Ironholds is suspended from all functionary roles for a period of three months, whereupon he may regain them in a probationary status for nine subsequent months. Ironholds may permanently regain the tools in a request for adminship at least one year after the enactment of remedies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * What functionary roles does Ironholds have? From the perspective of the Arbitration Committee, they are Checkuser, Oversight and arbitrator/former arbitrator. Risker (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Mandatory RfA isn't really a suspension, is it? Ironholds (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't see what this is trying to achieve? For example, it doesn't define what "probationary status" means nor how it would be revoked (nor who by) if any problems occurred. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds strongly admonished
3) Ironholds is strongly admonished to refrain from incivility on all venue classes, in particular misogynistic comments which may seem joking at first sight but cause discomfort.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Fair enough. If Ironholds were to stop making these types of comments, much trouble and disruption would be avoided in future. Since I think it is widely accepted that these incidents are not isolated, the central question to me is how to we ensure Ironholds does not go on to do more of the same. I would like to think we could take him at his word. AGK  [•] 12:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Ironholds is placed on parole
4) After the vacation of his ban on community processes, Ironholds will be subject to special remedies should he violate Wikipedia's civility policies in class A, B, or C venues, pursuant to principle (2).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Again, this isn't much help to anyone without a definition of what "parole" or "special remedies" mean? This would also seem to imply that for the first period of time he is banned from "community processes" (which per comments above need to be defined) on the English Wikipedia. After that ban expires he is restricted (in some way yet to be defined) on the English Wikipedia and other sites. Why do you propose the restrictions on the other sites not begin immediately and run concurrently with the ban? Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds's logs are examined
4) The revision deletion and oversight logs of Ironholds shall be examined to ensure that he is not hiding the misconduct of himself, his supporters, or allies. Any evidence arising from such logs shall be presented in requests for clarification and amendment to this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is just silly. AGK  [•] 11:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would be pretty impressed if I'd been hiding misconduct via oversight, since I've never had the ability to oversight things. Can you provide any evidence that such hiding has taken place, or is this merely a catchall? I haven't seen the Arbitration Committee take this tack before - that is, going "N has acted inappropriately, ergo all actions by N must be reviewed". Ironholds (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * KW
 * An IP associated with Ironholds had its user-page deleted. Curiouser and curiouser.... Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This smells of a witch hunt. "I know you are guilty of something, but there isn't any evidence of it so you must have hidden the evidence. I demand you prove me right." Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at real court cases, like the case resulting from the 2G spectrum scam in India, all decisions made by the corrupt telecoms minister were vacated. Even though you claim not to be a real court, you should take lessons from existing legal structures rather than attempting to build something from a vacuum. Oliver Keyes has hidden information and performed vandalism before, as have other administrators, and it is only fair that his decisions as a Wikimedia functionary are given fair examination. Wer900 • talk 19:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz strongly admonished
5) Kiefer.Wolfowitz is reminded not to behave incivilly with other users, and to maintain calm to the greatest extent possible.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * As with Ironholds, a central question is "would an admonishment be enough?". Admonishments and warnings are, by their nature, ineffective remedies unless they are backed up by some sort of enforcement mechanism. AGK  [•] 12:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * KW
 * What is intended is perhaps
 * "Kiefer.Wolfowitz will accept personal attacks (especially false accusations) and incivility against himself and other Wikipedia users, particularly when NPA and Civility violations are committed by elites (arbitrators, their clerks, bureaucrats, administrators, their familiars, and sock-puppets posing as new editors), per WP:Non-retaliation and per the uneven enforcement of civility endorsed by ArbCom in 2012. He will stop asking that administrators be blocked or warned for violating WP:NPA and WP:Civility", when accepting a block for civil disobedience. Listing examples of administrative abuse disrupts Wikipedia."
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  17:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, that's not my intent. There are no enforcement provisions for your admonishment for that reason. Wer900 • talk 19:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement by block
1) For each instance of ban violation by Ironholds on a class A, B, or C venue pursuant to principle (2), an uninvolved administrator may increase the length of his ban by three months, until a maximum of nine months. Subsequent violations may result in an initial block of two weeks, and two-week extensions thereof to a maximum of three months. Talk-page access shall be revoked at the second block extension and all subsequent ones, should it be necessary.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Could you simplify this by replacing the classes of venue with the venue names? This is a little legalistic, though the basic idea has a lot of merit. AGK  [•] 12:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not have future case parties, legalistically, say that they used different venues than were explicitly mentioned here even though their relationship to Wikipedia under principle (2) is basically the same. So I think that the classification given is perfectly all right. Wer900 • talk 19:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * So, the old civility parole? Hasn't arbcom said that they weren't going to try that again?--In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  15:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement by ban extension
2) On AN/I, or through the action of the Arbitration Committee, the ban of Ironholds from community processes may be extended by a maximum of three months as a result of misbehavior on class A, B, or C venues. Any such extension will be under the authority of the Arbitration Committee, which may revoke or otherwise modify the length of the extension at any time.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I think I understand what you mean by this, but I'm not sure that it is the right way to go. For example if Ironholds says something that is perceived as misogynistic on IRC he is banned from unrelated processes on en.wp where there has never been an issue with his conduct. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Terms of parole
2) Should Ironholds violate any Wikipedia policies relating to civility or conduct or make misogynistic statements on class A, B, or C venues during his parole, a new community-process ban will come into effect for three months, subject to previous enforcement provisions though non-extendable. Parole may not be served concurrently with community-process bans incurred during it, unless approved by the Arbitration Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Is this proposing that if Ironholds violates civility policies anywhere on Wikipedia or on other websites during his parole period that he is banned for three (additional) months from community processes? This would seem to say that if he is incivil to another editor on their talk page that he gets a complicated ban from pages not inlcuding that editors talk page? Why not the far simpler standard escalating bans? Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Equivalent to admin recall
1) This case is a measure of the community's trust in Ironholds' adminship; he has stated that this case is a replacement for an admin recall procedure . This standard of evaluation (still having the community's trust, i.e. would likely still pass an RFA, or some other reasonable measure of trust), rather than the typical standard (egregious violation of policy) will be used by the Committee in determining remedies related to Ironholds.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * If Arbs don't like this, I'd alternately be happy with a clear unambiguous statement by Committee members that this is not equivalent to admin recall, and that it is not correct that the results of this case should be construed as still having the community's trust. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon re-reading Ironholds' comments in the link I provided, I wouldn't be happy with such a statement. Ironholds has clearly indicated that (a) he is open to recall, and (b) until he comes up with a procedure, ArbCom is the only procedure for recall he will respect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Higher up in the same conversation on Ironholds' talkpage that Floquenbeam links to, I noticed F saying that "If I can't appeal to your sense of honor, then probably all hope is lost; I doubt you can be involuntarily removed or desysopped." He doubts it because the criteria for having lost the community's trust and the criteria for getting desysopped by ArbCom are vastly different. As can be seen from Ironholds' evasiveness in the linked dialogue, compared to the undertakings and comments he offered in Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3 (2009), Requests for adminship/Ironholds 4 (2010) and Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5 (2011), all hope appears to be lost; Floquenbeam's appeal has failed. (Just search for "recall" in RfA3 and RfA4, and "pear-shaped" in RfA5.) Now Floquenbeam has worked out an endrun that could be called an appeal to arbitrators' sense of honour. I wish him luck and hope the proposed principle is accepted, but I'll eat my hat if it is. (This hat.) Not because arbs aren't honourable, but because in my experience they're too formalistic to take such an unprecedented road, however persuasive the logic for it. When I made a very similar appeal to the committee, years ago, for a desysop on grounds of honour… oh, never mind, I digress. I'll just register a forlorn hope that this year's arbs may be more inclined to think out of the box. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC).

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Off-wiki conduct
1) Although conduct off Wikipedia does not fall under the normal purview of Wikipedia's rules of conduct, certain extreme examples of misconduct may be cause for sanctions where they contribute to an atmosphere of hostility on-wiki. This is especially important when the off-wiki conduct occurs in a discussion area known to be frequented by Wikipedia editors, even if is not in an area fully accessible to the public. Such misconduct includes defamatory accusations and threats of bodily harm.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I think it should go without saying that when people are defaming the character of other editors or threatening to kill or maim them, we have crossed a certain line with regards to off-wiki conduct. We obviously consider off-wiki harassment in some cases to be cause for sanctions.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds
1) Ironholds has made several gratuitously offensive comments on Wikipedia-related IRC channels. These comments have occasionally involved Wikipedia editors with whom he has had personal disputes. He has also edited anonymously on other Wikimedia sites to harass editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Although his behavior on other Wikimedia sites and IRC doesn't strictly fall under ArbCom's purview, it does point to a general behavioral problem that has made its way here to Wikipedia and thus should be noted.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz
2) Kiefer has made several egregious accusations against editors on-wiki, as well as on Wikipediocracy, an off-wiki criticism forum frequented by Wikipedia editors. These accusations have occasionally been of a potentially defamatory nature.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locus of dispute
3) Kiefer criticized several offensive comments Ironholds had made on IRC in a way that was perceived as making a defamatory insinuation, though it was later modified. Subsequently, Ironholds made an implied threat towards Kiefer in a restricted admin channel on IRC and these comments were posted on Wikipediocracy. Kiefer reciprocated with a threat towards Ironholds on-wiki, for which he was blocked with an expiry time of three months. This block was subsequently reversed by an admin due to it being a response to the comment Ironholds made on IRC.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds subject to interaction ban
1) Kiefer and Ironholds are banned from commenting about or interacting with each other. Particularly egregious comments made on off-site Wikipedia-related discussion areas will be covered under this restriction.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Said discussion areas would include areas restricted to select members when it is frequented by a large body of editors. The idea being that an IRC channel restricted to certain members is not considered a private place. Inter-personal communications such as private messages or one-on-one chat areas would not be inherently covered, obviously.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz topic-banned
2) Kiefer is banned from any discussions relating to the participation of minors on Wikipedia. Particularly egregious comments made on off-site Wikipedia-related discussion areas will be covered under this restriction.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Most of the problematic conduct associated with this case, including the initial comment Kiefer made, concerned this issue of how to deal with minors using Wikipedia. Obviously, this would not prohibit him from privately notifying Arbitrators or the Foundation of any concerns.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to rephrase that to "any public discussions" or something like that to clarify your intent. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the comments concerned a "private" admin channel, so I actually do not want to use that sort of wording as it provides a potential out for the very kind of conduct that contributed to this situation. The standard would, more preferably, be that if it is an area open to a large body of editors then comments there are covered.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds administrative probation
3) Ironholds will be subject to administrative probation for three months. Any serious editorial or administrative misconduct may be cause for immediate revocation of his administrative privileges. Particularly egregious comments made on off-site Wikipedia-related discussion areas will be covered under this restriction. Following the probation period, he will submit to a reconfirmation RfA.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm worried that there might not be a way the cause for revocation can be reviewed here. Admin User:Example says "Ironholds threatened to harm me on IRC" and so revokes Ironhold's admin privs. Ironholds denies making any such comments, but no independently verifiable logs exist to prove it either way. Does the community assume good faith of Ironholds or assume good faith of Example? Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, admins can't revoke administrative privileges. This would be something left to the Arbs and presumably occur in a context where they would preserve the evidence.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My point wasn't that there was no evidence, but that there was no independently verifiable evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Parties warned
4) Kiefer and Ironholds are strongly advised to avoid gratuitous commentary about other editors when participating in off-site Wikipedia-related discussion areas. They are warned that particularly egregious comments about other editors may lead to administrative action.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I am personally supportive of off-wiki Wikipedia-related discussion areas being a safe place for editors to speak freely about matters on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites, be it on IRC or WO, but there are certain limits and both of these editors seem to have run up against them.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Kiefer.Wolfowitz has been harassed by Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000 for years (Kiefer.Wolfowitz evidence)
I have a number of issues with this section of evidence. I do not believe I have harassed Kiefer.Wolfowitz, nor do I believe he would have categorised my behaviour towards him as harassment this time last week. I note that he has supported me for Oversight userrights and at this years Arbcom election. These are not the actions of someone who was harrassed. What's more, I (at first) supported the proposed interaction ban with Demiurge1000 in principle, and opposed a recent Kiefer.Wolfowitz's indef block. Again, not actions that I would consider fit with the profile of harassment.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that Kiefer.Wolfowitz appears to be trying to discredit my suggestions, by implying I've been after him for years. It's patently untrue and I can provide many more examples of cordial, even friendly discussion. His behaviour in this manner reminds me of his past attempts to get an interaction ban so as to avoid an RfC/U. Worm TT( talk ) 09:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by Kiefer.Wolfowitz
 * Re WTT
 * Evidence has been already referenced at WTT's draft of an RfC, his official RfC/U targeting me, my 2011 ArbCom election guide (which likely resulted in WTT's defeat), the ArbCom case on Civility Enforcement, etc.


 * discussed the mis-use of my block log in this ordeal on WTT's talk page, on which I have also commented; there Nick forgot to mention that WTT was one of the first to oppose a recent block for a WO comment on Ironholds as being against policy, so his misuse of that block here is especially egregious.


 * WTT has not retracted his false accusation in his RfC/U against me that I removed material from Penn Kemble for political reasons, despite repeated requests. This is a crystal clear perjury. A review of the RfC/U shows further mendacity. Is it only in The Lincoln Lawyer that judges disallow testimony by perjury?
 * This is not a court, so you think it's acceptable for you repeatedly to commit perjury, knowingly to submit affirmations of falsehoods? On the contrary, you are required to retract falsehoods, which violate WP:NPA, particularly since you are an administrator and an arbitrator. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  01:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a court, so you think it's acceptable for you repeatedly to commit perjury, knowingly to submit affirmations of falsehoods? On the contrary, you are required to retract falsehoods, which violate WP:NPA, particularly since you are an administrator and an arbitrator. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  01:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding "civil and cordial discussions". There is no point in prolonging conflict, and so I typically make a point of recognizing good deeds by persons with a record of personal attacks and incivility. For example, I have commended Demiurge1000 for copyediting and a remark that babies look like Eisenhower. (I have also defended him---along with administrators prone to block or admonish me---e.g. BWilkins, Sarek, Bishonen, Beeblebrox, etc., on Wikipedia and on WO, on principle.)  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Re Demiurge1000
 * (Redacted) At the ANI discussion, there was community consensus for an interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself. When Demiurge1000 objected, and others provided evidence of Demiurge1000's hounding me.


 * Much additional evidence has been mailed to ArbCom. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)




 * Comment by others:
 * I can refute each bit of evidence in the section, but thought it better to refute the section as a whole, so my point was not missed. If this is not helpful, please do feel free to remove. Worm TT( talk ) 09:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * KW, although some of your blocks have been unacceptable and overturned, the majority of your blocks were correct and either fully served or removed when you vouched not to carry on with the same behaviour. I make no apologies for referring to the length of your block log, when the majority are correct. Regarding Penn Kemble, you are now suggesting I have committed an actual crime of perjury, despite the fact you have been told repeatedly that I didn't write it (and of course, the fact that this is a website, not a court). I agreed with the comments, but didn't write them. Worm TT( talk ) 07:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: