Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Proposed decision

AGK's declaration of a COI: Pledge to recuse?
Voting to accept the case, AGK stated that he had a conflict of interest as a sysop for one of Wikipedia's IRC channels, namely #wikipedia-en, and that he would recuse if it involved wikipedia-en. He voted to accept it on the understanding that it did not involve his conflict of interest.

Evidence has been submitted from that channel, but AGK has not addressed his previous pledge to recuse? Kiefer .Wolfowitz  13:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a precedent for the non-involvement of most of the Arbitration Committee in this case? Is there a quorum of Arbitrators required in order to pass major decisions, like cases? If such a quorum exists, then the recusal of AGK would likely render the case moot. Wer900 • talk 22:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no minimum number of Arbitrators needed to vote in a case. Actually, speaking technically, a case can go with a single arbitrator, although this would not be desirable, for obvious reasons. Therefore, even if 10 of the 12 arbitrators recused, the case would still be valid, and the decisions made by those two arbitrators will stand just like any decision made by the entire Committee. — ΛΧΣ  21  00:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * AGK's vote was the deciding one, though. Without his accept vote, the case would not have sufficient support.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not really relevant, regardless of what AGK may eventually decide; recusal is not retroactive, and does not affect any decisions that have already been made (such as the one to accept the case). Kirill [talk] 03:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even apart from Kirill's point, I had voted to decline acceptance before a circumstance arose that led to me recuse myself from this case&mdash;so if hypothetically AGK's vote weren't counted, neither would mine be and the outcome would be unchanged. (Not commenting on any other issue.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I will not be recusing in the vote on our final decision. AGK  [•] 14:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you resigned your position as a sysop on Wikipedia's #wikipedia-en channel, which you declared as a conflict of interest in the request page? Or do you still have a declared conflict of interest?  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, to both questions. AGK  [•] 16:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you erroneously declare a conflict of interest, per your sysop status (and e.g. IRC relations with Ironholds)? If not what has changed? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What changed was that it occurred to me, on closer consideration, that I have had no interaction with Ironholds as an operator of that IRC channel. The logs you mention demonstrate that: my interactions with Ironholds were initiated by him. Also, our interactions were no closer than those any given sysop might have with any given arbitrator. We arbitrators are rarely found on IRC, and when we do log on we tend to be approached by at least a couple of people to various questions or requests; it is unsurprising that Ironholds was at one point one of them. In other words, I have no conflict of interest. These points will all be apparent if you examine the situation for yourself, and I hope this response clarifies my position. Regards, AGK  [•] 17:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I've seen no reason to think that you are so close to Ironholds that it would impair your disinterestedness, and I appreciate your response's description of your reconsideration. However, aspects of this "case", whatever it is, do concern the misuse of IRC for block canvassing, rallying supporters of a block to ANI, etc.,---and your committee has kept this information private---and you obviously should recuse from voting or discussing such aspects. Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I've seen no reason to think that you are so close to Ironholds that it would impair your disinterestedness, and I appreciate your response's description of your reconsideration. However, aspects of this "case", whatever it is, do concern the misuse of IRC for block canvassing, rallying supporters of a block to ANI, etc.,---and your committee has kept this information private---and you obviously should recuse from voting or discussing such aspects. Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Parties
This is the last stage at which parties may be added to the case. For the record I repeat my request that the following users be added: An interaction ban with Demiurge1000 has been urged by many in the community for years. Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , as the filer of the case, per Arbitration Guidelines;
 * , since much of the evidence concerns Demiurge1000 and myself;
 * , since much of the evidence concerns Worm That Turned (along with Demiurge1000) and myself.


 * We are discussing this request and will respond shortly. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 17:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! With Mark Arsten, the request is a formality, listing the filer of the case as a party, per the guidelines. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark is already listed as a party, although, as you say, it's pretty much a formality. As far as I'm concerned (and I'm speaking in my personal capacity, here), neither Demiurge nor WTT will be added. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

IRC canvassing by administrators: Names and actions
stated that at the ANI discussion---in which Oliver Keyes (Ironholds, Okeyes (WMF) ) made his suggestion that (roughly) "nobody unblock KW unless he wishes to be thwapped"---administrators were canvassed on IRC to support indefinitely blocking me at ANI. Evidence has been submitted by email to ArbCom, but none of it has been forwarded to me.

Please forward me the evidence.

Please post answers to the following questions: 1. Which administrators were canvassing? 2. Which administrators were participating in the IRC discussions and failed to come forward and alert the community of canvassing?

Any canvassing or acquiescent administrators should have their administrative-status removed (or at least they should have a public admonishment for canvassing or failing to alert the community about the canvassing). Such canvassing or complicit administrators need to be added as parties to this case.

Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The incident I discussed didn't involve an administrator canvassing, but a regular editor. They asked for two things via a Private Message on IRC with me, they asked for a comment you made to be rev-deleted or oversighted (the one which did, in fact, result in your block of 03-June by Horologium), and they asked that I endorse the indefinite block at the accompanying discussion at WP:AN. Nick (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Was the apprentice trained by Master Worm That Turned or Master Demiurge1000 (or both)?  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  15:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor in question has no adoption or mentoring infoboxes on their userpage. Nick (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Callanecc's actions as a clerk
For - the canvassing that I have discussed and which Kiefer is concerned about is undoubtedly relevant to this case, there have been discussions on the Evidence and Workshop pages concerning Kiefer's block log, there were lengthy discussions concerning the act of unblocking Kiefer and it was pointed out that some of the more recent blocks were overturned by the community swiftly or the unblocking of Kiefer was endorsed by the community. What was not discussed fully, and which really should have been, was the act of blocking Kiefer. We will never know who, if anybody, was cajoled into endorsing blocks which were discussed at WP:AN and WP:ANI but the fact this behaviour was going on does rather taint the whole process and raise legitimate concerns (however tenuous they may be) about the validity of the community endorsement of certain blocks and restrictions enacted against Kiefer. That should be recognised, even if the Arbitration Committee don't feel able to do anything about it now. Nick (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it wasn't relevant to the case just not to a proposed decision which hasn't yet been posted. However I see where you are coming from and that it is (and was) a useful discussion to have; however the evidence and workshop pages are closed and if this is to be discussed it should be on one of those talk pages. Also, in case you aren't aware, actions undertaken by arbitration clerks on arbitration pages may not be be reversed or amended without prior approval from the clerk, clerks or Committee. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Given Callanecc's contributions to this case, perhaps Callanecc should need prior approval before taking any more "actions"? (C.f., Previous evidential standards for Demiurge1000 and "casual slander")
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  08:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why that action suggests that he needs to get prior approval before performing any further clerking duties. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 08:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick, I understand your point, but there is no evidence that there ever was widespread canvassing. The message you received may lead to suspect there may have been, but ArbCom should not base its FOFs on unsubstantiated assumptions or on fear, uncertainty and doubt. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Update
The proposed decision is almost ready; it should be posted within the next couple of days. Thanks for your patience... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Uneven enforcement of civility
I proposed this principle in the workshop. Adopting it would clarify why you guys omit any discussion of personal attacks and incivility directed at me, to which I've responded in diffs you select. Non-administrators shall accept personal attacks (especially false accusations) and incivility against themselves 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. Non-administrators shall 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  23:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Facts
Kirill makes several allegations that are just wrong on the facts. In Kirill's defense, none of the false allegations are original.

1. He claims that I insinuated something about Demiurge1000 and Worm That Turned. This false allegation has been addressed by myself and at the time it was made. Kirill also fails to note that when the diffed remark received complaints, I promptly asked that somebody rephrase it to avoid misunderstanding.

However, the misunderstood remark did lead to a discussion on Wikipediocracy, where others led the research, the results of which are now privately kept (to protect minors). Some of the research has been emailed privately to ArbCom, per Wikipedia's policy to avoid liability for defamation (which is a greater concern than child protection).

2. Another diff is claimed to be belittling. Actually, I replied to administrator Beeblebrox, who had claimed to have found a contradiction in what I wrote, which was false, and relied on a misunderstanding of conditional statements and probabilities, which I diagnosed. Of course, Kirill has had not a word to say about the administrative incivility that prompted my reply : Administrator Beeblebrox's incivility began by creating a section title "Thanks for the Laughts", after which his incivility worsened:
 * a. "cheap shot", "all you have accomplished is to reveal your own bumbling and lack of diligence"
 * b. " utter bullshitieness of that statement" (edit summary).

Here is the full discussion from my talk page (following another somewhere else):

Well, your attempt to slam me has been shut down, but one thing was gained from it, it is abundantly clear that at least when it came to your comments on me you proceeded in a very casual, thoughtless manner and apparently just repeated things you saw others saying without doing any real research. You've done more damage to your reputation as a guide writer than to me. Your claim that the fact that you did not notice because you, like everyone else, is not interested in it is contradicted by the fact that you did in fact comment on the talk page to make some unfounded accusations directed at the author. Kind of odd that you took the time to make such accusations but did not the take the time to figure out who it was you were accusing. As for this alleged lack of interest, again you appear to just parrot what others have said without taking the time to be informed or surely you would have known that over 100 users have posted replies to the questions. I look forward to ignoring the claptrap you call a voter guide again next year, and I am sure I won't be alone now that it is clear how careless you are when researching it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for the laughs
 * Quite the contrary. At best you were ranked 7th or 8th by some guide writers whom I respect, but nobody suggested you were a strong or even mediocre candidate this year. The majority of guide writers dismissed you quickly, with Kurtis doing perhaps the most thorough review of your unsuitability. None of us discussed your "questionnaire" because it was a waste of time. None of us discussed your having written it because we had already decided our recommendations based on your other behavior.
 * The charge that I was parroting other writers was absurd. Notice my discussion of David Fuchs, for example. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well now, that is odd. You are now saying nobody discussed it because it was a waste of time, when just a few hours ago you we claiming the reason was that you did not know and now you are very upset to have found this out. Those appear to be contradictory statements.


 * You took a cheap shot at me today that cannot possibly effect the results of the election. I don't know why you woke up today and decided to attack me, but luckily all you have accomplished is to reveal your own bumbling and lack of diligence in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen here, small fry.
 * Read what I wrote about "Bayesian decision problem" on that page, consulting for the next weeks dictionaries and encyclopedias, and come back when you know something. You are just not worth my time in your present state.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

For others, let me say that my comment was of the "self and mutual criticism" type I made, after reading Sandy Georgia's comments about Keilana. (Tip of the hat also to Rschen, whose guide deserved more attention.) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I see, personal attacks. The last refuge of the dishonest when confronted with their own lies. I can't say I see any point to continuing to listen to your pompous bullshit any further myself so I guess we will just call it a day on this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These are not personal attacks. You have stated above your regarding as a contradiction the distinction between antecedent and consequent likelihood (prior and posterior probability, in contemporary confusing terminology). Until you understand that distinction, at least in terms of your writing behavior, no te doy a comprender. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keifer, "listen here small fry" is a personal attack. A little humility goes a long way. good bye. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, Mr. Civility for thee but not for me,
 * "Small fry" is literally fish that is too small to fry, and is thrown back so that it will grow and become a "keeper".
 * To become a keeper in a discussion about your contradiction allegation, you need to read the beginning of the article on conditional probability or something similar.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  22:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The civility issue aside, that's not the correct etymology of small fry. A "fry" as a young fish is unrelated to the term "fry" to cook in hot oil.  See definition 3 here.  -- Jayron  32  01:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I should not risk etymology like the father in my Big Fat Greek Wedding. Perhaps there is some truth to the BS charge, also, just like the pompous charge! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss the other diffs, which have another problem---the uneven enforcement of civility, endorsed by ArbCom last year, and practiced alas in this case. Let us review the prior incivility or personal attacks to which I responded....

3. Incivility, granted, but in response to the blocking arbitrator infamous for insulting the community as the "puling masses". Again, a one-sided concern with incivility/NPA.

4. BHG did violate WP:NPA by quoting me out of context, and I responded by complaining about her honesty or .... Salvio during this case let Pink Ampersand repeatedly accuse me of dishonesty or stupidity, which again shows his practice of uneven enforcment of civility.

On Monday, I shall have time to comment further. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  22:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to be fair to Kirill, he's not the one making the allegations; I was the arb who posted the proposed decision, so I suppose I'm the one making them... Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Having said that, I happen to be in agreement with Salvio with regard to what the evidence in this case demonstrates. Kirill [talk] 22:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You still appear to be making insinuations about Demiurge1000, e.g. "Demiurge1000 immediately told the child how to go around the parental controls. In fact, he then continued emailing and IMing the boy, despite the parental objections (and indeed, at last, the boy's)." from approximately half an hour ago on this very page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A factual description of behavior is not an insinuation in the ordinary, non-trivial sense of insinuation. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That is why it would have been a good idea for you to make factual descriptions of behaviour. Instead, as I have demonstrated below, you have made misleading descriptions of behaviour. (You may not feel that you intended to mislead, but arbcom disagree with you, as do I.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Ironholds
A lot of the proposed decision here seems perfectly reasonable - the principles are certainly things that should be reiterated, for example - and I've got no issue with the idea that I should be sanctioned for my actions, which as I've said, were highly inappropriate: I make no bones about that. Having said that, I do have a few concerns.

Findings
The first centres around the 3rd finding of fact. In order, it states that I have:
 * 1) "a history of making a highly inappropriate remarks on-wiki";
 * 2) "[that same history] off-wiki";
 * 3) "Logged out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia project".

These statements are all presented with equal footing - I make inappropriate remarks on-wiki, off-wiki and logged out. They're very different situations, however. In support of the first point, the proposed decision provides a single diff from August 2011 - of an edit that was almost immediately reverted, by me. In support of the third statement, the decision contains two diffs, one from July 2011 and one from August - I don't have any recollection of making those edits, as I've mentioned to ArbCom, but I can't verify it's not me either. I have no issue with those being factored in given my off-wiki conduct, even with how old they are, but presenting it as a continuing pattern of behaviour with a single diff, or with two diffs, that are two years old, seems problematic. I would request that the finding be reworded, unless further evidence has been presented that suggests on-wiki problems have continued. If that is the case, it has not been presented to me, and is not incorporated into the proposed decision.

My second issue is around my ban proposal; if the Committee feels that's appropriate, that's your prerogative, but I'm surprised to see that my statements are being treated in precisely the same way as Kiefer's. I'd argue they're two different classes of statement and two very different users.

In my case, yes, I have behaved inappropriately - tremendously so, on occasion. Much of this occurred very long in the past (the logs that the Arbitration Committee presented to me as evidence did not include year/month/day timestamps - were these provided to the Committee?) but some of it recently. Of the evidence presented to me, the most recent inappropriate statements happened on IRC, which previous statements by the Arbitration Committee suggests is, in line with the policy on off-wiki venues, treated as generally irrelevant - or only really considered as aggravating elements to other disputes. I've been using IRC since at least 2008 without particular problems. The first occasion on which my behaviour was presented as a substantial issue was this Arbitration Case. Having been made aware of the consequences of my actions - both in terms of project perception, and the opinions of users I very much respect - I'd like to think I've corrected for them. I've withdrawn from the relevant IRC channels, I've kept my cool during this case, and I suspect that if there was any recent evidence of me acting problematically on-wiki it would already have been presented. My statements were inappropriate, and I am solving for that.

Kiefer's actions are (I would argue) more problematic than mine - but most of them aren't presented here. The Arbitration Committee acknowledged receipt of my evidence of his off-wiki commentary, but has neither explicitly or implicitly recognised it: I would ask for a statement on that, if the Committee is willing to make one. Even if we only limit the case to his on-wiki statements, the consequences of them are not (I suspect) a surprise to anyone here; his behaviour was brought up in an RfC several years ago, and his block log and a cursory search of AN/I indicates it's continued to be something of concern to the community since. There's no question that he's been aware people find his behaviour problematic for some time. During the arbitration case itself, he's been repeatedly blocked for his behaviour and has engaged with myself and other users in a highly confrontational manner.

In light of the differing situations, and different responses to the case, it seems odd to be treating both parties as entities that should be sanctioned equally.

Absence of findings
My final (and perhaps largest) concern is around what the proposed decision doesn't say. As mentioned above, I submitted a body of evidence to the Arbitration Committee regarding Kiefer's off-wiki actions - this does not seem to be mentioned in the proposed decision as an area of concern, while my actions are. My primary hypothesis as to why this is is that the venues are different: that the Committee is implicitly acknowledging that some off-wiki venues are more worthy of concern and factoring in than others.

If this is the case - and I disagree with it, but that's by-the-by - the Committee needs to come out and say as much explicitly. Historically, the Committee has not only not distinguished between off-wiki venues but has actively found that IRC is not considered subject to on-wiki restrictions, and vice versa. If the Committee is choosing to implicitly reverse one or both of these positions the result is going to be substantial ambiguity in what is or is not permitted and where. In the long-term, that's more damaging than any finding of fact. Ironholds (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would the Committee be willing to reply to the questions I've posted above, either privately or publicly? Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Second note; it's a technical point, but I'm a contractor or staffer, not an employee. There's a substantial legal difference. Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A question: the Committee is allowed to use diffs from other wikis rather than the English Wikipedia as evidence for a finding of fact? And in this case, did the Committee verified that such IP edits belong to Ironholds? Just out of curiosity. — ΛΧΣ  21  14:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No answer to the second question, as I am recused on the case, but yes on the first one: WP:ARBPOL – "In all proceedings, admissible evidence includes ... Edits and log entries from Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia, where appropriate". NW ( Talk ) 17:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The same policy seems to explicitly state "The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff; (ii) Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia; or (iii) conduct outside the English Wikipedia. The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors.". The problem with that is that, again, the only piece of evidence presented about conduct on the English Wikipedia is a single edit from 2006. If the Committee could explain their thinking here, it would be most welcome. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Site bans are not the way to go
I am honestly not surprised that a ban is suggested for Kiefer, though I am a bit surprised for a number of reasons that a ban is suggested for Ironholds. That said, I do not think either of them should be banned from Wikipedia or that it would be very effective. My suggestion for banning Kiefer from all discussions about minors participating in Wikipedia seems to capture the most egregious misconduct on his part and having both editors held, under threat of sanction, to conducting themselves better off-wiki would give them incentive to avoid the type of off-wiki escalation this situation generated. Unless Ironholds is banned from IRC and Kiefer from WO, things that are not exactly within the purview of ArbCom, banning them from here isn't actually going to change much. There is still the risk that it could create ill will here by influencing editors who aren't banned.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They might not exactly be within the purview of ArbCom but anything that happens on-wiki is - so perhaps a creative approach would be to permit them to edit here on condition that they don't use IRC and WO respectively. Prioryman (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You two have not been paying attention if you think that this Arbcom is going to make a statement about Wikipedia's IRC channels, especially #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-admin, which use WMF's trademark "Wikipedia" and which are recommended numerous places, e.g. WP:IRC, as a place to conduct Wikipedia and WMF business. wrongly suggested that ArbCom has authority over IRC, apparently.
 * Arbcom should clarify that adults are free to communicate privately and have other private contacts with minors, without supervision, and despite objections of parents (or indeed of the children). Such private contacts (including emails, IMs, etc.) do not violate WP:Child Protection, since that is the position of this ArbCom.
 * If such contacts do not violate WP:Child Protection, then discussing such private contacts is not a violation of Wikipedia's Child-Protection policy, in fact.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  08:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Advocate. Especially that the site or 6 month ban for Ironholds seem beyond farcical. How can a handful of honest expressions of frustration & unwise jokes warrant a permaban for a prolific and highly skilled editor where well over 99% of his edits are constructive and helpful?   FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The use of civility policies here is once again merely a means to an end: the silencing of a critic. The context in which Kiefer.Wolfowitz made his comments was an atmosphere of hatred and ill will by people like, who are, many times, prone to have their misdeeds deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a kindergarten where you're not allowed to say "bad words". Kiefer.Wolfowitz may have been harsh, but in the end he made constructive criticism&mdash;something that Oliver Keyes never did, sticking to unlogged IRC channels to continue his verbal abuses against women. The whole issue of WP:CHILDPROTECT remains unsolved. If someone blows the whistle on an anonymous username, why should they be punished? It's virtually impossible to trace such usernames to real names without serious investigation, and thus libel would be difficult. Besides that, who cares about libel when creepers are making inappropriate contact with minors? This is nothing but a reflection of the civility problem. Everyone should be free to criticize another's behavior. "Civility" does not mean that legitimate criticism is forbidden, even if it may be somewhat harsh or satirical. If ArbCom really cared about civility, it would reconsider its idiotic ban of Kiefer.Wolfowitz and work on Beeblebrox, who dares to violate the very civility policy he enforces with his essay: User:Beeblebrox/fuck off. Are commoners like Kiefer not subject to the same rules as administrators, their sockpuppets, their friends, and those of high rank? Evidently, it appears so. Wer900 • talk 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC) PS Why aren't Ironholds' user logs being examined for inappropriate oversightings or revision deletion of misconduct?
 * Probably because, as mentioned to you, I don't have oversight functionality and you've yet to demonstrate any grounds to believe I've misused revision delete. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Wer900, with regards to "something that Oliver Keyes never did, sticking to unlogged IRC channels to continue his verbal abuses against women." I have to say that the idea of Ironholds as a misogynist who specifically uses IRC to abuse women is extremely far-fetched. He has made very inappropriate comments on IRC in the past, including the (over four years old) log snippet which has been circulating, but these appeared to be nothing more than a teenager deliberately being offensive in order to shock people, and these off-colour remarks were certainly not directed primarily at women. Ironholds isn't a misogynist. He has, in more recent times, come out with thoughtful and progressive comments regarding gender and feminism that have impressed me (a feminist) greatly.


 * Speaking more generally, I'm disappointed in the way ArbCom is going with this, voting to indefinitely ban a user who immediately made an effort to change his behaviour when it was brought to light, an editor who appears to be committed to changing for the better, an editor with a clean block log and thousands of positive contributions, whose most egregious offences were committed on IRC, which ArbCom apparently cannot govern in any way. OohBunnies!   (talk)  19:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I also would like to comment on Ironholds' "verbal abuses against women." This portrayal of Ironholds as a serial misogynist is frankly absurd. Like OohBunnies, my interactions with Ironholds over the past year or two have shown to me that he is a very progressive person in that realm. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole issue of WP:CHILDPROTECT remains unsolved. If someone blows the whistle on an anonymous username, why should they be punished? The reason that the CHILDPROTECT policy explicitly requires allegations of breech to be made in private is for the protection of those who are wrongly accused. Unlike almost any other accusation that can be made against somebody (in contemporary UK at least, and I think this also applies to other contemporary western cultures), any accusation of inappropriate behaviour, or even accusation of inappropriate thoughts, towards children is treated by many people as if it were an admission of guilt to many of the worst possible crimes towards children. There are plenty of examples where even disproven accusations of this sort of behaviour lead to extremely negative real-world consequences. It is therefore never appropriate to publicly name any user accused of such behaviour because it is exclusively a matter for the courts in the appropriate jurisdiction to determine guilt or innocence and the appropriate punishment if found guilty. Just because someone edits pseydononymously does not mean they cannot be libelled. As an example, in a recent discussion (and I can't recall where) a user (who is not a party to this case) asked why an anonymous editor had not been indefinitely blocked and reported to the authorities for a single comment suggesting that an NPOV discussion of the issues was desirable. This was shot down (possibly by an arbitrator?) on the grounds that agreeing with the US 1st amendment was not a blockable offence. It does illustrate though the danger of false accusations. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Account or person
The policy states that bans and blocks apply to the operators of accounts, not just single accounts, as I understand it.

By banning Oliver Keyes, you are banning all of his accounts, including Ironholds and Okeyes (WMF). Keyes has used IPs to vandalize Wikipedia.
 * Has a check-user search identified other accounts that should also be banned? Please list such accounts!

If the WMF have the authority to over-rule the ban of Keyes, let WMF do so and face the consequences of another community protest. There is no need to bow down to the WMF in the decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps I am to be allowed to create a new account and edit, also? Kiefer .Wolfowitz  18:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose any fishing expedition using the CU tool-- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a fishing expedition to check an editor who's used IPs to vandalize accounts. How many affirmations by Ironholds of operating other accounts do you want? I'm happy to mail more IRC logs to Arbcom. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence of that from the last two years? Ironholds (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion by arbitrators: Kibitzing
Oliver Keyes had 7 RfAs, 5 as Ironholds and  2 as Okeyes (not 5). Kiefer .Wolfowitz  19:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Keyes has clarified that he is a contractor and not an employee of the WMF, so WMF's "get out of jail free" card is inapplicable. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  19:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed findings for Ironholds do not match proposed remedies yet.
Current proposed findings seem to show a pattern of incivility some 2 years ago (which I observed as well at the time), but not continuing today.

I have inquired into off-wiki behaviour on IRC since ~2012, and that seems to have been improving over time. I also recall Ironholds' behaviour at wikimania in Washington last year, and it seems he has been doing some growing up since events in 2011. (Did any Arbcom members present in Washington see any unusual behavior from him there?)

Of course, if there is evidence from 2012 or 2013 (especially on-wiki) that he still has occasional lapses, that should be listed in the proposed findings; else the current proposed remedies would appear to be punitive rather than preventative. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note as an aside that if the Arbcom holds evidence of any party recently exceeding channel policy on IRC, the Arbcom of course has every right to report that evidence to a channel operator, as does anyone else. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. According to Banning policy:
 * Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors.
 * The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.
 * Is this truly a "last resort"? Have "lesser sanctions" been tried and failed? Have the problems been "extreme or very persistent" if, as Risker noted in discussion on the proposed decision, the bulk of the problem stems from 2011? It's ArbCom's call, but this seems disproportionate. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur. Given that little on-wiki misconduct is cited, that Ironholds seems to have significantly moderated his behaviour in recent years, and that he has promised to improve in the areas brought up (and he has a good track record of improving from criticism), what preventative purpose would a siteban serve, beyond sending a message (that off-wiki misconduct would also result in sanctions on-wiki)?
 * Furthermore, I echo Ironholds's query above: I assume the evidence sent in private to the committee consists of IRC logs. The committee has not previously said that behaviour on IRC would result in on-wiki sanctions. While it would seem implicit from this decision, I think that a principle to that effect is needed to avoid ambiguity in the future. wctaiwan (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot comment with regards to IRC (I've never used it), but the evidence presented for Ironholds' on-wiki behaviour does not correlate with the sanctions proposed to combat it. Either evidence of a continuing problematic behaviour on-wiki needs to be presented, or it needs to be made clear that the sanction is for continuing problematic behaviour off-wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It does read as a rather gross overreaction on the part of ArbCom - Ironholds was overly sarcastic and a bit of a dick off wiki once in vaguely recent memory, a couple of times back in the ancient past when he was a minor - he has consistently contributed amazing articles over the past few years...well...let's ban him. It reads as though ArbCom has utterly lost perspective on this case and needs to sit down and think about the impact on the project and on its own standing. It should consider who it serves, namely the project and the loosely defined community, and whether those are really served without Ironholds and his content. Finally, the only authority it can cite for why it should even hear this case, despite its own policy being clear it has no jurisdiction off EN.Wiki, are a single mistaken comment from Jimbo - a man who, while some seek to enthrone him as the messiah, was nothing more than a single member of the board at that point through an honorary position. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the text is still a work in progress. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems they are one vote away from finishing really, unless I misread. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 13:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it just needs one more net vote to close and Ironholds is desysopped. I would appreciate it if those users voting to close (AGK, Kirill and Risker, and indeed any other arbitrator) would explicitly comment here that they are aware of the concerns expressed in this section and explain why they feel that the desysopping of Ironholds is consistent with the evidence presented. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have replied below. AGK  [•] 19:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

IRC evidence
I've now returned home and got back to my desktop, which is my primary machine; of the IRC logs that have been sent to me and identified as problematic things, none of them (except for the one directly pertaining from KW) date from after 10 January 2012. I can't confirm the timestamps more precisely than <2012, unfortunately, because my logs only go back that far. If people have more precise information, please do pass it on to the Committee. Ironholds (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also ask that "uses" be changed to "used" in the finding of fact about me - as explained here, and elsewhere, the incidents being referred to are in the past. Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Roger! Is there any chance I could get a quick-ish response to my emails to ArbCom (and to the questions above, in my TL;DR schpiel?) Sorry to be a bother. Ironholds (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind checking what I have (what I have is extensive, but still incomplete, less then 50%). If ArbCom mails me with snippets I can attempt to put timestamps on them. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also be interested in relevant IRC evidence, at some point --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC) whence the request

Content Creator?
If I was to read this PD without knowing any back story, what so ever I would get the picture that KW is a heavy content creator and IH is not. But, if one was to look at the stats this is how the two parties line up The paradigme that this PD creates ignores the fact that both of the major parties in this case are content creators and the fact that in each category Ironholds has constantly produced more articles. If the work of one party is going to be highlighted, shouldn't the work of the other as well? -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've tweaked the FOF accordingly.  Roger Davies  talk 06:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment re Allegations (principle 3)
[Just passing by, not aware of the background in this case] This sounds dangerous; an editor unfamiliar with this ruling could make a good-faith effort to prevent abuse and risk being be penalised in doing so. Suggest changing to "users who persistently do so may receive..." or "users who do so after being warned may receive..." Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. However, the principle discusses editors who make allegation s – in the plural, not singular. It is unlikely that an editor who mistakenly made a single allegation of paedophilia on a public wiki page, having never made such an accusation in the past and being unaware he or she is required not to do so on-site, would be instantly sanctioned. Moreover, the principle – as worded – obviously relates to people (e.g. Kiefer) who make several such allegations. Also notice that (i) we are speaking about a principle, which is not enforceable or binding, and (ii) the principle actually, itself, reflects the contents of an important policy, Child protection to which all editors are absolutely required to adhere. Regards, AGK  [•] 19:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anthony/AGK,
 * I have not alleged pedophilia, ever. I have complained about behavior that is consistent with the profile of a pedophile; I have also mentioned that the behavior is consistent with innocent explanations, at length on Wikipediocracy.
 * I and and I believe  have stated that Oliver Keyes's grotesque sexual discussions are inappropriate on Wikipedia's IRC channels, particularly given the number of minors participating in such discussions. Is Floquenbeam going to be banned next?
 * I have complained about WTT's political organizing for years. Strange that he complains now about a 2011 comment that used the word primatological terms "preen" and "groom"---almost as strange as Newyorkbrad's claim in a recent RfA to be unfamiliar with the term "silver back". Editors should avoid primatology metaphors and stick to cliches about dead horses....
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  19:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello KW. I feel that Wikipediocracy is not the right venue for thoughtful input. One of that site's two (I think) "site admins" apparently finds the meaning "don't tell your parents, our secret" in the following text written by me in 2011: "it's better if you agree with your parents about who you should and shouldn't email. (paragraph break) Another good thing is to discuss what you do online with your parents - when they're not busy - so that they know what's going on." (That's at this diff on Simple Wikipedia in which you've expressed considerable interest before.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Demiurge1000 immediately told the child how to go around the parental controls. In fact, he then continued emailing and IMing the boy, despite the parental objections (and indeed, at last, the boy's). Your actions seem to be in full compliance with WP:Child Protection.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I did? Do you have any evidence for these claims? (Haven't you been warned about this before?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding Andy /'s points:
 * WP:Child Protection bars on-Wiki discussions of behavior that violates WP:Child Protection. Telling a child how to go around his parents' efforts to stop his emailing and then continuing with emails and IMs off-Wiki---these actions do not violate WP:Child Protection. Nor does telling a child that you will be in his town next week. WP:Child Protection does not bar private one-on-one discussions or contacts with children. I admit to wishing that WP:Child Protection did, but obviously I do not speak for the community or ArbCom.
 * I am confused as to why discussing behavior that does not violate WP:Child Protection is banned by WP:Child Protection, because I don't see any such wording in the policy. Perhaps WP:Child Protection is elastic when it suits this ArbCom? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You still seem to be lacking a diff for the "in his town next week" thing (haven't you been warned about this before?) which is annoying because I still don't know what it refers to. The rest, you continue to misrepresent. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I got pinged here, but don't have much to say about KW's (rhetorical?) question. I'm sure I'll be banned eventually, but probably not because of what I said on Ironholds' talk page. There's a really wide gap between pointing out that someone has said something that is inappropriate to say in the presence of children, and repeatedly "complaining about behavior that is consistent with the profile of a pedophile"; I don't imagine ArbCom, or Ironholds, thinks I've done that.


 * While I'm here, though, I think Andy has a very good point. The way it's written, the plural in "reports" would be interpreted by most people as "all reports", not "multiple reports by one person".  I'm reasonably confident that, if left as it is, sooner or later some admin is going to block someone for making a single good faith report on-wiki, and the admin is going to cite that paragraph, whether it's "just a principle" or not. Why not change it to Andy's suggested wording now, before it closes, while it's easy to do so? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's my point; regardless of the issues in this case, the ruling as written is open to misinterpretation, or worse, misuse, in future. Worse still, that may have a chilling effect on someone wanting to report a genuine problem. A simple change now would remedy that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin standards
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding something significant here, but from what I can tell looking at the case, Ironholds is to be desysopped for a pattern of behaviour unbecoming of an admin based on evidence that is largely years old? It seems, aside from some comment(s) in private channels off-wiki (which according to current policy have no bearing on-wiki), like he is now being held retroactively to comparatively new standards - could anyone comment on this?

Admin standards change over time. We cannot expect folks to adhere to the current ones in the past because they were not the standards at the time. -— Isarra ༆ 17:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The relevant phrase is "bringing into disrepute", which Ironholds' recent IRC behaviour has certainly done. Unless of course you think it's perfectly acceptable for an administrator to joke about dousing another editor in oil and setting him on fire. Eric   Corbett  18:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's entirely plausible; however, it does not appear to be currently mentioned in the proposed findings of fact, afaict. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Isarra, I couldn't have phrased my response better than Eric's. AGK  [•] 18:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused; the case itself implies it is the history of objectionable statements, not that sole statement. Which is it? Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The finding substantiates that you have a history of incivility. That incivility is unacceptable, and brings the project into disrepute. So, both. AGK  [•] 19:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It does, and I'm totally fine with being desysopped in principle; I screwed up. But I want to be clear as to, I guess, how this is being managed: it looks very wooly at the moment. Unless things have changed substantial in the last few hours, the problematic logs don't have year/month/day timestamps associated with them, and I was unable to validate the timestamps (except to note that they were prior to January 2012). So it's a bit confusing as to how many (if any) of them came from before I was a sysop, which would seem to have implications as to the community trust rationale.
 * Again: I have no problem with being desysopped. I also have no problem with being desysopped solely for my inappropriate joke that spurred this case. But I'd like us to be clear as to what is and is not a violation of community trust. I think it could create a substantial chilling effect if the question (can an admin's actions before they're an admin be considered a violation of the trust confirmed by them becoming an admin?) isn't answered - everyone has skeletons in their closet. I understand that the Committee might be trying to avoid coming up with wide-ranging precedent, here. Ironholds (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You became a sysop in January 2011; both the enwiki diff and the two logged-out edits from sister projects happened after that date. T. Canens (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense, then; I assumed we were referring to the IRC behaviour. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, you're supposed to behave like that before hopping into the gilded cage, not after O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that diffs from 2011 demonstrate a continuing problem that merits desysopping. Is the evidence of recent unbecoming conduct from IRC logs? If so that needs to be made clearer. 01:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)