Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Salvio giuliano (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Word limit

Requesting permission to exceed word/citation limit

I'm not a party to this case, but I've been compiling a large chunk of evidence based on my own observations. I don't think my section would fall within the remits outlined at the top of the page, so I'd like to ask for permission to provide an extended list of instances. Kurtis (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the evidence is IRC-related and includes logs, there's a standard (most of the time) around not posting logs on-wiki. Sorry if this comes off as an attempt to chill; I have no issue with you flinging them directly to arbcom privately, which is pretty common for evidence. There are parties in the wider world, however, who particularly enjoy eking out drama wherever they can, and I have no wish to see a good-faith attempt to provide clarity descend into 'list of things that malicious users can use to try and hurt people'.
(If it's not log-related, ignore the above ;p.) Ironholds (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's related to Kiefer's participation at RfA, as well as his general demeanour. I'm mentioning them for contextual purposes. Kurtis (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This case is about Ironholds and me. If you are concerned about RfA, you should try the usual mediation fora. You are aware that Newyorkbrad pronounced a ban on my replying to RfA discussions, which has been followed, I hope? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) gotcha. In that case, forward them privately to the arb- er. I mean, do what you will with them ;). Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and added the evidence that I've compiled. I think it's an important chunk of context. Kurtis (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, try first to shorten your evidence so that it complies with our word limit. If you cannot do so or, by doing so, you lose important details, then you'll be granted an exception. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the response. I'll see what I can do. :-) Kurtis (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRC-related diffs

    • I'll use a similar extension to list discussions by WMF employee Okeyes (WMF) (talk · contribs) and WP administrator Ironholds (talk · contribs), e.g. advocacy of shooting Sharon Osbourne, Jennifer Aniston, the Popes (sequentially), in a log (Wikipedia-en.20090305) with links to <redacted links>---the last link contains Keyes's discussion of killing a woman in a way that her cries for suffering are prolonged.
      The log has been blacklisted, so I cannot link it directly. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiefer, don't link to Wikipediocracy for any IRC logs, as they're not a reliable or trustworthy source for them. If you have the actual logs, email them to Arbcom. Risker (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker:,
Link a discussion supporting your claims about Wikipediocracy or IRC logs or both.
Does Ironholds deny making the statements quoted? Or does he claim that some nemesis has been fabricating IRC logs over the years?
What does Fluffernutter (talk · contribs) say? Were the logs forged? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiefer.Wolfowitz, they're not permitted here. Period. This is not a subject for debate. If you have logs, email them and explain their provenance. Risker (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker:, Link a discussion that supports your claim that those sources' logs be "not ... reliable or trustworthy". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Arbitration policy. IRC logs should be emailed to the Committee. Just as importantly, you have not provided any evidence of on-wiki behavioural issues. The Arbitration Committee historically does not sanction users solely for their off-wiki behaviour; it may be an aggravating factor, but I cannot recall a case in the last 5 years where a user was sanctioned based only on off-wiki behaviour. Risker (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker:
For the third time, where is a discussion that concludes that the logs are not reliable?
I've already clarified that I shall not condescend to play this committee's Calvinball, wasting my time (and the committee's, which apparently is so limited that it cannot handle Child protection, even with the current toothless policy). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRC logs are not ordinarily admissible, per ArbCom policy: "Evidence based on private communications (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, IRC logs, email correspondence) is admissible only by prior consent of the Committee and only in exceptional circumstances."  Roger Davies talk 10:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Quoting the policy that Risker just linked wasted time. It continued avoiding addressing my specific question. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, that part of the policy was introduced in the June 2011 policy update that was subject to formal ratification and passed with 134 in favour to 20 against after 14 days of voting [1]. user:Alpha Quadrant was apparently the only person to comment explicitly about IRC logs and their admissability despite was part of the reason they opposed the new policy. In reply Roger Davies commented, "ArbCom is well aware of the potential for forgery in IRC logs, emails and so forth - as well as the potential for disclosing intensely personal information - and therefore treats each instance on its merits. This, incidentally, is precisely the reason why editors should not be able to post logs and emails automatically as part of a case and why discretion about public disclosure rests with ArbCom." [2]. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Thank you for answering my question and especially for kindly highlighting relevant excerpts. :)
In the dialogue , Roger Davies (talk · contribs) claimed that there was great risk of forgery with IRC logs. Again, Roger, apart from having been overinfluenced by The Matrix or The Truman Show, is there any evidence for this claim? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgery of IRC logs appears to be commonplace. The later part of this discussion describes just one such incident. (Though the faking was remarkably ham-fisted in that instance.) IRC logs don't come with checksums, so IRC logs with uncertain provenance are largely meaningless unless verified by a trusted source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which, basically, means: Kiefer (and/or others), please send us the logs in private and we'll try to ascertain whether they're legit and, if so, we'll act on them (after giving the other party the opportunity to comment on them, of course). Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio giuliano: Thanks for the guidance, which should be helpful to all parties. I trust that ArbCom shall have access to the logs already given, so I shall not re-send them. If I find more logs that (1) are not logged on-Wiki and (2) provide additional information, I likely would send them by e-mail---barring cases (a) not covered by the above policy, (b) civil disobedience, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case notice

Closed

Your threats of clerk blocks would have more credibility if your case clerk was actually able to issue blocks. Spartaz Humbug! 03:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even without the ability to block I can still prohibit someone from participating in the case, which has a similar outcome. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus there is more than one active clerk with admin rights at the moment, who I can ask to block someone. Or who can block someone on their own initiative. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, what Callanecc said: when this case started, the other clerk was an admin; then again, all non-recused clerks can intervene in their capacity in a case and, since there are a couple of admins among them, Callanecc can ask one of them to push the buttons. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Learning about WP:BLP is a higher priority, since insults to Sarah Palin still stand here and on the evidence page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's "giving undue weight", and then there's acknowledging things which are widely accepted as facts. Mentioning Sarah Palin's inability to answer important questions does not qualify as libel, nor does it endanger her in any way. Kurtis (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why isn't Callanecc an administrator, anyways? I'd certainly trust him with the bit. Kurtis (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just thought I'd mention it because we're talking about the limitations of non-admin clerks in this case. Kurtis (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've decided to remove the Sarah Palin reference from my body of evidence. I still don't consider it to have been a BLP violation, but I do think it may come off as too much of an opinion. Kurtis (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Colin Powell's video is worth studying as an exercise in just political rhetoric, and in particular his words about Governor Palin show appropriate respect.
    Now, with the BLP concern aside, the community (through its vanguard committee) can better evaluate your discussion of copyright and yours truly. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen it before, many years ago, and I follow American politics pretty closely. My words regarding Sarah Palin are no less respectful than his; I was acknowledging a fact. If I called her a "blathering idiot", that would be disrespectful — instead, I said that she gave "confused, uninformed responses" to the questions she was asked. What "discussion of copyright" are you referring to? Is there something I should be aware of? Kurtis (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although true, I consider Spartaz's comment (or the wording) highly inappropriate. Although Callanecc is not an admin, his decision to block/ban someone from the case pages is covered under the Arbitration Committee's remit, and should be treated as such. This is something not be mocked. — ΛΧΣ21 21:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Spartaz intended for it to be interpreted that way. From my perspective, he was just commenting on the limited abilities of non-admin clerks. Kurtis (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I added or the wording just in case. I think that he may have had good intentions with the comment, but how he wrote it isn't the best way to express it. When I first read it, my impression was "woah, he is mocking Callanecc because he is not an admin" or something similar. However, maybe I just failed to assume good faith here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 01:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about it, I guarantee Spartaz just assumed you had misinterpreted (although I obviously can't speak for him). Kurtis (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Private evidence to be emailed to Arbcom's secondary mailing list

Please note that, due to several members of the Arbitration Committee recusing on this case, the Committee will be restricting discussion of this matter to the arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org mailing list. If anyone, including parties to this case, has any information that should be submitted privately, please send it to this email address. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So NuclearWarfare joined Worm That Turned and Newyorkbrad. These recusals are all good on principal (NW having nominated IH's RfAn). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not received any information or any mails from this list. Please send me all the "evidence" asap.
Demiurge1000 twice asserted that I linked information on Wikipediocracy, when of course I had not linked anything. I cannot wait to see his latest performance! :D
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for AGK to recuse himself

AGK volunteered that he should recuse as an operator of the Wikipedia channel from which many of the logs come. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There comes a point where you shoot yourself in the foot if there are three arbs to arbitrate. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK stated that he had a conflict of interest. I believe that all of the submitted logs are from the wikipedia-en channel, of which AGK is an operator, by his own admission. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK still has not recused himself, despite his earlier pledge to avoid a COI because of his sysop status on #wikipedia-en.
He lists himself as inactive again. Does that mean that he is no longer active?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRC, WP, and WMF

Discussion closed by clerk
This discussion wasn't closely related to the evidence to start with but I let it go for a while, however now I think it's time to close it as off topic (of the case) and suggest that it belongs elsewhere (perhaps WT:IRC). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When you say "Wikipedia channel," what do you mean? Is it a channel operated by Wikipedia? Associated loosely with Wikipedia? Independent of Wikipedia but using the name? And if it is an independent entity, why is an arbitrator "operating" the channel? What does that entail? Is there supervision of the comments made there by participants — are attacks redacted in accord with Wikipedia's standards? If so, why was there no redaction in this case? It seems to me that recusal is a good idea here. There needs, at a bare minimum, to be a statement of the relationship between English-WP and the IRC channels named after Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC) typo fixes: Carrite (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a channel called #wikipedia-en connect, hosted by freenode but dedicated to discussion of matters on the English Wikipedia (and reserved for use by the Wikimedia Foundation, like any other trademark). Being an "operator" (op) is mostly a technical matter, similar to adminship on a project: You can ban users from the channel, modify the channel settings, etc. There's a complicated chain of command that I don't even fully understand, but I believe that, theoretically at least, the Foundation is at the top of that chain (that is to say, if an op made a completely inappropriate decision, the WMF would be able to have their access revoked); someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Supervision? Yes. That's what the ops are for. That said, if you're not blatantly trolling, you're only going to get banned (or quieted, which means you can see what people post, but can't post anything yourself) if you're really being a huge dick, and are refusing to stop. But basic community principles are still followed: You can get banned for attempted outing, or for canvassing, or things like that.
Redaction is impossible, since IRC logs are hosted client-side. There's no central database where freenode records everything everyone's said; rather, freenode transmits messages to channel members, whose software then logs the messages privately. Basically the same way a mailing list works. (I think this explains why the civility bar is somewhat lower on IRC: Since it's less permanent, people feel [rightfully, IMHO] that they don't need to put as much thought into what they say. In a big channel, of course, there are tons of people who can quote what you said, but, like, if I were to call somemone a dick in ##PinkAmpersand connect, no one would know unless one of the other three people there said something about it.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it the ops are appointed by ops generally, who are led by the 2-3 "Group Contacts" - none of whom work for the WMF or are selected by the WMF. They're community members, and are selected by the outgoing GCs. Ironholds (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about Group Contacts chosen by the community, or Group Contacts chosen by some other means who happen to be members of the community? If there is a series of chosen Group Contacts, each selecting their successor, how was the first Group Contact chosen, and when? Carrite (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On question 1; the latter. I've asked James F (who, the page history informs me, was one of the first group contacts) about how the first ones came about; hopefully he'll get back to me, or post here. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James tells me the answer to "Who decided you lot should be group contacts?" is basically "well, I did" - in the context of his status as an op trusted by Freenode staff. Ironholds (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, essentially: If the General Counsel's office felt that a certain user needed to be deopped in a certain freenode channel, I imagine that, one way or another, they'd get what they wanted. Just because the WMF has never executed an ability to control things on IRC doesn't mean that ability doesn't exist. Think about on-wiki office actions... how many admins have ever been desysopped by the Office? I can only think of one, and that was on a rather minor project. But the fact that it can happen is enough for us to be able to confidently say that the WMF has absolute authority over everything that goes on here. I would argue that the same is the case on our freenode channels (which, as Kiefer has noted, can only exist with the Foundation's permission to use its trademarks). — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who was the admin? And actually, the situations aren't comparable. Yes, GC could (theoretically) desysop any admin they pleased...because the WMF physically controls the servers. Above that, they have staff accounts with the right to block users, including one explicitly controlled by the legal team, and a policy governing staff-mandated actions in relation to users and content. None of these things exist in relation to IRC, so it's apples to oranges.
Now, could the WMF distinctly "one way or another...get what they wanted", implying intercession and pressure at the freenode level? Most probably. But that's true of pretty much any entity short of google when you've got 500 million readers, including the US Congress. "X could get away with Y" is a dangerous thing to render equivalent to "X has the transparent right to appropriately force Y, and get away with it". There are a lot of things the WMF could get away with. That doesn't make them a legitimate or rule-based extension of the WMF's power. It also doesn't make it an expected or supported extension, or something ArbCom can enforce; Deskana's comments, as a channel op, were rather clear.
I can't comment on the trademark matter, except to note that "has the trademarks" does not translate to "can ban any use of the term", because I'm not a trademark attorney. Neither are any of the rest of us. Given this, and given that ArbCom has repeatedly and explicitly stated this case will not be about the jurisdictional status of IRC, it seems best for us to drop it. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite:
Several of Freenode's IRC channels for Wikipedia are described at WP:IRC. WMF owns the registered trademark "Wikipedia", and so Freenode uses "Wikipedia" with the permission of WMF. WMF has donated thousands of dollars directly to Freenode. Of course, WMF also donates staff-time worth much more. I hope this helps.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where has the Foundation donated staff time? And, "several thousand dollars", yes, in 2006. Ironholds (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironholds:. In your alternate account, Okeyes (WMF) (talk · contribs), Oliver Keyes wrote "I'm Ironholds on IRC, and tend to hang around #wikipedia-en most of the day". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered you feel I'm worth more than 6,000 dollars. Yes; a lot of staffers hang out on IRC. This is because a lot of users hang out on IRC, and it's the one real-time environment open to us to interact. Users surface issues with software to me, or to the developers and other liaisons who idle in the channels, and we can have a conversation and get it fixed much faster than if we were exchanging talkpage messages 12 hours apart. This isn't a donation of staff-time to freenode, it's a "donation" of staff-time to the community. It's my job. It doesn't show Foundation control over the IRC channels, it shows that wikipedians use those channels and being able to talk to Wikipedians is an important part of my day job. Ironholds (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence presented by Carrite - moved from Evidence page

(Note this is moved because it is commentary, not evidence, but is not otherwise modified. Risker (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Kiefer Wolfowitz's opinions at RfA have nothing to do with this case

I object to the laundry list of Kiefer.Wolfowitz quotations in various RfA debates presented by User:Kurtis above, which have no bearing on this case. None of these relate in any way to Ironholds or IRC or threats allegedly made by Ironholds or threats allegedly make by Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Allowing this non-germane material to stand is clearly prejudicial. Carrite (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the case is about the conduct of both parties not the meta question of irc--Guerillero | My Talk 03:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually cleared it with Salvio on his talk page, and my understanding is the same as Guerillero's — specifically, that the case pertains to the overall conduct of both parties, not just their interactions with each other. Kurtis (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting additional evidence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks to the parties for evidence submitted thus far. In reading what's already posted (or been posted and removed) I would like to ask for the parties to submit any additional evidence they have on the following topics:

  • Are there examples of Ironholds making personal attacks or inappropriate remarks on the English Wikipedia?
  • (Specifically regarding Kurtis' evidence) Are there examples of recent violations of copyright policies, personal attacks, etc. since the 2011 RfC (specifically outside of evidence presented about RfA?)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My aim is to help clean-up IRC. The community may have an interest in Keyes's current job title, given the IRC performance. I may post IRC excerpts that are tied to on-Wiki behavior (e.g. avowals of trolling), but that is a small concern.
In the RfC/U, "copyright concerns" were ignored by everybody (except Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000) and were ignored in the close by TParis (talk · contribs). Apart from the bad-faith opening, for which WTT apologized belatedly, and the allegations of partisan editing (particularly removing antisemitism), the copyright concerns may have been the most ludicrous part of the RfC. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. As Guerillero mentions above, this case is specifically about Ironholds and Kiefer, in general and their interactions. It has been affirmed in many ArbCom cases that off-wiki activities alone are not sanctionable on-wiki, but may be used as factors is combination with on-wiki issues (hence why I am asking for examples of problematic conduct from Ironholds on-wiki.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I declared my intent, per Kant and Bruce Lee.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I lack the memory of all of the particulars during that close to make any constructive comment, and I lack context on why it was even mentioned here to comment. But what I will say is that if something is "ignored by everybody" and a closer is supposed to summarize the discussion then the closer is not ignoring something by not mentioning something that was ignored by others.--v/r - TP 16:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis: "Ignore" was poor word choice. The others did not condescend to reply to the charge, more likely, and your summary faithfully summarized the conclusions of the discussions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @David: I am working on this and will have some things posted in the next few days. @Kiefer: Since the case was named KW/IH and not IRC 2, the main remit of the case is the conduct of both parties and not the meta question of irc, which I doubt arbcom can decide anyways because they don't make policy. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have presented a good chunk of number two. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      So if I provide a diff for a personal attack preceding my response (for Ks0stm's diffs), ArbCom will block me. Or if I quote editors criticizing the behavior towards me, I will be blocked. I am forbidden to quote 28bytes (talk · contribs), who examined the context of the diffs in my RfC/U. Is that correct? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't speak for the committee, but I would think that if you wanted to provide rebuttals to my evidence that would be accepted. Regardless, it would be nice for the drafting arbs to clarify how rebuttals work with their prohibition on evidence against non-parties in this instance, especially regarding evidence of the type "I said this-that because so and so said/did this!". Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously rebuttals to evidence should avoid descending into personal attacks or namecalling. As to the question above, "I said X because Y said Z" isn't likely to be an argument that will gain much traction; if there's a problem with other users it's not in the scope of this case, though if there are issues I encourage people to go through RFCUs and other appropriate channels. Kiefer, I'm not sure how "[quoting] editors criticizing the behavior towards me" would get you blocked. Can you point out to what procedures you're pointing to? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • @David Fuchs: "Traction" with this committee is of no greater concern to me than is rotisserie baseball to Tim Lincecum. My audience is writers of the encyclopedia, especially writers who do not share this committee's endorsement of "uneven enforcement of civility". The instructions have stated that I should have statements of the form "KW or IH did X [diff]"; other statements will get me blocked, since I have had one warning. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • In general, I agree with David. Kiefer, you may of course provide context as to the various allegations, but please try not to turn it into a laundry list of grievances (here I said x because someone did y and so forth). This case focuses on your conduct (and on that of Ironholds) and not on that of others; so, yes, make comments, provide counterevidence, add context, but please remember that, at the end of the day, what really matters is how you and Ironholds behaved.

              Also (if I'm not misinterpreting My audience is writers of the encyclopedia – and if I am, I apologise in advance), please do try not to turn this case into a show. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

              • We'll have no squealing at this barbeque, Kiefer! Carrite (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"General incivility"

This entire proceeding is obviously a legalized effort to make KW walk the plank. I wonder why he is not permitted to present evidence of "General incivility" of Ironholds on IRC while a laundry list of alleged "General incivility" committed by KW on Wiki — virtually 100% NOT having anything to do with Ironholds — is allowed on the evidence page. Are we to assume this means that IRC for En-Administrators is NOT part of En-WP and not part of the purview of ArbCom? Carrite (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, we are repeatedly and vociferously asking for evidence of *on-wiki* incivility involving either party. As has been said repeatedly, off-wiki behaviour can be an aggravating factor in any sanctions applied to a party, but there has to be something that illustrates on-wiki issues too; that is the standard that has been required for many years, and whether you realise it or not it is the original anti-Badsites principle that deprecated the idea of banning Wikipedia Review members just for being unpleasant on Wikipedia Review. We have made many efforts to direct attention at the type of evidence that would be particularly useful. As the saying goes, one can lead a horse to water, but cannot make him drink. That has to be the decision of those who submit evidence. Risker (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which begs the question: "Is IRC 'on-Wiki' or 'off-Wiki'..." It it is off-Wiki, that's fine — but ArbCom needs to explicitly say so. Carrite (talk)
IRC is off-wiki. AGK [•] 04:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also remember that any evidence for alleged misconduct on IRC will likely take the form of logs, which per the section further up this page must be emailed to the Committee so you will not see it on wiki. Editors may choose to say publicly that they have emailed private evidence to the Committee, and one or more arbs may choose to say publicly that they have received such evidence, but neither party is under any obligation to. The only exception is that if any private evidence is used to form the basis of a finding of fact or remedy then that will be noted as part of that finding/remedy, but obviously the case is nowhere near that stage yet. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs: Ironholds and Wikipedia's IRC channels

And I think that is a good time to close this section. Especially given neither paragraph really needs to be discussed on a case page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) expressed surprise that nobody had petitioned WMF to fire Oliver Keyes for his comments. This makes me think that an RfC/U on Ironholds / Okeyes (WMF) is in order. But should it be at English WP?

Second, Roger Davies and Alpha Quadrant were the only discussants on the IRC evidence question. This would be a good time to have an RfC on Wikipedia's IRC channel.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the WMF fires anyone or not is a matter for their HR department. Any decision or investigation must be carried out according to his contract with them, their disciplinary procedures and whichever laws are relevant (the Foundation is based in California but Oliver's user page suggests he is based in the UK). It is acceptable for there to be a petition calling for a sacking, if people think that conduct justifies that action, but they need to be clear that they have no authority over who the WMF hires or fires and the Foundation is not obliged to act on or listen to any such petition. Depending on the contract of employment and the relevant law they may not actually be able to fire someone for the relevant conduct (I am not a lawyer, but I do know that UK employment law at least is complicated).
Personally, I don't think there should be an RfC/U on the English Wikipedia that is about anyone's conduct anywhere other than the English Wikipedia. We cannot examine the evidence, and we cannot take any action (other than no action) that the RfC determines appropriate. It would also potentially conflict with this arbitration case. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thryduulf: this is not something over which the community have any authority. So, please, do not discuss Ironholds' job any more on these pages. I am also incredibly hesitant to say that an RfC calling for the termination of his contract would be acceptable, because the community would be interfering in a person's employment, which is something that has always been perceived as a big no-no (and people have been banned for contacting another editor's employer). Yes, there is a very particular relationship between the community and the Foundation, but I don't think it's correct for the community to start down that road. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to put this, but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket seems relevant to various aspects of this case, particularly Principle 5:

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, a user who engages in off-wiki conduct which is damaging to 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 employment.

The last sentence particularly seems relevant to the comments above this. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Positive contributions of both parties

This case was opened in part to examine the overall conduct of both parties, but in particular the nature of their relationship with one another. It seems I've opened the floodgates on an overall condemnation of Kiefer's history. As much as I think it's a problem that needs to be addressed in some way or another, I still think it would be unfair to focus exclusively on the negative aspects of his participation without also factoring in the positives. He has made over 18,000 edits to article space alone, which includes the creation of 43 articles. In particular, Kiefer's contributions mathematical topics (guitar tuning, economics, mathematicians, etc) are significant. Would it be relevant to also mention this aspect of his Wikipedia career as evidence? Kurtis (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtis:
If you wish to show a concern with fairness, you should discuss the diffs you've given.
  1. For each diff, was I responding to previous incivility or personal attacks (especially, WP:NPA violations such as personal attacks or allegations without evidence or quoting comments out of context)?
    1. If so, who made the earlier incivilities or personal attacks? Was the person an arbitrator, bureaucrat, or other administrator?
    2. Who was active in the discussion? In particular, were arbitrators, bureaucrats, or other administrators active? Did any try to promote civility or stop personal attacks?
  2. What happened when others defended me? Were their concerns addressed?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your first question, no. As far as I can tell, you made inflammatory comments towards the superficial aspects of a person's contribution history — no provocation on their part, no substantive evidence to back up your claims, and nothing that could conceivably be a deciding factor in granting someone the tools. If you think the incidents I've listed were taken out of context, then be my guest and prove it.
No one defended you, because your opposing arguments were so condescending and absurd as to be inflammatory and disruptive. But like I said, if you want to prove me wrong, have at it. I just hope that the amount of flak you're getting here will tell you something about the impact your words have on people. Kurtis (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To evaluate Kurtis's accuracy, it suffices to examine the contributions of Giant Snowman (who like me has expressed regrets) and The Rambling Man (who has received support from New York Brad) at the RfA; c.f. Dennis Brown's remarks. (diffs to be added...)
I was thinking of the non-RfA diffs, which you seem to have gleaned from my block log. Please answer the questions for them. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of substance

Am I the only one who thinks that so far, all we have here is a big fat nothing worth the time and effort of arbitration? Spartaz Humbug! 10:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Big Nuthin'" is somethin' delightful, unlike Harry Truman's evaluation of the Vice Presidency. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Nance Garner, not Harry Truman. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) tried to fix. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Violation of the community's trust"

Discussion closed

According to WP administrator Hex in a thread on Wikipediocracy thread "Revenge is a dish best served petty" illustrating the abuses of Administrator No. 1 at Commons, Hex has been banned from IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins by Wikimedia Foundation employee James Forrester with the words "I have kicked you from #wikipedia-en-admins for posting logs in violation of the strict rule. Your breach of the community's trust is unbecoming, and left me with no choice." His transgression was reproducing a short excerpt of an IRC log featuring quotes by Administrator No. 1 to document his case.

Once again, Arbcom: Are the #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-adminis channels of IRC part of "the community" or are they independent entities? This question really must be answered. If it is part of WP, then the behavior of Ironholds there should be subjected to close scrutiny. If it is not a part of WP, then it seems to me that Mr. Forrester is way out of line misrepresenting an independent entity as "the community." Carrite (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite opens the door for an important legal question for ArbCom: does ArbCom have the power to order discovery of possibly relevant records? If so, then the operators of #wikipedia-en-admins have performed contempt of court, and Hex should be allowed back. But then, is IRC official and can ArbCom compel channel operators to allow him back? References to "the community" seem to make it so. Wer900 • talk 19:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm recused in this case, but I think it's appropriate to remind you (Wer900) and interested others that the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to resolve disputes on a website. Despite legalistic terminology that is sometimes used (and which we have tried in recent years to use less of), the ArbCom is not a court and should not be viewed as one. In particular, terminology such as "contempt of court" is unhelpful and should not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Newyorkbrad's comment, the answer to your opening question is no. The Arbitration Committee does not have powers of discovery, nor does it have powers over IRC and it cannot compel channel operators to do anything. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent... so only The Truth™ as spoken by members of Teh Communitah™ is admissible as evidence when it comes to off-wiki statements. And regarding the "exceptional circumstances" in which private communications may be accepted, would the current situation be considered exceptional? It involves a Wikimedia employee who has a long history of off-wiki attacks, supported by a clutch of power-players, against perhaps the first content writer who actually has people making statements in his defense. And NYB, if you're going to avoid using legalistic terminology, why not clamp down on the harassment that many members of Teh Communitah™ have "legalistically" put on so-called "off-wiki" channels, such as IRC, that are all but official (using the Wikipedia name, generally operated by Wikipedia/Wikimedia functionaries, primarily populated by Wiki[p|m]edians for the purpose of discussing Wiki[p|m]edia(ns)?) but technically lack "official" status, giving their operators impunity?

Again, I hate to use legal terminology, but why shouldn't ArbCom have powers of discovery? If a user is withholding important information that may make or break a case, as is clearly being done here, they should be sanctioned for contempt of ArbCom. The issue of discovery has not been decided in policy yet, and I think it makes sense for some arbitrators to clarify the issue in this case.

This case is not merely about a dispute between two individual users, as the side of Oliver Keyes has tried to paint it; rather, it is merely a manifestation of the larger, fundamental conflict between Teh Communitah™ of policy wonks, noticeboard-dwellers, drama-creators, and social climbers and the actual content builders on Wikipedia, including Kiefer.Wolfowitz. The decisions made here will have broad implications for the community and the future of the encyclopedia, even if some parties on Wikipedia fail to recognize this fundamental fact. To put it pithily, Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds are not the only parties to the case. Wer900 • talk 20:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are seeking an "actual content builder" you should look at User:Ironholds/CP, its hundreds of entries, and the many bronze stars and green blobs splattered all over it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at yourself, Demigurge, and all of OKeyes's ANI friends. They have contributed virtually no content. It would also be prudent to see what percentage of edits OKeyes has spent outside of article space. Wer900 • talk 23:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Clamping down" on harassment originating from off-wiki channels would be pretty devastating to members of the site you and KW frequent, Wer900. Of course, you're going to claim that your site does not count since it theoretically has no relationship to Wikipedia, despite the fact that it is made up of current and banned Wikipedians and is dedicated to obsessing over Wikipedia. But I maintain the position I expressed in my statement: if we're going to make this about comments one party made on their off-wiki forum, the other party's comments on their own off-wiki forum should become fair game. Resolute 23:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. IRC is NOT off-wiki. Like I stated earlier, the channels exist only because Wiki[p|m]edia exists, and several channels, such as #wikipedia-en-admins, have membership criteria based on status within Wiki[p|m]edia. How that does not constitute an "official" connection is beyond me.
  2. Furthermore, one can link to channels using the freenode: prefix, as with the following: #wikipedia-en-admins. If Freenode IRC (where the "official" channels are hosted) is given such preference in the software, and the channels exist by virtue of Wiki[p|m]edians, then there is no way that Oliver Keyes, of all people, can claim that IRC is "off-wiki". It gets a form of linking preference in the software that Wikipediocracy does not (as anyone who is unafraid of frivolous ArbCom suits about "outing" can demonstrate).
  3. If you must finally capitulate to The Truth™ as it is stated by the wise and noble members of Teh Communitah™, then fire away for conduct on Wikipediocracy. That's exactly what your friend PinkAmpersand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has already done with his case against Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs).
Now, stare at me in the face and tell me that IRC is "off-wiki", or more "off-wiki" than Wikipediocracy. You'd be a pathological liar. Wer900 • talk 01:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRC is official, take 47

Discussion closed

A Wikimedia employee and the manager of Oliver Keyes, James Forrester, sent the following message to Scott Martin after the latter had logged the #wikipedia-en-admins channel.

An invocation, by a WMF employee, of the "community's trust" regarding a seemingly "unofficial" channel of communication is in contradiction to the statement of the IRC help page, which calls IRC channels unofficial (but which is not, in any case, a policy). If Mr. Forrester had removed Scott Martin from the channel in his own personal capacity of operator, such an issue would not have arisen, but one's ability to remain on the channel is clearly based on the "community's trust". Why, then, should IRC be considered "unofficial" in any way? Because Wikipedia's power players would prefer it to be that way?

Another topic of concern is the fact that the RfC deciding that certain "private communications" were not admissible as evidence was flawed. Only two people participated in that section of the RfC, which was subsequently rubber-stamped by uncaring admins. ArbCom absolutely needs to rule on the legitimacy of the RfC. Wer900 • talk 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No where in that message does it say James kicked him as a staff member, it was purely done in his role as a superop (which he got through being a looong time community member). Every other channel Scott was kicked from, a non-paid volunteer did the kicking and banning. If there was another super-op around who had the same info that James did, I'm sure they wouldn't have hesitated to kick him either. Legoktm (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was done through a consensus of the ops for that particular channel; however, many others had come to the same conclusion independently. --Rschen7754 19:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct, James' email simply reflects his role of enforcing the agreed upon policy in the admins channel, and the community he refers to is the community of the -en-admins IRC channel. While he sent the email, it was on behalf of the entire channel and reflects unanimous agreement of the active channel operators. We'd be happy to discuss further on IRC. The separation of IRC and Wikipedia is an interesting and oft debated question, but this particular email is very much a non-event, and shouldn't be read into so much. Prodego talk 00:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As another channel operator, I would just like to confirm what Prodego has said above - this was a group (active channel ops) decision that, after extensive discussion, was carried out by the active SuperOp (which in simple terms simply means that James was the highest in command (active) of the channel at the present time). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It is incorrect to say that only two people "participated in that section of the RfC". Every single one of the 154 people voting in favour or against as well as those who commented without voting, and those who read the page but did not comment had the opportunity to comment on any and all of it. That only one person chose to comment is irrelevant, especially as that person was apparently not in favour of IRC logs being admissible in any situation (whereas currently they are admissible in exceptional circumstances). The arbitration policy as it currently stands, including this clause, was endorsed by over 100 users forming a very significant absolute majority. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware that this section is closed, but I did not receive a notification that I was being discussed, presumably for some technical reason. It is important that I correct a glaring mistake in Wer900's original post. I posted a log excerpt from #wikipedia-en, not #wikipedia-en-admins. Thank you. — Scott • talk 20:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note to all participants

This arb case is about the two parties for which the case is named. The meta discussion above or sniping by other parties shouldn't be happening, period, but at the bare minimum it shouldn't be happening here. Anyone who continues will be banned from this case, as they clearly have no evidence or insight to contribute. (Something something war room.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence phase is now closed

I'd like to inform everyone that the evidence phase is now closed; please, do not add anything new because the clerks have been instructed to reverse any and all new additions. At this time, I'd like to thank all those who have contributed evidence to this case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano:
ArbCom cases often miss the announced deadlines. How are extensions granted?
As you know, Demiurge1000 and Worm That Turned added massive amounts of text in the last 2 days. Surely, I should have a week to respond?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom cases often miss the announced deadline yes and we usually get flak for it... However, to prevent the risk of strategic delays in the submission of evidence, I agree that a party should be granted an extension to respond to the bits of evidence which have been submitted shortly before the deadline expired. For that, you have 24 hours. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are. H. L. Mencken (1919) Smart Set
Thanks!
BTW, could your clerks remove complaints that are not actionable by ArbCom.
For example, Worm That Turned returned to the "fostering a hierarchical environment" complaint, which was in his draft RfC/U (before he quit).
There were many such "poisoning the well" statements, that cannot lead to non-insane ArbCom action in this case. Please have them removed....
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted a brief statement of correction to the the "IRC is official, take 47" section because it contained a glaring misstatement about me and I was not notified that I was being discussed. I would ask that the clerks allow it to remain; it does not affect the case in any fashion, only me, and I am not an involved party in this case. — Scott • talk 20:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz_and_Ironholds/Evidence

Leave a Reply