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

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 7 active arbitrators, not counting 4 recused. 4 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 4
2–3 3
4–5 2

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. T. Canens (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 11:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 13:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Casting aspersions

2) An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. T. Canens (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 11:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Changed "talk page of the editor" to "user-talk page of the editor" – hope that's okay. AGK [•] 13:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children

3) Reports that an editor may be violating Wikipedia's policy regarding the protection of children must be communicated in private to the Arbitration Committee or to the Wikimedia Foundation. Users must not discuss such allegations on-wiki; users who do so may receive sanctions up to and including an indefinite block, regardless of the correctness of the allegations.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. T. Canens (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 11:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 13:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Etiquette

4) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language, trolling and harassment, are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. T. Canens (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 11:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 13:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conduct on arbitration pages

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

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. T. Canens (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 11:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 13:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

6) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. T. Canens (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 11:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 13:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Offensive commentary

7) Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on fellow editors, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. T. Canens (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As someone who loves sarcasm in most situations, it's important to note that interactions with other editors in a text-only medium requires more care and control. Things that can get taken the wrong way will. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 11:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Good. AGK [•] 13:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Nature of the case

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

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 11:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 13:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Kiefer.Wolfowitz

2) Despite being a prolific content creator, Kiefer.Wolfowitz also has an extensive history of making comments which are below the level of civility that is expected on Wikipedia, which include personal attacks, often made in an attempt to belittle other editors ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]; for more examples, v. here), and carefully worded remarks which insinuate misconduct on the part of others without actually asserting it openly ([6], v.here). He has also made on-wiki allegations that other editors may have violated the policy on the protection of children.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I will note that there appears to be an essentially unbroken history of this behaviour going back to the 2011 RFC/U. Risker (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 11:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Echo Risker's comment. AGK [•] 13:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Ironholds

3) Ironholds is a very prolific content creator. He is an administrator with a history of making highly inappropriate remarks both on-wiki ([7]) and off-wiki on the various IRC channels, where he has often used violent and sexual language (evidence for this has been submitted and discussed in private). Moreover, on at least two occasions, he also logged out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects ([8]; [9])

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I note that the majority of the examples provided are at least a year ago, with the examples on other projects being 2 years ago. Risker (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 11:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Added "is a very prolific content creator. He" to the opening sentence per Guerillero's comments on the talk page. Revert if you disagree.  Roger Davies talk 06:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Further tweak, per Ironholds' page request on the talk page. From "often uses" to "has often used". Again, revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies talk 06:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 13:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies

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

Ironholds desysopped

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for bringing the project into disrepute, Ironholds is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] 21:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 11:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 13:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Ironholds banned

2) For his history of incivility, which includes logging out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects, Ironholds is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter. Regardless of the present sanction, he may use his User:Okeyes (WMF) account to edit the English Language Wikipedia solely in performance of his duties as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Support:
  1. First choice. Kirill [talk] 21:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice,  Roger Davies talk 11:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not believe an indefinite ban is appropriate under the circumstances. Risker (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Administrators are held to a higher standard of conduct, and can reasonably be required to refrain from engaging in conduct outside enwiki that would bring the project into disrepute. Ironholds' logged-out edits and problematic IRC comments fails that standard, and the appropriate remedy for that is a desysop, which we have (so far) unanimously supported.

    For a site-ban, however, Ironholds' misconduct must be such that would warrant a ban when committed by an editor without the admin bit. The jurisdiction of this committee over off-wiki communications (on IRC or otherwise) by ordinary editors is questionable at best when such communications have only a tenuous relationship to matters on this project. The single on-wiki incident and two logged-out edits noted in the FoF falls short of justifying a site ban. It is worth noting that in the last case of an administrator engaging in vandalism while logged out, the Committee did not even desysop the user in question. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  3. We have recently rejected a string of cases on the principle that off-wiki conduct is by itself insufficient to raise a case, let alone propose sanctions. Even taking Ironhold's off-wiki conduct into account, which is plainly inappropriate and gratuitous, with no pattern of misconduct on en.wiki I don't see the preventative utility of a ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I share the view of my colleagues who have opposed this proposal. Ironholds' conduct on IRC is plainly unacceptable, but appears to be improving – and in any case has a minimal effect on the encyclopedia. I also do not consider Ironholds' on-wiki conduct to have a significant, negative effect on the project; if it does, I am not aware of it and no evidence of it has been presented to the committee. This leaves the option of taking Ironholds, a long-term content contributor and productive member of the community, and banning him "out of principle", which is something we do to people who have grossly breached the community's trust; but again, I do not consider that to be warranted in this case. AGK [•] 14:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Ironholds banned for 6 months

2.1) For his history of incivility, which includes logging out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects, Ironholds is banned from the English Language Wikipedia for six months. Regardless of the present sanction, he may use his User:Okeyes (WMF) account to edit the English Language Wikipedia solely in performance of his duties as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Support:
  1. See my comments and rationale below. Risker (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Note: struck the sentence regarding the WMF account per Salvio's comments below. Risker (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'm not really a fan of fixed-term bans, which have a punitive, rather than preventative, air to them. A lot can happen in six months and if his conduct with his WMF account in the interim is exemplary, I don't suppose he'll face much of an uphill battle getting the Ironholds account unbanned. All-in-all, best to leave the decision to the committee of the day.  Roger Davies talk 11:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per vote on 2. T. Canens (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I do not think finite-term bans are useful. AGK [•] 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per vote on 2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
The severity of the infractions is sufficient to require temporary removal from the project; however, almost all of the examples given occurred more than a year ago, and Ironholds has recognized the inappropriateness of and apologized for the more recent episode. This is one of those rare cases where I believe a set-time ban would be appropriate. Risker (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Against which, they happened after he passed his (fifth) (seventh) RFA at a time when I'd expect him to be on best behaviour. Tweak and complete earlier shard, and belatedly sign  Roger Davies talk 06:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds admonished

2.2) For his history of incivility, which includes logging out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects, Ironholds is strongly admonished.

Support:
  1. Second choice. Kirill [talk] 21:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Risker (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First and only choice. T. Canens (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Only choice. AGK [•] 14:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 11:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned

3) For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] 21:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Note: I would prefer that the initial review period be one year. Risker (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So would I. I've tweaked it accordingly. Please revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies talk 06:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 11:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Unfortunate but necessary. AGK [•] 14:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Kiefer.Wolfowitz admonished

3.1) For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is strongly admonished.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Inadequate, considering the severity of the misconduct. Kirill [talk] 22:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 11:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prefer 3). AGK [•] 14:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No need considering the passing remedy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Standard enforcement

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

I have been told, in private, that the proposal to ban the Ironholds account, while allowing Oliver to edit the project using his User:Okeyes (WMF) account may cause misunderstandings. The reason for the exception is rather simple, actually: though I think that Oliver should not be allowed to edit en.wiki at all, at the same time, I also believe that we lack the authority to tell the Foundation how to manage their personnel and so, in my opinion, banning the User:Okeyes (WMF) account would be outside of ArbCom's remit. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was me who raised the question. I do not believe that the Arbitration Committee has a place in telling anyone's employer how to handle their employees, even the WMF; in fact, the community has determined (and Arbcom supported) that such interference in real-world employment (even with the WMF, as seen in the Racepacket case) is grounds for removing editors from the project for extended periods if not permanently. I misunderstood Salvio's intent in his proposal for indefinite blocking, and I now understand that he does not believe that Ironholds should be permitted on the project, period, but also doesn't want to run afoul of the WMF.

    I also believe that *this* iteration of the committee, after many years of experience for the most part, should know better than to deliberately set up a situation where a new committee has to review a contentious indefinite block practically at the start of their term; this has historically, year after year, caused significant problems in cohesiveness of newly formed committees and could potentially even affect the outcome of the next election. Risker (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Penwhale at 14:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 7 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Casting aspersions 7 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children 7 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Etiquette 7 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Conduct on arbitration pages 7 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Wikipedia is not a battleground 7 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Offensive commentary 7 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Nature of the case 7 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 7 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Ironholds 7 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Ironholds desysopped 7 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Ironholds banned 3 4 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass [1]
2.1 Ironholds banned for 6 months 1 4 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass [2]
2.2 Ironholds admonished 5 2 0 PASSING · [1][2]
3 Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned 7 0 0 PASSING ·
3.1 Kiefer.Wolfowitz admonished 0 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Standard Enforcement 0 0 0 PASSING · [4]
Notes
  1. ^ a b c d Kirill voted support for both 2 and 2.2, with 2 as their first choice. One support vote for 2.2 should be ignored unless 2 does not pass.
  2. ^ a b c d Risker voted support for both 2.1 and 2.2, with 2.1 as their first choice. One support vote for 2.2 should be ignored unless 2.1 does not pass.
  3. ^ Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.
  4. ^ Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. Move to close. AGK [•] 14:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Let's get this over with. Kirill [talk] 14:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz_and_Ironholds/Proposed_decision&oldid=1137489098"