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

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

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

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.

→ Important notes for all contributors to this case

This case is contentious and has the ability to devolve very quickly. So, this is a heads-up on the procedures that have been adopted.

First off, the clerks have been instructed to be very proactive in removing any inappropriate comments. These include:

a. meta-discussions about policy

b. any allegation unsupported by evidence and

c. any allegation (whether supported or unsupported) against non-parties.

Furthermore, the case will use a "single warning" system: clerks are authorised to issue an only warning to any editor who posts inappropriate comments; if the warning is not heeded, the editor may either be restricted from participating in this case or be blocked at the clerk's discretion. This applies to everyone, which includes the parties, involved onlookers, semi-involved onlookers, and people who wander in randomly (whether truly random or not).

Finally, to prevent "drive-by" attacks and attempts to devolve this case, the case pages will be semi-protected and additional scrutiny will be paid to accounts that haven't participated in this dispute beforehand. If a new editor or an IP editor genuinely has something that needs to be said, they may ask a clerk to post it on their behalf.

For the Committee,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee 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-blists.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]

Mark Arsten

This isn't going anywhere productive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:05, 25 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.

Mark Arsten filed the case. The instructions for ArbCom told him to add himself as a party to the case.

Why has a clerk removed the questions for Mark Arsten? The clerk's censorship is especially inappropriate given another junior-high hall-monitor's irrelevant response and Mark Arsten's response, which added another account to the one disclosed at his RfA.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is funy how you call someone junior-high without knowing their age. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quantifiers (all, some) were covered in my sophomore geometry class, but not in junior high school, so I assumed good-faith. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mistakes can be made when you type from your recently bought laptop so, not everyone who counts is old, and not everyone who doesn't is young. Any other conception is obviously flawed from a statistical point. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your age, your tone has been inappropriate. Consider role-playing a character like Salvio for a change. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find my conduct inappropriate. I did a mistake by stating there were only one alternate account when two exist. I fixed my mistake as soon as I realized that I overlooked the other account. I don't think I need to apologize for such a mistake, especially when I was the first one to notice and fix it. Therefore, I am sure that I did correctly by fixing and aknowledging my own mistake, something I think you have to learn. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked by one of the drafting arbitrators to remove your statement and you didn't.

I would also remind you to be civil, calling someone a "junior-high hall-monitor" is not civil and I would have thought you'd know better given this is Arbitration and there has already been evidence submitted about you being uncivil. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should review the other clerk's comments here and on his user page, if you want to give lessons in civility.

Salvio asked me to remove the question, which had not yet been answered. Why do you think he took more time to ask a request than just remove the question itself?

"Given this is arbitration" makes me laugh. This is the committee that has been harassing Eric Corbett for years, most recently with the stupid publication of the stupid and trivial SPI allegation. When this committee removes AGK for his failure to disclose his alternative accounts before the last election and his incivility ("net negative"), then I might take it seriously.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that it is more desirable for people to remove their own comments (so not to seen as censorship). In either case, the template for the Workshop wasn't clear originally, but that section is generally used by Arbitrators to ask questions to those involved, and thus the request for you to remove that section. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I prefer to first discuss with the other person why I think that something they've added is inappropriate, instead of asking the clerks to remove it outright. I feel that it makes things a little less aversarial; it's only a personal preference, however. And, in this case, Callanecc did what I asked him to do.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:52, 23 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.

Questions for Oliver Keyes

@Ironholds: @Okeyes (WMF):

For each of the IRC-log quotations that have been submitted in evidence, please answer these questions honestly and to the best of your ability. (You are welcome to describe your confidence in your memory.)

Do you believe that you wrote the comment(s), either exactly or in substance? Why or why not?
Which participants in the IRC chat are active on Wikipedia? Why have none so far asserted that the log is inaccurate or averred that the "Ironholds" comments are out of character?

Granted that a single IRC log may be suspect or even a set of IRC logs posted in one place by one person may be suspect.

3. How do you explain the number of logs posted at different locations in the internet over years and the consistent sexual-and-violent comments made by "Ironholds"?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

I can verify 1, 2 and 4 as quotations of mine. 3, I cannot remember in the slightest.
"The IRC chat"? The conversation in which each quote is found...? In the case of those from bash, well, the bash context is as good as you're likely to get, particularly with early quotes (many changeovers mean my machine's logs are, at best, spotty). In any case, I'm highly uncomfortable answering this question. The drafting arbitrators have made clear that this is an arbitration case concerning our behaviour, not concerning the nature of IRC or the behaviour of anyone else. Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a blind question; I don't know the number of logs posted at different etc, etc, nor the specific ones you're referring to. If you've submitted them to the Arbitration Committee confidentially as evidence, as they require, I haven't been forwarded them. In regards to the comments themselves, see my answer here. Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ironholds: @Okeyes (WMF):

Oliver Keyes, Of course I refer to the links submitted here which have been removed but not revdeleted or oversighted, Oliver. Please answer the questions honestly to the best of your ability, and stop playing games. You have repeatedly suggested that such logs can be fabricated. Are you claiming that any of the logs have been fabricated? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I'm playing games; I was referring to the "IRC-log quotations that have been submitted in evidence", which number four. The users listed in the bash quotes there are easily identifiable - people tend to use the same IRC nick as their on-wiki username for ease of identification. Are you asking me "please identify the users in the links that were removed"?

I don't think I've said anything about the ability to falsify IRC logs (if I have, please feel free to provide a diff - I may just be forgetting); arbcom did. I am pretty certain that, of the quotations you have submitted as evidence, 1, 2 and 4 are not false, and I have no evidence either way about 3. Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ironholds: @Okeyes (WMF):

4. Did you observe or participate in the IRC canvassing to block me (especially indefinitely), as Nick (talk · contribs) described? Did you take steps to stop the canvassing?

5. Describe what you meant by "thwapped" (in your comment at ANI); how did others perceive your comment?

6. You claim that you have stopped using IRC except for job obligations, demonstrating some understanding that your IRC behavior has harmed the reputation of Wikipedia and the WMF. Will you agree to

immediately resign your administrator status?
a 3-6 month ban from voluntary participation in IRC, followed by a 3-6 month probation, in which you will discuss your participation in IRC with a parole officer (e.g., Newyorkbrad), who will report to the community should you wish to have an RfA?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

I don't recall it, to be frank, and I'm afraid I'm working from my laptop for the next few weeks and so don't have access to any of my logs.
"Thwapped" in the sense of being lightly tapped with a rolled-up newspaper; in effect, trouted. I can't speak for how most people perceived my comment (I can't see inside their heads) but I recall you, particularly, taking it to be rather stronger than was intended.
I can't speak for whether my behaviour has harmed the reputation of Wikipedia or the WMF; that was not, in addition, my motivation. My motivation was that my behaviour was, both objectively and to me, inappropriate, and that it had offended some people I very much respect. I wanted to withdraw myself from vectors to that kind of impropriety until I felt I had more, for want of a better word, control. This was not to do with reputational damage, and I have a problem with arguments primarily based on reputational damage; this was to do with whether or not I was right or wrong to act the way I did. I was wrong, and took these steps as part of a wider effort to stop being wrong. How it looked has nothing to do with it.
I will not agree to immediately resign from my status as a sysop, for the same reason that I do not agree to resign as a staffer; namely that I am not the person best suited to grok the impact that my actions have on the community or the Foundation. In both cases, there are entities that are tasked, if not explicitly then implicitly, with evaluating that; in the Foundation's case, Sue, and in the community's case, the Arbitration Committee. In the Foundation case, I spoke to Sue and asked her to make the judgment call (as she did). In the community's case, I trust the Committee - elected by and answerable to the community - to do a better job on this front than I would. If the Committee decides it would be appropriate for me to be desysopped, I will be justly desysopped. I would say, inter alia, that my mental "what ruling would adhere to my expectations" is stronger than WTT's - I would suggest that it be made more explicit that should my behaviour be repeated, I will be desysopped this comment made for the benefit of any reading arbitrators, although I'm certain they have their own opinions

I have absolutely no idea how this would work. What is "voluntary"? "Outside of my job"? Outside of my job in a Wikipedia context, or no IRC use whatsoever in any context, even as a communications channel for my personal life? How would IRC participation be discussed with a "parole officer", let alone one who does not (to my knowledge, at least) use IRC? Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironholds:

By "voluntary" I meant "volunteer" (adjective), i.e., outside the duties of your WMF employment. Thank you for the replies here. I have commented elsewhere that WMF is responsible for your activities on IRC, having hired you and assigned you to i.a. IRC, and should not scapegoat only you. your considerable abilities can be used elsewhere without the "community liason" title. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think, given the meaning of scapegoat, that anyone should be scapegoated. The WMF didn't assign me to use IRC, it assigned me to keep in touch with the community, which is inevitably going to include IRC as a useful vector. There are elements of official business - i.e., office hours - that are conducted primarily by IRC, but that's mostly due to a lack of a more transparent equivalent (which is a problem I've been noodling on for quite a while; IRC is an unfriendly protocol). I'm due to switch jobs relatively soon, actually, something that has been worked on for ~6 months. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The workshop is closed

I'd like to inform everyone that the workshop 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 their proposals to this case. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]