Case clerk: Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Salvio giuliano ( Talk) & Roger Davies ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
![]() | → 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:
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) |
The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1) Wikipedia users are expected to interact with each other civilly, calmly and in a spirit of cooperation. Actions which sour the editing environment, such as direct or indirect attacks, are forbidden.
2) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.
3) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
1) The case request revolved around the poor conduct outside Wikipedia of both Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds, which led to sanctions when Kiefer.Wolfowitz responded to off-wiki comments on Wikipedia. The case was accepted to review the conduct on Wikipedia of the two named parties.
2) Comments made on IRC by administrator Ironholds have been below the level of civility that is expected on Wikipedia. Ironholds has acknowledged this [4] and has voluntarily withdrawn from IRC to ensure it does not happen again. [5]
3) Recent comments made both on- and off-wiki by Kiefer.Wolfowitz have been below the level of civility that is expected on Wikipedia. This behaviour was raised in a 2011 RfC/U, where Kiefer.Wolfowitz agreed voluntarily with two viewpoints "that he should try to minimize the behavior and be a little more respectful to those around him ... and also that he should say things in a nicer and non-demeaning manner". Despite this agreement, Kiefer.Wolfowitz has amassed a significant block log, largely for incivility and disruptive editing. [7]
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.
1) Ironholds is reminded that conduct outside Wikipedia can reflect poorly on himself, both as a Wikipedia administrator and as a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation.
2) For persistent incivility, personal attacks, harassment and disruptive editing, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
1) All users are expected to conduct themselves calmly, civilly, and reasonably. Actions performed out of ill will or malice are prohibited, and those performing such actions may be warned or sanctioned in accordance with Wikipedia policy and precedent from Arbitration Committee cases. Functionaries on Wikimedia sites, or Wikimedia Foundation employees, are expected to uphold and follow these standards of conduct rigorously and are not immune to sanctions as severe as those given to editors without special rights.
Regarding your second question, on the other hand, I believe that there is no general answer. In certain cases, it may be necessary to examine the reason behind an edit; in others, that's entirely superfluous (for instance, I don't care why A insulted B or why B edit warred, whether it was because he thought he was right, or because he was simply bored or even wanted to irritate his opponent). In my opinion, it's entirely possible that an action which, at first glance, appears legitimate may in reality be motivated by malice (the most common example would be an editor targeting someone else's edits to harass him); in these cases, motive is important and, if proven, actions performed out of malice or spite should indeed lead to sanctions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
2) Failure to follow the standards set out in Wikipedia policy as referenced in principle (1) may result in sanction, even if it is not conducted on a site owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Four classes of venue shall exist for the purpose of defining sanctions: the English Wikipedia itself (class A); other websites owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, its chapters, or other affiliates (class B); unaffiliated websites, or sections thereof, dedicated primarily to the discussion of the Wikimedia Foundation, its websites, or its affiliates (class C); or unaffiliated sites not specifically dedicated to the Wikimedia movement (class D). Sanctions should be most vigorously applied to users for misconduct on the English Wikipedia, with progressively weaker sanctions applied for the same level of misbehavior in class B and C venues. Misconduct in class D venues may only be sanctioned in cases of multiply repeated and egregious misbehavior, or that which defames or degrades editors severely.
You know, full well, that much of the case against you rests on IRC logs (although there is plenty of evidence on-wiki that can result in sanction). Virtually all of the on-wiki evidence brought up by your supporters against Kiefer.Wolfowitz is a demonstration that he has a political goal rather than a personal one, and evidence in itself that your supporters are out to silence a critic. By dishing dirt on Kiefer, you aim to unfairly discredit IRC logs that are particularly damning of you. We haven't gone through all of those logs yet, and there are reams of statements by you that may not even have been logged. Wer900 • talk 19:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
3) Evidence may be submitted from all four classes of venue, provided that private information is excised before its public presentation on the English Wikipedia. Evidence without such privacy redactions may be submitted to the Arbitration Committee or designated officers through private channels.
4) Editors are expected to abide by normal standards of editing as discussed in principle (1) on Arbitration cases, and may not engage in battleground conduct on any arbitration pages. Arbitrators who have recused themselves from cases are expected to make all efforts not to influence the outcome of a case, by refusing to participate in proceedings, public or private, and by refraining from submitting evidence from any venue class.
5) Vandalism of Wikimedia pages is impermissible and may be sanctioned by the relevant authorities on the English Wikipedia. The performance of vandalism through any means, but in particular covert methods, is unbecoming of an editor in good standing, and in particular of a Wikimedia functionary or employee.
1) Ironholds has made several sexual and/or misogynistic comments, as well as performed more general harassment, of various editors on Wikimedia-focused IRC channels, which are class C venues under principle (2). Such statements have often been targeted to cause discomfort to various Wikimedia editors, including women.
2) Ironholds has, through IP addresses, engaged in vandalism of several pages on the English Wikipedia, and has impersonated and maliciously refactored the statements of other Wikimedia users.
3) <finding removed>
4) Kiefer.Wolfowitz has made many statements that some users have considered to be hurtful or derisive.
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.
1) For a period of three months, Oliver Keyes may not participate in community processes, broadly construed, with the exception of article talk pages in the context of editorial debate. Concurrently, Oliver Keyes is forbidden to use IRC channels that are class C under principle (2).
I will be going through your AN/I records shortly. Wer900 • talk 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
2) Ironholds is suspended from all functionary roles for a period of three months, whereupon he may regain them in a probationary status for nine subsequent months. Ironholds may permanently regain the tools in a request for adminship at least one year after the enactment of remedies.
3) Ironholds is strongly admonished to refrain from incivility on all venue classes, in particular misogynistic comments which may seem joking at first sight but cause discomfort.
4) After the vacation of his ban on community processes, Ironholds will be subject to special remedies should he violate Wikipedia's civility policies in class A, B, or C venues, pursuant to principle (2).
4) The revision deletion and oversight logs of Ironholds shall be examined to ensure that he is not hiding the misconduct of himself, his supporters, or allies. Any evidence arising from such logs shall be presented in requests for clarification and amendment to this case.
5) Kiefer.Wolfowitz is reminded not to behave incivilly with other users, and to maintain calm to the greatest extent possible.
1) For each instance of ban violation by Ironholds on a class A, B, or C venue pursuant to principle (2), an uninvolved administrator may increase the length of his ban by three months, until a maximum of nine months. Subsequent violations may result in an initial block of two weeks, and two-week extensions thereof to a maximum of three months. Talk-page access shall be revoked at the second block extension and all subsequent ones, should it be necessary.
2) On AN/I, or through the action of the Arbitration Committee, the ban of Ironholds from community processes may be extended by a maximum of three months as a result of misbehavior on class A, B, or C venues. Any such extension will be under the authority of the Arbitration Committee, which may revoke or otherwise modify the length of the extension at any time.
2) Should Ironholds violate any Wikipedia policies relating to civility or conduct or make misogynistic statements on class A, B, or C venues during his parole, a new community-process ban will come into effect for three months, subject to previous enforcement provisions though non-extendable. Parole may not be served concurrently with community-process bans incurred during it, unless approved by the Arbitration Committee.
1) This case is a measure of the community's trust in Ironholds' adminship; he has stated that this case is a replacement for an admin recall procedure [15]. This standard of evaluation (still having the community's trust, i.e. would likely still pass an RFA, or some other reasonable measure of trust), rather than the typical standard (egregious violation of policy) will be used by the Committee in determining remedies related to Ironholds.
"If I can't appeal to your sense of honor, then probably all hope is lost; I doubt you can be involuntarily removed or desysopped."He doubts it because the criteria for having lost the community's trust and the criteria for getting desysopped by ArbCom are vastly different. As can be seen from Ironholds' evasiveness in the linked dialogue, compared to the undertakings and comments he offered in Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3 (2009), Requests for adminship/Ironholds 4 (2010) and Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5 (2011), all hope appears to be lost; Floquenbeam's appeal has failed. (Just search for "recall" in RfA3 and RfA4, and "pear-shaped" in RfA5.) Now Floquenbeam has worked out an endrun that could be called an appeal to arbitrators' sense of honour. I wish him luck and hope the proposed principle is accepted, but I'll eat my hat if it is. ( This hat.) Not because arbs aren't honourable, but because in my experience they're too formalistic to take such an unprecedented road, however persuasive the logic for it. When I made a very similar appeal to the committee, years ago, for a desysop on grounds of honour… oh, never mind, I digress. I'll just register a forlorn hope that this year's arbs may be more inclined to think out of the box. Bishonen | talk 11:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Although conduct off Wikipedia does not fall under the normal purview of Wikipedia's rules of conduct, certain extreme examples of misconduct may be cause for sanctions where they contribute to an atmosphere of hostility on-wiki. This is especially important when the off-wiki conduct occurs in a discussion area known to be frequented by Wikipedia editors, even if is not in an area fully accessible to the public. Such misconduct includes defamatory accusations and threats of bodily harm.
1) Ironholds has made several gratuitously offensive comments on Wikipedia-related IRC channels. These comments have occasionally involved Wikipedia editors with whom he has had personal disputes. He has also edited anonymously on other Wikimedia sites to harass editors.
2) Kiefer has made several egregious accusations against editors on-wiki, as well as on Wikipediocracy, an off-wiki criticism forum frequented by Wikipedia editors. These accusations have occasionally been of a potentially defamatory nature.
3) Kiefer criticized several offensive comments Ironholds had made on IRC in a way that was perceived as making a defamatory insinuation, though it was later modified. Subsequently, Ironholds made an implied threat towards Kiefer in a restricted admin channel on IRC and these comments were posted on Wikipediocracy. Kiefer reciprocated with a threat towards Ironholds on-wiki, for which he was blocked with an expiry time of three months. This block was subsequently reversed by an admin due to it being a response to the comment Ironholds made on IRC.
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.
1) Kiefer and Ironholds are banned from commenting about or interacting with each other. Particularly egregious comments made on off-site Wikipedia-related discussion areas will be covered under this restriction.
2) Kiefer is banned from any discussions relating to the participation of minors on Wikipedia. Particularly egregious comments made on off-site Wikipedia-related discussion areas will be covered under this restriction.
3) Ironholds will be subject to administrative probation for three months. Any serious editorial or administrative misconduct may be cause for immediate revocation of his administrative privileges. Particularly egregious comments made on off-site Wikipedia-related discussion areas will be covered under this restriction. Following the probation period, he will submit to a reconfirmation RfA.
4) Kiefer and Ironholds are strongly advised to avoid gratuitous commentary about other editors when participating in off-site Wikipedia-related discussion areas. They are warned that particularly egregious comments about other editors may lead to administrative action.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
I have a number of issues with this section of evidence. I do not believe I have harassed Kiefer.Wolfowitz, nor do I believe he would have categorised my behaviour towards him as harassment this time last week. I note that he has supported me for Oversight userrights [16] and at this years Arbcom election. These are not the actions of someone who was harrassed. What's more, I (at first) supported the proposed interaction ban with Demiurge1000 in principle [17], and opposed a recent Kiefer.Wolfowitz's indef block. [18] Again, not actions that I would consider fit with the profile of harassment.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that Kiefer.Wolfowitz appears to be trying to discredit my suggestions, by implying I've been after him for years. It's patently untrue and I can provide many more examples of cordial, even friendly discussion. His behaviour in this manner reminds me of his past attempts to get an interaction ban so as to avoid an RfC/U. WormTT( talk) 09:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Case clerk: Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Salvio giuliano ( Talk) & Roger Davies ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
![]() | → 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:
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) |
The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1) Wikipedia users are expected to interact with each other civilly, calmly and in a spirit of cooperation. Actions which sour the editing environment, such as direct or indirect attacks, are forbidden.
2) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.
3) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
1) The case request revolved around the poor conduct outside Wikipedia of both Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds, which led to sanctions when Kiefer.Wolfowitz responded to off-wiki comments on Wikipedia. The case was accepted to review the conduct on Wikipedia of the two named parties.
2) Comments made on IRC by administrator Ironholds have been below the level of civility that is expected on Wikipedia. Ironholds has acknowledged this [4] and has voluntarily withdrawn from IRC to ensure it does not happen again. [5]
3) Recent comments made both on- and off-wiki by Kiefer.Wolfowitz have been below the level of civility that is expected on Wikipedia. This behaviour was raised in a 2011 RfC/U, where Kiefer.Wolfowitz agreed voluntarily with two viewpoints "that he should try to minimize the behavior and be a little more respectful to those around him ... and also that he should say things in a nicer and non-demeaning manner". Despite this agreement, Kiefer.Wolfowitz has amassed a significant block log, largely for incivility and disruptive editing. [7]
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.
1) Ironholds is reminded that conduct outside Wikipedia can reflect poorly on himself, both as a Wikipedia administrator and as a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation.
2) For persistent incivility, personal attacks, harassment and disruptive editing, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
1) All users are expected to conduct themselves calmly, civilly, and reasonably. Actions performed out of ill will or malice are prohibited, and those performing such actions may be warned or sanctioned in accordance with Wikipedia policy and precedent from Arbitration Committee cases. Functionaries on Wikimedia sites, or Wikimedia Foundation employees, are expected to uphold and follow these standards of conduct rigorously and are not immune to sanctions as severe as those given to editors without special rights.
Regarding your second question, on the other hand, I believe that there is no general answer. In certain cases, it may be necessary to examine the reason behind an edit; in others, that's entirely superfluous (for instance, I don't care why A insulted B or why B edit warred, whether it was because he thought he was right, or because he was simply bored or even wanted to irritate his opponent). In my opinion, it's entirely possible that an action which, at first glance, appears legitimate may in reality be motivated by malice (the most common example would be an editor targeting someone else's edits to harass him); in these cases, motive is important and, if proven, actions performed out of malice or spite should indeed lead to sanctions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
2) Failure to follow the standards set out in Wikipedia policy as referenced in principle (1) may result in sanction, even if it is not conducted on a site owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Four classes of venue shall exist for the purpose of defining sanctions: the English Wikipedia itself (class A); other websites owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, its chapters, or other affiliates (class B); unaffiliated websites, or sections thereof, dedicated primarily to the discussion of the Wikimedia Foundation, its websites, or its affiliates (class C); or unaffiliated sites not specifically dedicated to the Wikimedia movement (class D). Sanctions should be most vigorously applied to users for misconduct on the English Wikipedia, with progressively weaker sanctions applied for the same level of misbehavior in class B and C venues. Misconduct in class D venues may only be sanctioned in cases of multiply repeated and egregious misbehavior, or that which defames or degrades editors severely.
You know, full well, that much of the case against you rests on IRC logs (although there is plenty of evidence on-wiki that can result in sanction). Virtually all of the on-wiki evidence brought up by your supporters against Kiefer.Wolfowitz is a demonstration that he has a political goal rather than a personal one, and evidence in itself that your supporters are out to silence a critic. By dishing dirt on Kiefer, you aim to unfairly discredit IRC logs that are particularly damning of you. We haven't gone through all of those logs yet, and there are reams of statements by you that may not even have been logged. Wer900 • talk 19:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
3) Evidence may be submitted from all four classes of venue, provided that private information is excised before its public presentation on the English Wikipedia. Evidence without such privacy redactions may be submitted to the Arbitration Committee or designated officers through private channels.
4) Editors are expected to abide by normal standards of editing as discussed in principle (1) on Arbitration cases, and may not engage in battleground conduct on any arbitration pages. Arbitrators who have recused themselves from cases are expected to make all efforts not to influence the outcome of a case, by refusing to participate in proceedings, public or private, and by refraining from submitting evidence from any venue class.
5) Vandalism of Wikimedia pages is impermissible and may be sanctioned by the relevant authorities on the English Wikipedia. The performance of vandalism through any means, but in particular covert methods, is unbecoming of an editor in good standing, and in particular of a Wikimedia functionary or employee.
1) Ironholds has made several sexual and/or misogynistic comments, as well as performed more general harassment, of various editors on Wikimedia-focused IRC channels, which are class C venues under principle (2). Such statements have often been targeted to cause discomfort to various Wikimedia editors, including women.
2) Ironholds has, through IP addresses, engaged in vandalism of several pages on the English Wikipedia, and has impersonated and maliciously refactored the statements of other Wikimedia users.
3) <finding removed>
4) Kiefer.Wolfowitz has made many statements that some users have considered to be hurtful or derisive.
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.
1) For a period of three months, Oliver Keyes may not participate in community processes, broadly construed, with the exception of article talk pages in the context of editorial debate. Concurrently, Oliver Keyes is forbidden to use IRC channels that are class C under principle (2).
I will be going through your AN/I records shortly. Wer900 • talk 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
2) Ironholds is suspended from all functionary roles for a period of three months, whereupon he may regain them in a probationary status for nine subsequent months. Ironholds may permanently regain the tools in a request for adminship at least one year after the enactment of remedies.
3) Ironholds is strongly admonished to refrain from incivility on all venue classes, in particular misogynistic comments which may seem joking at first sight but cause discomfort.
4) After the vacation of his ban on community processes, Ironholds will be subject to special remedies should he violate Wikipedia's civility policies in class A, B, or C venues, pursuant to principle (2).
4) The revision deletion and oversight logs of Ironholds shall be examined to ensure that he is not hiding the misconduct of himself, his supporters, or allies. Any evidence arising from such logs shall be presented in requests for clarification and amendment to this case.
5) Kiefer.Wolfowitz is reminded not to behave incivilly with other users, and to maintain calm to the greatest extent possible.
1) For each instance of ban violation by Ironholds on a class A, B, or C venue pursuant to principle (2), an uninvolved administrator may increase the length of his ban by three months, until a maximum of nine months. Subsequent violations may result in an initial block of two weeks, and two-week extensions thereof to a maximum of three months. Talk-page access shall be revoked at the second block extension and all subsequent ones, should it be necessary.
2) On AN/I, or through the action of the Arbitration Committee, the ban of Ironholds from community processes may be extended by a maximum of three months as a result of misbehavior on class A, B, or C venues. Any such extension will be under the authority of the Arbitration Committee, which may revoke or otherwise modify the length of the extension at any time.
2) Should Ironholds violate any Wikipedia policies relating to civility or conduct or make misogynistic statements on class A, B, or C venues during his parole, a new community-process ban will come into effect for three months, subject to previous enforcement provisions though non-extendable. Parole may not be served concurrently with community-process bans incurred during it, unless approved by the Arbitration Committee.
1) This case is a measure of the community's trust in Ironholds' adminship; he has stated that this case is a replacement for an admin recall procedure [15]. This standard of evaluation (still having the community's trust, i.e. would likely still pass an RFA, or some other reasonable measure of trust), rather than the typical standard (egregious violation of policy) will be used by the Committee in determining remedies related to Ironholds.
"If I can't appeal to your sense of honor, then probably all hope is lost; I doubt you can be involuntarily removed or desysopped."He doubts it because the criteria for having lost the community's trust and the criteria for getting desysopped by ArbCom are vastly different. As can be seen from Ironholds' evasiveness in the linked dialogue, compared to the undertakings and comments he offered in Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3 (2009), Requests for adminship/Ironholds 4 (2010) and Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5 (2011), all hope appears to be lost; Floquenbeam's appeal has failed. (Just search for "recall" in RfA3 and RfA4, and "pear-shaped" in RfA5.) Now Floquenbeam has worked out an endrun that could be called an appeal to arbitrators' sense of honour. I wish him luck and hope the proposed principle is accepted, but I'll eat my hat if it is. ( This hat.) Not because arbs aren't honourable, but because in my experience they're too formalistic to take such an unprecedented road, however persuasive the logic for it. When I made a very similar appeal to the committee, years ago, for a desysop on grounds of honour… oh, never mind, I digress. I'll just register a forlorn hope that this year's arbs may be more inclined to think out of the box. Bishonen | talk 11:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Although conduct off Wikipedia does not fall under the normal purview of Wikipedia's rules of conduct, certain extreme examples of misconduct may be cause for sanctions where they contribute to an atmosphere of hostility on-wiki. This is especially important when the off-wiki conduct occurs in a discussion area known to be frequented by Wikipedia editors, even if is not in an area fully accessible to the public. Such misconduct includes defamatory accusations and threats of bodily harm.
1) Ironholds has made several gratuitously offensive comments on Wikipedia-related IRC channels. These comments have occasionally involved Wikipedia editors with whom he has had personal disputes. He has also edited anonymously on other Wikimedia sites to harass editors.
2) Kiefer has made several egregious accusations against editors on-wiki, as well as on Wikipediocracy, an off-wiki criticism forum frequented by Wikipedia editors. These accusations have occasionally been of a potentially defamatory nature.
3) Kiefer criticized several offensive comments Ironholds had made on IRC in a way that was perceived as making a defamatory insinuation, though it was later modified. Subsequently, Ironholds made an implied threat towards Kiefer in a restricted admin channel on IRC and these comments were posted on Wikipediocracy. Kiefer reciprocated with a threat towards Ironholds on-wiki, for which he was blocked with an expiry time of three months. This block was subsequently reversed by an admin due to it being a response to the comment Ironholds made on IRC.
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.
1) Kiefer and Ironholds are banned from commenting about or interacting with each other. Particularly egregious comments made on off-site Wikipedia-related discussion areas will be covered under this restriction.
2) Kiefer is banned from any discussions relating to the participation of minors on Wikipedia. Particularly egregious comments made on off-site Wikipedia-related discussion areas will be covered under this restriction.
3) Ironholds will be subject to administrative probation for three months. Any serious editorial or administrative misconduct may be cause for immediate revocation of his administrative privileges. Particularly egregious comments made on off-site Wikipedia-related discussion areas will be covered under this restriction. Following the probation period, he will submit to a reconfirmation RfA.
4) Kiefer and Ironholds are strongly advised to avoid gratuitous commentary about other editors when participating in off-site Wikipedia-related discussion areas. They are warned that particularly egregious comments about other editors may lead to administrative action.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
I have a number of issues with this section of evidence. I do not believe I have harassed Kiefer.Wolfowitz, nor do I believe he would have categorised my behaviour towards him as harassment this time last week. I note that he has supported me for Oversight userrights [16] and at this years Arbcom election. These are not the actions of someone who was harrassed. What's more, I (at first) supported the proposed interaction ban with Demiurge1000 in principle [17], and opposed a recent Kiefer.Wolfowitz's indef block. [18] Again, not actions that I would consider fit with the profile of harassment.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that Kiefer.Wolfowitz appears to be trying to discredit my suggestions, by implying I've been after him for years. It's patently untrue and I can provide many more examples of cordial, even friendly discussion. His behaviour in this manner reminds me of his past attempts to get an interaction ban so as to avoid an RfC/U. WormTT( talk) 09:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)