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

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

Case Opened on 13:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page unless you are an Arbitrator or Clerk, or are making yourself a party to this case. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; as such, they should never be changed. (In the case of lengthy statements, an excerpt only may be given here, in which case the full copy will be added to the talk page—where any statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be saved.) Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should be added to the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page should not be edited. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of remedies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

→ 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]

Case information

Involved parties

Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ironholds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Requests for comment

Preliminary statements

Statement by Mark Arsten

I believe that arbitration is needed in this situation because a dispute between two editors has become unmanageable by the community and is complicated by off-site and revision deleted evidence. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) and Ironholds (talk · contribs) have made several comments about each other on off-wiki forums, and this dispute has spilled over onto Wikipedia, although some of it has been revision deleted. Some of these comments could be seen as personal attacks make reference to violence.

To my knowledge, the dispute between Ironholds and Kiefer has its origin in this thread, after Ironholds endorsed sanctions against Keifer in an unrelated matter. Following this interchange, Kiefer posted critical remarks about Ironholds on an off-wiki discussion forum. In response, Geni (talk · contribs) blocked Kiefer for personal attacks. This block was overturned with community consensus because the comments took place off-wiki. Two weeks later, a concern was raised on a third party's user talk page about comments that Ironholds apparently made about Kiefer on a Wikipedia IRC channel (I haven't verified their authenticity, but I don't think it has been questioned). Ironholds' comments, while apparently a joke, could be seen as expressing a desire for violence. Kiefer made a comment on the talk page that also could be seen as a threat against Ironholds. This comment was quickly revision deleted. Kiefer was then blocked by Kww (talk · contribs) for three months. About 13 hours later Fram (talk · contribs) unblocked him, explaining the action by noting that Kiefer was provoked by an off-wiki comment. Fram also announced his intent to begin blocking for IRC personal attacks in the future.

As the admin actions cited above show, the community has difficulty agreeing on how to respond here. Attempts have been made, but the unusual nature of the situation has complicated them. This is a difficult situation for the community to handle because off-wiki evidence plays a large role. Although off-wiki actions are generally not sanctionable by themselves, in this case they have spilled over on-wiki and are thus may be relevant. I believe that Arbcom should take this case because more noticeboard discussions an additional RFC/U have little chance of solving the problem, which will likely continue to boil over. Given the somewhat disturbing nature of the recent comments, I think this is a dispute that needs to be solved soon.

@Ironholds: I didn't emphasize it in my statement, but it could be argued that there was wheel warring with Geni's block of Kiefer on June 20th. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC) @Newyorkbrad: I read your comments on your talk page and found them very wise. My concern is that the conflicts fueled by off-wiki comments are boiling over on-wiki, and it's hard to know where to draw the line. After Kiefer was blocked for his now-revdeleted comment on your talk page, he was unblocked due to off-wiki evidence. (The evidence suggested that he was provoked.) I agree that we should generally ignore other websites, but I think this is a bit of a grey area. In some cases exculpatory evidence is present off-wiki (as Fram took into account), but if we make administrative decisions based on that evidence, how can we ignore incriminating evidence from the same forums when it relates to on-wiki conduct, as well? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: In retrospect, my request may be poorly titled--I'm not seeking a case to deal with off-wiki conduct. I think that there have been enough problematic interactions here to justify a case confined to the on-wiki behavior of the parties. I would expect that Arbcom will limit their investigation to comments and actions that occurred on Wikipedia, and I don't think it's reasonable to ask you to investigate everyone's post history in a variety of chat rooms and internet forums. It would also be helpful, though, to get the committee's input about whether the community should consider the role of off-site "baiting" when evaluating sanctions. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ironholds

I haven't, to my knowledge, been a party to one of these before (I think there was one situation in which I was asked to provide a statement for....totally bemusing reasons. Anyway.) so apologies if I'm doing this wrong somehow.

What we have here is, frankly, a case of two users who simply don't get on. Nothing more, nothing less. What alters the situation is the presence of off-wiki venues of discussion. From my perspective, in response to a disagreement on Wikipedia, Kiefer went to Wikipediocracy and made some (frankly, loathsome) personal comments about me - I'm not going to link them, since anyone wanting to look can find them easily enough. Somewhat vexed by these - as is, I think, understandable, if you've seen them - I made a rather morbid and snarky joke in a private channel on IRC. Anyone who has dealt with me regularly will know that my sense of humour is somewhat dark and dry; my mistake was not realising at the time that, of course, there are many individuals who don't deal with me regularly. A second mistake was arguably being dumb enough to assume that a prohibition on public logging was something people with the trust of the community would follow. Ultimately the joke was inappropriate, on its face, and I will do my best to avoid letting my frustrations spill over, even in off-wiki venues.

In response to my response to Kiefer's commentary, Kiefer struck out, this time on-wiki, for which he was blocked. Shortly after he was unblocked, with a rationale that basically stated that (1) my off-wiki statements fell under the gaze of the administrators, and (2) since his statements were reactionary they were (while inadvisable) ultimately provoked; he should behave better in future, but not be blocked. This is rather frustrating given that precisely the same situation was true in reverse; Kiefer made unpleasant off-wiki comments about me, and I reacted. The difference was that my statements were taken into account and his weren't.

I have no idea if this is something the Arbitration Committee has any business sticking their noses in - I haven't reviewed arbcom policy for quite some time - or, given the nest of snakes that one of the off-wiki venues constitutes, whether it's even something they want to stick their noses in. Ultimately, however, this is a problem of ambiguity in the answers to two questions:

Is conduct in off-wiki venues seen as something that can be sanctioned on-wiki, uniformly, regardless of what that off-wiki location is?
If so, is it inappropriate in and of itself, or stacked on to other actions, as the existing personal attacks policy would suggest?

Thanks. Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PumpkinSky, some corrections: (1) there was no wheel warring involved, to my knowledge, and (2) Kiefer is not an admin. Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio: the argument of "you're a WMF employee, you should know better" is something I find troubling. Staffers should certainly be held to standards of decorum, in their role as staff and by staff. The joke was made in my personal capacity (I do not maintain membership of that channel in my role as a staffer). Were it made in my professional capacity, that would be a matter for HR, not for the arbitration committee, and it seems an inappropriate thing for an arbitrator to be factoring in. Ironholds (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK no, -en-admins. I'm not dumb enough to vent frustrations in -en ;p. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Wewhalt, I was not attempting to further any "war", with or without admin privileges. The -en-admins channel is commonly a place where people vent their frustrations; this is not because it is sysop-centric, but because it is private. The same joke could have been made in any other channel. Ironholds (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio: I'm sorry my apology above wasn't clear enough, so let me be clear; I accept, wholeheartedly, that the joke was an inappropriate one for any user to make. Ironholds (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker indeed; I'm now doing so - basically staying away from the IRC channels, frankly. Ironholds (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

The request to clean up IRC is premature without an RfC, unless ArbCom is acting on powers from Jimbo Wales.

Arbcom's authority to govern WP's IRC channels

Jimbo Wales stated that WP's IRC channels are governed by ArbCom.

The WMF owns the trademark "Wikipedia" and can force the channels to change their names and disassociate themselves from Wikipedia. WMF/Wikipedia can remove WP:IRC.

IRC

I moved constructive suggestions to my talkpage (permalink), after they were evicted from Noticeboard of Arbitration Committee [1] and this page's talkpage.

"All the conduct of the parties", including the 2011 RfC

Several Arbs want to make this an open-ended investigation.

Now then is the time to deal with administrative abuses involving WP:NPA violations by arbitrators, administrators, and their familiars, particularly

false accusations of sockpuppetry, made with no evidence: Pedro, Horologium, The Rambling Man,
Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000's abuses at that RfC/U and since. One charge was that I had "outed" a new editor. In fact, that editor was using multiple accounts to promote his faction in SPUSA, and had outed at least one opponent. Oversight/ArbCom ignored that outing, despite repeated requests and assurances. This committee and administrators (even in larval form) use rules to punish its opponents, not to enforce policy.
New York Brad's acquiescence to personal attacks against me while cautioning me for responding in kind, and also his attempts to misuse the block to stop me from participating at RfA. (This discussion involves Drmies and Horologium also.)

Given this committee's abuse of sockpupetry investigations and its leaking of emails as part of its harassment of Eric Corbett/Malleus Fatuorum, the community will probably also wish to comment on this committee's and the administrative corps other abuses.

So let's have this "open-ended investigation" into the "behavior of all parties".

I want a straight answer: When have I been check-usered and by whom? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Last year's ArbCom seemed to diagnose but actually (in retrospect) clearly endorsed the "uneven and ineffective enforcement of civility". The "uneven and ineffective enforcement of civility" is the motto of this ArbCom, alas.

To administrators: @Sandstein: claims that my statement, that Ironholds is welcome to come to Sweden and try to light me on fire and deal with the consequences, is a threat to bodily harm. Can Sandstein use "Ironholds is welcome to" in a complete sentence and explain what it means? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Pedro

@Pedro:, to accept the case, some arbs want to claim that the 2011 RfC/U constitutes the usual RfC before accepting this case. This argument would establish the scope of the case me and Ironholds since the beginning. If we discuss years of behavior, I shall discuss the one-sided enforcement of incivility---with no-evidence accusations of sockpuppetry from you being a small part.

You have---since stating that SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) was a-courtin' the "Wikipedia fraternity", etc.---claimed to have recognized me as the reincarnation of somebody, even in recent months. Similar accusations were made by the other admins, named above. Please review WP:NPA, which probits allegations without evidence.

If ArbCom does not use the 2011 RfC, then they should reject the case, since Kww, Fram, and I have barely discussed the block. (I have never objected to a reasonable block for daring to insult an administrator discussing lighting me on fire. I know my place....)

To arbitrators: @Newyorkbrad: Brad accuses me of personal attacks and incivility. Rather, more precisely, when I am personally attacked by administrators and Brad and other administrators do nothing to stop the abuse, I have responded in kind, after which Brad has assured us that nothing need be done about the administrator. (I'll provide links of Brad's previous assurances to benchmark the value of his present assurances about Ironholds, less than "fully qualified candidate".); Brad should remain because he has more sense than the committee without him, but he should be prepared to take responsibility for his behavior, in full view of the community, for example in his acquiescence to the sexist insult "get your [women's underwear] twisted".

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

While I am an an inactive clerk due to my role on the AUSC, I am going to be extra safe and recuse here just to be safe if the press gang comes in my direction --Guerillero | My Talk 05:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per instruction on the mailing list, I have pruned the list of parties. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. A bit tardy but I've decided I'm going to present evidence. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offsite comments and personal attacks: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/4/2/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

I need to see more statements, before making up my mind; however, at first glance, there are two aspects that IMHO should be emphasised. First, while IRC is technically off-wiki, in my opinion, it's different from sites such as Wikipediocracy, because IRC has strong ties to the community that other sites lack. And, second, Ironholds, you are an admin (and a Foundation employee), so you really should know better. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Ironholds, in my line of work, what I do in my spare time may reflect on my employer and I may be sanctioned for something I do when I'm acting "in my personal capacity", if it's crass enough. So my advice would be to be a tad more careful. Then again, this is just a suggestion, as it's not my business how the foundation handle their personnel.
  What is my business as an arb, however, is your conduct as an editor and, in analysing it, the fact that you're an admin and an employee does factor in. These are positions of trust and, for that, you should lead by example. That's why I said you should know better (and indeed you should). $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Accept per Jimbo's 2007 statement. By the way, it's difficult to consider IRC and Wikipedia as entirely separate entities, when membership to en-admins is restricted to people who hold certain positions on Wikipedia (i.e. people have access to the channel by virtue of their on-wiki status) and when quasi-official matters may sometimes be discussed there. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kiefer, please remember ArbCom's limitations: we may not create policy. That means we may not close IRC by fiat and we may not impose new rules. We may apply the current ones and we may sanction people, but, if you think that the rules regarding how people are supposed to behave on IRC should be changed, then you have to convince the community or persuade the Foundation to get involved. That's outside of our remit. For that reason, I ask the clerks to revert your addition of Jimbo and Sue to the list of involved parties. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - NYB, I disagree that this request is only about one flippant remark. If that was the only inappropriate thing Ironholds ever wrote on IRC, then there would be no reason for us to intervene, I concur; however, there is a pattern of inappropriate replies and, as far as I can see, no remorse. Not to mention that Ironholds is not the only person who, at first glance, has behaved inappropriately. And for all those reasons, I still think a case is necessary. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll await a few more statements (and need to see what direction the discussion takes to evaluate whether I have a recusal issue). However, one question that Mark Arsten asks above does have a clear answer: sanctions may be imposed for misconduct off-wiki, but only when it is very serious (as an example, an actual threat against another editor, as opposed to an ill-chosen, obnoxious comment about him). Beyond that, a lot of what I have to say about IRC can be found in a long comment I posted today on my talkpage, and a lot of what I have to say about Wikipediocracy can be found in my comment on the "Linking to Wikipediocracy" case request below. Both of which are recommended reading if I do say so myself, and if taken to heart by the parties here, might solve this mess. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in transit tonight and will vote tomorrow. In the meantime, as a non-substantive observation, either Kiefer Wolfowitz wins a Most Amusing Typo award or he has an odd sense of child-unfriendly topics or he needs to look up eschatology. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline. Several people have behaved badly here, but having an arbitration case about this mess would be an exercise in not so much dispute resolution as drama magnification. The lessons to be learned are already apparent for anyone who wishes to learn them (and if anyone doesn't, I suspect they will be back here soon enough). Some specific comments and bits of advice (I won't repeat here everything I've already said on my talkpage):
  - Ironholds. Ironholds made a sardonic, humorously intended, ill-thought-out comment in passing about an editor he is peeved at, in a semipublic off-wiki forum. The comment was obviously inappropriate, but it also obviously was not a "threat" to harm someone, and it has been blown up out of all proportion, such that I cannot see any value to discussing it for another month in an arbitration case. Ironholds seems from his statement to have gotten the message, and I trust it would be pleonastic to tell him, formally or informally, not to do this again.
  - Editors' real-world employment with the WMF. Not within this Committee's area of responsibility, nor would I want to touch it; although just as we want administrators to model good behavior rather than bad, I have the same desire for those working for the project(s) in a professional capacity.
  - Kiefer.Wolfowitz. (I acknowledge this editor's waiver of my potential recusal, at least for purposes of this request.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz is habitually uncivil and makes personal attacks on other editors, both on- and off-wiki. Some of his recent comments have crossed the line of being actually defamatory of another editor (not Ironholds) and need to stop immediately. Kiefer.Wolfowitz has been asked many times by many people to clean up his act, and I sincerely hope he will, because no one has an infinite number of chances (there's already been an RfC), and his content contributions add significant value that we are too close to losing. If he doesn't sand down his exceedingly sharp edges, I fear that I foresee a long block and/or an arbitration case of his very own in his wiki-future, but the discussion in either event should focus primarily on a broader picture than is framed by this request; in any event I hope that it will not be necessary after all.
  - Interaction avoidance. Ironholds and Kiefer.Wolfowitz are counseled in the strongest possible terms to stop talking about each other, in all forums. The same goes for Kiefer.Wolfowitz and at least one other editor whose identity should be obvious to him.
  - IRC—status. As alluded to by Risker, Jimbo Wales' suggestion that this Committee assume some form of responsibility for the #admins IRC channel never gained traction five years ago, for a number of reasons, and I see little chance of moving in that direction now. And as Salvio giuliano and others correctly observe, we have absolutely no authority to shut the channel down, even assuming arguendo we decided this was a good idea.
  - IRC—decorum. We can all take this opportunity to reaffirm what this Committee said about the channel in the 2008 Eastern European disputes case, including that the channel is not to be misused for things like block-shopping (except in genuine emergency situations) or as a forum for abusive comments about editors. Crass remarks and behavior in a forum for English Wikipedia administrators reflect badly on English Wikipedia and on its administrators.
  - IRC—child protection. This issue is off-topic in the context of this request. In any event, this Committee has no ability to implement any of the suggestions that have been made, even if we wanted to, and speaking personally as to at least some of them I would not want to.
  - Delicious carbuncle. Cute but not helpful.
  - Mark Arsten's original question about when and how off-wiki comments can be taken into account for on-wiki discussions. Bottom line: they can be taken into account in serious situations involving threats, harassment, bullying, etc., on a case-by-case basis. See my comment above; see also the Jim62sch and Fae cases, among others. (A moment's reflection suggests that this is really the only possible answer; neither the idea that off-wiki is the same as on-wiki, nor the idea that off-wiki is always irrelevant, could be coherently followed or enjoy any support in policy or this Committee's decisions.)
  - Bottom line: I respect the views of those who think we have a responsibility to do something here, but opening an arbitration case will only fan the flames. If there is a consensus to try to work out a motion reaffirming the basic principles at work here, for purposes of pointed emphasis, I would be glad to collaborate in drafting one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Cla68: As I thought was already clear, the IRC channels are not hosted on "WMF servers." As I understand it, they are hosted by Freenode. See also Wikipedia:IRC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Cla68, Collect and others: The links I've just provided above contain much of the information you are looking for. Meanwhile, it occurs to me that another way of looking at the situation might be to analogize IRC to a Wikipedia meet-up. If the New York Chapter holds a meet-up, it is connected to Wikipedia in the sense that it is publicized on this site, people may sign up on this site, and the discussion (formal and informal) may center around this site. Yet it is not "part of Wikipedia" in the sense that if I make a rude remark about another editor at the meet-up, no matter how misguided that might be of me, I wouldn't expect to be sanctioned for it on Wikipedia ... but if I overtly, for example, made credible threats to harm the editor or acted in a grotesquely improper fashion, I might be. Perhaps that analogy will help a bit (or perhaps it will muddy the waters even further). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re latest from Kiefer.Wolfowitz: His reference is to an incident in which some of the discussion in an RfA a few weeks ago deteriorated to an uncivil and nasty level, with several editors at varying degrees of fault. At the time, Kiefer.Wolfowitz strongly criticized me because in the ensuing discussions I didn't scold him and another editor equally—which I didn't, because rightly or wrongly, I didn't perceive the two of them as being equally blameworthy. Subsequently, Kiefer.Wolfowitz stated on his talkpage that for both this and another reason, he lacked confidence in my judgment. Until this case request, I had thereafter stayed away from any further discussion involving him; and I would not have addressed the KW aspect of this request, if he had not voluntarily posted, without being asked, that he saw no need for me to recuse. Now that I have commented on the request, he has, in my view unhelpfully, re-personalized the matter in my direction, bringing up one of the disagreements between himself and myself that led me to consider recusal in the first place. Ordinarily an arbitrator need not and should not recuse himself or herself as the result of comments made within the case, but at this point it is best that I return to my original plan of staying away from further discussion of this editor, on the arbitration pages or any other. I will allow my decline vote (cast before KW's latest comment) and my statements above to stand, as I think they provide helpful guidance, but if this request is accepted I will recuse myself from further participation the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse because I am an op for the channel (#wikipedia-en) I presume is in question. AGK [•] 01:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that wikipedia-en-admins, not wikipedia-en, is the channel in question, AGK. Courcelles 01:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Courcelles (and the others who have clarified).

Accept to examine the on-wiki incidents raised above. (Decline any request for us to conduct some pointless reflection on the role of IRC – and, which would be even more pointless, ArbCom's role in relation to IRC.) AGK [•] 13:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse Courcelles 03:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting further statements as I try to get a better bearing of this situation. Someone let me know if they feel I ought to recuse for some reason. NW (Talk) 18:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill ^[talk] 19:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure what case people want us to take, as there are at least three proposed here: something about an IRC channel (see case from 2007 that went just about nowhere, and that was when Jimbo's statement was relatively current); something about child protection, although it's pretty muddled what Kiefer is getting at there, given that the channels are owned by Freenode and not by Arbcom, Wikipedia, or even the WMF; something about two users with a long history of incivility/snark/verbal nastiness/sarcasm/whatever you want to call it, who are now aiming at each other, one of whom is an admin; or whether or not admins can be uncivil/snarky/verbally nasty/sarcastic/whatever about users in semi-public off-wiki settings. I'll decline to take anything related to statements from six years ago, to IRC, or to someone's odd notions of child protection based. If there is more focus on user interaction and/or admin actions, I will consider a case. Risker (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline mainly per Newyorkbrad. Everyone would benefit from a lot less snark and nastiness. There's a difference between an occasional burst of hyperbole related to the pointy end of a systemic problem, and nastiness directed at anyone who disagrees in any way with someone. All of the comments related to this particular matter fall into the second category. Risker (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like I've missed a lot on the encyclopedia over the past few days, enjoying the rather overdue summer. As I see it, this case is split into two parts, the narrow focussed case on the incident and the general issue of actions on IRC. ~~Now, on the incident itself,~~ I recuse. On the more general issue of IRC we're in a difficult situation. Despite Jimbo's comments in 2007, I do not see how IRC falls under Arbcom's purview. There's so many reasons it shouldn't be controlled by the Arbitration committee. It's owned by Freenode and is a clustering of community members, definitely off-wiki. Would we expect Arbcom to start managing Wiki-meetups? Off-wiki websites dedicated to Wikipedia? No, Arbcom should not be controlling any of these, we're here to deal with disputes on-wiki. I think that's a simple answer to a simple question
So Arbcom can't control these off-wiki areas, but the next question is "should people be held accountable on-wiki for actions at those off-wiki locations?" I don't believe that the answer to that question is nearly as clear and it would have to be a judgement call, based upon the nature of the actions, the audience, how closely tied the off-wiki location is to Wikipedia, whether the comments were made in real time or in a manner which allowed reflection and other factors. Should Arbcom be dictating the answer to that question? In my opinion it should not, Arbcom does not create policy. As NYB comments, Arbcom has does take off-wiki actions into account "in serious situations involving threats, harassment, bullying, etc., on a case-by-case basis". When, if at all, admins should be doing the same is down to the community to decide, and I recommend an RfC on the matter. So, on the general case, I decline. I've no idea how to update the tally on this, recusing and declining on different parts of the case... I'm tempted to put 0.5 in each! If a kind clerk or arb can put me out of my misery, I'd appreciate it Worm^TT(talk) 07:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection, I think it would be easier to manage and better for appearances if I just recuse all together. I'm sure the other arbitrators can handle this. I'll leave my statement, because I believe it's still relevant. Worm^TT(talk) 07:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. While there have been a lot of good points brought forward by some editors above, I still don't see this case generating any helpful outcomes. It is a principle we have affirmed several times (recently in the Sexology case) that off-wiki comments can be taken into account for on-wiki sanctions if there's an issue on-wiki as well; Kiefer's comments would fall under that purview. Despite Jimbo's comments, the Arbitration Committee has never acted to control IRC; if there was a time to do so, that was years ago, but I don't think we have any right to do so now or back then. Ironholds and Kiefer have acted like colossal blockheads, and I'm disappointed that their statements here were mostly about blaming the other party than addressing their own clearly poor conduct. I would recommend they work past their differences like adults that can use an expanded vocabulary, or else disengage entirely from antagonizing each other. The little amount of self control needed here doesn't seem like an extreme request. The community can take any on-wiki issues to a user RfC for either of these parties. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as a full case (per DF, NYB). Would consider and likely support a motion along the lines of what OiD suggests if another Arbitrator wants to propose it. NW (Talk) 01:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After some consideration and talking it over with a few folks, I think I am going to recuse (post-acceptance comment). NW (Talk) 23:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to examine the conduct of all parties. T. Canens (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept primarily to examine on-wiki conduct. IRC communications are not per se within the committee's remit except to the extent that the committee may take notice of them when "making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts ... adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors". Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

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.