[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence

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

Any autoconfirmed editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Current word length: 678; diff count: 7.

Participation would be a waste of time for me.

Oliver Keyes, who operates both the Ironholds (talk · contribs) and Okeyes (WMF) (talk · contribs) accounts, is a Wikipedia administrator and a WMF employee. On IRC he made a comment about bringing a lighter along with oil already supplied by another administrator to use on me. When it was reported, I responded by writing that he was welcome to come to Sweden, try his chances, and suffer the consequences (using dialogue from The Crying Game). Neither of us made a threat, but the remarks were uncivil and apologies have been made, by all parties.

His supervisor and the community are aware of this incident and others on IRC, and Keyes has indicated that he is staying away from IRC. This would suffice were Ironholds never to have had a history of discussing violence.

Kww blocked me for 3 months, and I served roughly half a day before I was unblocked by Fram, who seems to hold the belief that even enforcement of civility would be a good thing to try. If Kww and Fram still disagree, they can ask for other members of the community for other opinions; failing that they can go to AN/I or other mediation fora; if they believe the issue is important, one day they could end up at ArbCom.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds misuses IRC

Most of these display multiple problems. I'll probably create a matrix for each diff, checking off which discusses violence, other BLP violations, inappropriate sexual banter, etc. ArbCom has covered up most of Ironholds's abuses, but selected links remain available in the page history.

Other sexual banter

Inflamatory

  • Sockpuppetry and baiting: "I've been socking for 2 years.... I'm secretly both Kiefer Wolfowitz AND ParrotOfDoom" (wikipedia-en2013-06-29)


Ironholds misuses Wikipedia and WMF Projects

Kiefer.Wolfowitz has been harassed by Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000 for years

  • KW raised concerns about the political organizing by Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000 (cited by WTT, below, as "innuendo"). WTT and Du1000's political machines (adoption schools [3]) have spawned hordes of administrator-wannabees, showing up at ANI and AN and IRC. In particular, many of them appeared out of nowhere at the ANI discussion to advocate indefinitely blocking KW, in a discussion tainted by IRC canvassing, according to Nick (talk · contribs).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz has been a victim of the uneven enforcement of civility, endorsed by ArbCom

Kiefer.Wolfowitz has often been harassed by administrators, who do not block or threaten parties initiating incivility, personal attacks, etc.

Two counter-examples besmirch the record of "uneven enforcement of civility", in which two rogue administrators showed concern about another party in a dispute with Kiefer.Wolfowitz:

Like SandyGeorgia, KW has no confidence in the community or ArbCom

misogynistic attacks aimed at me in particular are in plain evidence on highly trafficked pages at this moment, admins see it and do and say nothing, and the misogynistic issue which you correctly pointed out a very long time ago somewhere and for which admins incorrectly admonished you (blocked you? I can't recall) are diffable and known to literally scores of editors who have chosen to remain silent.

— SandyGeorgia

Evidence presented by Ironholds

Current word length: 709; diff count: 1.

I was going to say "I'm going to try and keep this brief, and fail", but since I know I'm likely to fail it seems silly to make promises I can't realistically keep. I've split things into 2 sections, instead. It is not (and for this I apologise) the structure of a normal evidence section - more of an extended statement. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Kiefer Wolfowitz, and the "dispute"

What we've got here is commonly reported in one of two ways - either as a two-stage problem (I made a thoroughly inappropriate joke, Kiefer struck back, we ended up at the Arbitration Committee) or as some long-running battle. This is not how I understand the situation, so I'm going to try and explain it from my point of view.

I have no particular liking for Kiefer - to be blunt, he strikes me as someone who delights in drama. But I don't have a long-running dispute with him, either - we don't even encounter each other most of the time. The relationship could probably be summarised best as mutual annoyance without, at my end, any particular desire to cause harm.

Inasmuch as this dispute can be said to have been a series of back-and-forths, my inappropriate joke on IRC was me airing my frustrations at some, frankly, vile accusations that Kiefer made about me. The transcripts of these have been provided to the Arbitration Committee privately. The accusations struck me as thoroughly offensive and without merit - moreover, they struck me as comments deliberately intended to cause harm. Frustrated by those accusations, I made my comment on IRC. Kiefer responded on-wiki, and the rest is history.

I have no particular desire to associate with Kiefer. Not out of a feud, or anything else, but simply because his recent actions strike me as those maximised to cause drama while allowing for an escape clause. I have avoided commenting on him, I have even nixed attempts by other users to discuss the case with me.

Kiefer previously wrote, above, that the current situation "suffices for peace." I would genuinely like to believe that Kiefer's indication here - that he will stay away from me, and cease making the sort of assertions that kicked off this dispute - is a true one. That he genuinely intends to avoid me, and avoid commenting on me. Unfortunately he continues to pursue me, even after his statement here. Again, I have provided the evidence to the Arbitration Committee privately - and again, I dearly wish for him to stop.

On my actions

I've noted already that my joke was inappropriate, but I'd like to expand on that. My comment was completely unacceptable; whether Kiefer annoys me or not, whether he has made offensive statements or not, it is inappropriate for me to air my annoyances. I don't think there's anyone amongst us who isn't frustrated by other users, on occasion, but there's a line that has to be drawn between being frustrated and airing that frustration. That I aired my frustrations in a private venue is secondary to the fact that I did so in front of other editors.

I've been on IRC since I was around 17, I think - possibly earlier. I'd like to think I've changed a lot over the last few years, and that comments I made back then in the naivety of youth aren't comments I'd make today. It remains clear, however, that I still have some progress to make around how I conduct myself. Until I have resolved those issues and grown to the point where others are comfortable with my approach, I have voluntarily withdrawn from wikipedia-related IRC channels, save those I am involved in due to my work duties.

More than offending Kiefer, however, it's become clear from comments made by users at this RfAr that I've offended a lot of other people, too - people who, outside occasional disagreements, I very much respect. Wehwalt, Dennis Brown - In airing my temporary frustrations in such a cavalier manner, I've caused permanent damage. All I can do at the moment is apologise for that, and assure you that I am working to improve. If any user has been offended by my commentary and is not willing to post as such publicly, please do email me. I will not bite: I will apologise, and I will move forward.

Evidence presented by Kurtis

Kiefer and RfA

Over the past several months, I have observed Kiefer making numerous offensive remarks at RfA. His continued disruption culminated in a near-total ban on engaging in extended discussions there. To list some examples:

  • Anna Frodesiak — Kiefer initially supported, but he also posted a couple of questions: the first one pertained to her activities at the "Suicide of Amanda Todd" article, while the second called her username into question, specifically asking if it complies with WP:USERNAME and WP:CHILDPROTECT (which deals with the privacy and security of minors, not the censorship of usernames). He subsequently switched to oppose because of her answer to Pedro's question, which was about Kiefer's recent indefinite block and subsequent topic ban from RfA; bear in mind, she spoke positively about his "obvious intelligence and his many, many good edits", so no offensive was intended. Afterwards, he expanded his oppose, referencing the "abusive behaviour" of The Rambling Man and calling Pedro an "administrator/troll". At the time of this incident, Kiefer was already banned from extended conversations at RfAs, so he was unable to engage people any further.
  • Mattythewhite — Kiefer received a lot of heat for thia one. Basically, he felt that making significant edits to association football did not qualify as "contributions to traditional encyclopedic content." He also saw Matty's writing skills as being subpar. Most of the extended discussion about his oppose rationale was moved to the RfA's talk page. Aside from that, he responded to a few of Matty's supporters who criticized his oppose — including Ironholds, who explicitly supported "on behalf of Kiefer Wolfowitz" before proceeding to berate his argument for its perceived elitism.
  • Paulmcdonald — This is one where I was personally involved. He was the second editor to oppose, with this for a rationale (subsequently amended); it seemed as if he was opposing because Go Phightins had been the nominator. I questioned him about it, but Kiefer's reply did not help to clear things up. AutomaticStrikeout and Tazerdadog chimed in as well, and they were also confused by what he said. Kiefer responded by listing out two concerns that he had with Go Phightins: 1) He found the nomination to be poorly written, and 2) Go Phightins nominated AutomaticStrikeout for adminship, which apparently reflects poorly on him. Kiefer justified this portion of his rationale by using the John McCain/Sarah Palin analogy to illustrate that nominating or accepting a nomination from someone with dubious qualifications is an ominous sign. I interpreted that as more of an insult to AutomaticStrikeout than anything.
  • Miniapolis — Although Kiefer's oppose was not called into question, it did partially reflect on the merits of Hahc21's nomination. He also mentioned concerns with "prose" and "maturity", but failed to substantiate on either claim.

Previous RfC/U

Kiefer.Wolfowitz was previously the subject of a user conduct RfC in 2011: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. The concerns listed there include incivility, personal attacks, patronizing comments aimed at younger editors, and a complete misunderstanding of copyright policy.

My interaction with Ironholds on IRC

I've detailed it here. Bear in mind that I don't hold it against him, but it did sort of rub me the wrong way at the time.

Evidence presented by Ks0stm

Current word length: 51; diff count: 18.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz has an extensive history incivility

Kiefer.Wolfowitz has an extensive history of general incivility and general aggressiveness towards other users.

There are many other examples I could find, but between the diffs and discussions I've presented I think I've shown a good enough sample already.

Evidence presented by Rschen7754

Current word length: 22; diff count: 0.


Kiefer has material on the Simple English Wikipedia

Kiefer has also posted on Meta regarding Ironholds

  • [23] (similar to Chenzw's evidence, just on Meta)

Evidence presented by John Vandenberg

Current word length: 115; diff count: 1.


Ironholds frequently uses violent and sexual language on IRC

That Ironholds often uses violent and sexual language on IRC is well known by anyone who frequents the IRC channels, including #wikipedia-en connect and #wikipedia-en-admins connect, and has done so for many years. It is often intentionally over-the-top, to be shockingly-funny and some people in these channels do like it, but it is far from professional and appreciated by all, especially when directed at people he is feuding with onwiki. I've forwarded one log from a random day to arbcom-en-b, as it has the best provenance.

Ironholds has been incivil at RFA

Since the committee has allowed other evidence regarding RFA's, may I inform them of [24]. The comment was later removed. This was another case of an weird interpersonal dispute on IRC becoming problematic onwiki.

Evidence presented by PinkAmpersand

Kiefer.wolfowitz has a double standard for offsite personal attacks

Interestingly, the thread I was going to link to has disappeared, but this WO thread previously contained an assertion that I am an "apologist for feminine self-hatred". (As of the time I'm writing this, you can still see the quote in these Google search results.) Now, I'm not particularly offended, since I know that he's wrong, and I think anyone who knows me does too. But I struggle to see how something like that, a deliberate insult directed toward me, is any less offensive than the joke Ironholds cracked about Kiefer. Personally, I'd say it's significantly more offensive: Ironholds was just blowing off some steam; Kiefer is trying to make people think that I'm something I'm not. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Not sure why that link doesn't work but this one does, nor why I couldn't find a working link when I looked, but Kiefer has kindly provided me with the correct one. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Carrite

Current word length: 124; diff count: 0.

Nobody threatened anybody

Ironholds clearly made a mildly witty joke. There was clearly no threat made to immolate anyone. It was an unwise joke, but it was a joke.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz responded with a butchered rendition of A MOVIE QUOTE from The Crying Game (1992). Compare to: [Diff of his comment now redacted, I understand.] While extremely ill-advised, he clearly didn't actually intend to threaten the assault of anybody. This case is, as the Bard says, "Much ado about nothing."

Both parties made their ill-advised joke and extremely ill-advised tough-guy-movie-posturing essentially on-wiki. The Wikipedia-Administrators-Only channel, governed by high ranking WMF employee and whose "no publishing logs" rule is being followed by ArbCom, is close enough to be considered an official branch of Wikipedia, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Demiurge1000

Current word length: 489; diff count: 16.


KW continues to use accusations of copyright violations to pursue own agenda

(originally raised in the RfC/U, where concern was repeated use of this tactic against those who contributed material about politics with which he disagreed; no longer uses it for that purpose, instead, in July 2013, like this;)

[25] "You failed to credit the source when you created the page Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement, which violated my and others' copyrights.

Worse, you make it difficult to find the diffs, e.g. to AGK's "net negative" remark. Please fix the page history. If you feel penitent, you can locate the diff mentioned." [26] adds "personal attack", redacts part of above.

KW habitually uses threats of real-life consequences to intimidate his on-wiki opponents

[27] "@Ironholds: @Okeyes (WMF): Oliver Keyes, Of course I refer to the links submitted here which have been removed but not revdeleted or oversighted, Oliver. (...)" This was in a section entitled "Questions to the parties", previously subtitled "Questions for Ironholds", which KW retitled "Questions for Oliver Keyes", and thus in this diff adds Ironholds' real name three times, and his "work" Wikipedia id. Why does KW do so?

[28] (on Ironholds' talk page) "You should be aware that resigning your position may have consequences for your eligibility for unemployment benefits".

Ironholds, since this case was opened, has consistently responded to such provocations mildly, calmly, and appropriately

(this was in direct reply to the above post on his own talk page) [29] "Kiefer, I've made clear I want you to stay away from me, and plan to stay away from you. Please respect this. Ironholds (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

(further evidence of intimidation have been provided by email to arbcom)

KW habitually uses "plausible deniability" - comments carefully worded where he believes he can claim the meaning is not the one intended

(This was described in the RfC/U as "often works at the level of innuendo. The comments he makes are generally obfuscated so that the common reader will think nothing of them. The issue comes from the innuendo being so commonplace". Since then, the innuendo has continued, with implications more serious than just insults;)

[30] "... Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?"

[31] "The only reference to paedophilia is in your mind" etc.

[32] User:Dennis Brown's apt summary of this pretence; "utterly predictable, intentional and carefully crafted by Kiefer... More than anyone else I have given him every benefit of the doubt, often to the chagrin of others, but this attempt was so tediously obvious, so arrogant that it removes all doubt as to its intent."

(further evidence of KW's intentions have been provided by email to arbcom)

KW uses off-wiki attacks written by himself and others by regularly linking to them on-wiki

[33] (note this diff also used above, or maybe below); another even more recent example [34]

KW does not have the respect or consideration for others required to participate in a collaborative project

[35] "Quantifiers (all, some) were covered in my sophomore geometry class, but not in junior high school, so I assumed good-faith."

[36] "Maybe you should ask My76Strat for copyediting help?"

KW regards the Wikipedia community as intellectually incompetent and dishonest

[37] "the intellectual incompetence and dishonesty of the community"

KW regards those entrusted with responsibility by the community as beneath contempt; administrators are unable to reason with him or check his excesses

[38] "You are not evil, but you are an administrator, and your behavioral suggestions ooze the threat of blocking like a lutefisk oozes lye."

[39] "This is the committee that has been harassing Eric Corbett for years"

[40] edit summary begins "**The case is notable for other issues, although it need not be as abusive as ArbCom's years of harassment of Malleus Fatuorum / Eric Corbett"

[41] "clueless administrators are running amok", in commentary on a reasonable warning about his RfA behaviour.

Evidence presented by Worm That Turned

Current word length: 449; diff count: 15.

Ever since this discussion, I've done my best to stay away from raking over the past with Kiefer.Wolfowitz. In general he's done the same and although we have both strayed into discussions of the past, I did believe we've effectively buried the hatchet. I'm breaking that personal rule now, as I believe that Kiefer.Wolfowitz's behaviour has deteriorated since April. Moreover, the desired outcomes of the 2 year old RfC/U are even more relevant today.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz's mastery of deniable innuendo

I first pointed out Kiefer.Wolfowitz's use of innuendo in the incivility section of the 2011 RfC/U. He is masterful at making comments that are likely be mis-interpreted, allowing him to claim innocence. The most extreme examples are hints at pedophilia, such as asking if an editor is "behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?"[42] or my "frenetic welcoming & grooming of new (often child) editors reminds [him] of student-government politicians befriending kids at band camp"[43]

Kiefer.Wolfowitz's discussion style does not lead to a collaborative atmosphere

Kiefer.Wolfowitz makes ad hominem comments, suggesting that people who do not work in areas that he considers traditional encyclopedic content are not worthwhile. These include people who write about association football and chemistry. He frequently assigns users a "reputation" without evidence and then dismisses their opinion based upon it (examples - [44][45][46]). This behaviour matches actions in 2011.[47] Kiefer.Wolfowitz is well versed in wiki-lawyering himself out of trouble. This can range from requesting unrequired interaction bans to avoid an RfC, to kicking up a fuss on an evocative topic to distract from the issue (eg suggesting a user who swears has tourettes or complaining about sexism in everyday comments like knickers in a twist)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz will disrupt community processes to further his own goals

Kiefer.Wolfowitz regularly asks questions of RfA candidates relating to current on wiki events. These are generally inappropriate, as they cause controversy on the RfA and therefore disrupt the process. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] His activity there has lead to a severe restriction on RfA.

Ironholds actions

Looking through Ironholds recent activity, I have not found on-wiki actions which are problematic. He has recognised his actions off-wiki are inappropriate and has committed to improvement.

Thoughts on off-wiki activity

Both parties of this case have acted inappropriately at off-wiki venues. Had they made similar comments on-wiki, it would have led to blocks or bans for each party. IRC is a real time chat and it is (theoretically) not logged, comments cannot be edited, people are likely to make comments in the heat of the moment. It is "legitimised" by Wikipedia pages dedicated to the service, such as WP:IRC. Wikipediocracy is an forum focussed on Wikipedia and editor criticism, where comments made can be edited or removed but are otherwise published and searchable. Neither are under the control of Wikipedia, but both can be considered parasitic as they both influence community members on Wikipedia and neither would exist if Wikipedia did not.

Evidence presented by Chenzw

Current word length: 64; diff count: 1.

Kiefer has material on the Simple English Wikipedia (2)

In addition to the evidence which was presented by Rschen7754 above, I would like to note that the page on simple.wiki which Rschen7754 cited was blanked approximately 40 minutes from the time the evidence was added to this case page. Furthermore, he has posted on the user talk page of 80.177.10.254, alleging inappropriate behvaiour by Ironholds (on simple.wiki) while editing as an IP address.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz_and_Ironholds/Evidence&oldid=1086373670"