• I think that naming Keyes in conjunction with "threats of violence" doesn't live up to Wikipedia BLP standards. The fact is, what I read of that comment was some momentary quip about oil and torches on a talk forum that would readily be apparent as harmless humor to anyone in the world, except a veteran Wikilawyer or the occasional idiot prosecutor. I never stumbled across the now-deleted counterjab but I bet it's equally innocuous. The Signpost is damaging its reputation and its usefulness to Wikipedia by making such an unsubstantiatable statement, especially when it fails to do what it ought when covering such a thing and quote the original primary sources i.e. the "threats" directly so that readers can make up their own mind. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not make unsubstantiated attacks at the Signpost's writers, specifically Neotarf. What s/he wrote in the report was, and I quote: "ending with statements that could be interpreted as threats of violence." S/he did not attack either Kiefer.Wolfowitz or Ironholds. I'd also like to remind you that what is reported in the Arbitration Report is based upon the content which the writer has before them. S/he merely paraphrased Mark Arsten's statement and I quote:

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.

• What shocks me is that users will take every opportunity to stir up drama and lob accusations without first substantiating their claims. Pot calling the kettle black. James ^{(T • C)} • 12:15pm • 01:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When editors accuse each other of violating BLP, the bar of evidence usually is not very high. Mark Arsten's statement is unquestionably a single primary source, and that it does not present the allegations as true. Either is usually enough for editors to exclude content from BLPs, though in my opinion they are generally overzealous about it. I might not be as concerned about parroting primary sources regarding anonymous pseudonyms, but this article tars someone under their real name, so standards equal to those for an actual biography article should apply. I wasn't criticizing Neotarf specifically, because the whole team working on the Signpost is responsible for upholding standards - I suggest they do that. Wnt (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very hard task to write this report while retaining what every reader will regard as a strict sense of balance. In my view, Neotarf is highly skilled at the forensic analysis of text and as a writer (not to be at all negative about James's contributions, which have had to be put on hold because of his high RL workload). Personally, I'd probably have used a title without the names in it, since it does broadcast the matter around the WM movement. I may be so bold as to say that Oliver—whom I like and who does excellent work for the WMF—might adjust his style of interaction as a result of this incident. His style sometimes blurs humour, genuine insight, smut, and frivolity in ways that other people can take the wrong way. He doesn't seem to be sending the right signals to Arbcom to maximise the likelihood that the case will be rejected. It would be sensible for him to walk the pragmatic line: arbcom is not about truth or justice; it's about keeping the game afloat. Tony (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would invite Wnt to read the arbitration report again, more carefully. The report has accused no one of anything by name, it merely says statements were made that could be (and in fact have been) interpreted in a certain way. If you look at the case, you will see there are in fact two editors that statement could apply to.

I see no point in quoting any of the original statements directly, especially since one of the comments was made on-wiki and has now been scrubbed. There is much nuance in this case, and it needs to be read in its entirety to be fully appreciated. It would not be fair to either editor to quote anything here out of context. My goal here is not to represent every ping-pong of every argument, but to indicate in broad terms what a dispute is about, and provide a link for those who want to read further.

Likewise I see no point in redacting the name of the case just because one of the named parties is a WMF employee. The Signpost has long used case names in its headings, see for example this report from April of 2012. The original name of Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds was "Offsite comments and personal attacks". It was the arbitration committee, not the Signpost, that changed the name of the title to reflect the parties named in the dispute.

That said, I would have to say that I feel very strongly about the way accusations about individual editors are represented in the Arbitration Report, whether they are WMF employees or ordinary garden-variety users. This is something I have made clear in private communications with other Signpost volunteers. My write-ups usually name only the party bringing the request, not any named parties, and I have taken care not to repeat unproven, and possibly untrue accusations. I do however report findings that have been voted on by the committee, but even then it is impossible to say whether something is empirically true or not, only that the committee has reached a conclusion.

What is notable about the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case is first, the interplay between on-wiki and off-wiki interactions, second, the fact that some comments were interpreted as being threatening, and third, the relationship between one of the named parties and the WMF. These are not just peripheral issues, they have been identified by the participants as being central to the case. For the Arbitration Report to not to report on this would indeed be a dereliction of duty.

—Neotarf (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This so-called case may be summarized as follows. Party A told a bad joke about Party B on IRC. Party B, instead of slagging off on Party A off-wiki, ran on-wiki with a tough guy movie quote. Dramahs ensued, fueled by a desire of some to take Party B on the proverbial long walk on a short pier for having made a pain in the ass of himself on unrelated matters W, X, Y, and Z. Six weeks later Arb Com slaps Party A on the wrist and teaches Party B to swim with the fishes because of their annoyance at matters W, X, Y, and Z, using the current case as a convenient pretext. It's all very stupid and junior high school. Carrite (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Carrite:

    Correction. Oliver Keyes/Ironholds's statement about lighting me on fire was reported at User talk:Newyorkbrad, which is where I responded. I certainly did not "run on-wiki". At my talk page, administrator TParis confirmed the accuracy of the quotation of Oliver Keyes's "bring my lighter" etc. The above hand-wrining about BLP and "allegations" are just denial---minor league denial, but still denial.

    Before we turn to the big-league denial, a comment: 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. Arbitrator AGK still sits despite his personal attack "net negative", for example. We should keep perspective about this case.

  Nick's charge that IRC was used to canvass administrators to go to ANI and support an indefinite block of me is just one example of Wikipedia's IRC scandals damaging the encyclopedia. The IRC discussions of sexual degradation, violence (including murder through sadistic suffocation), especially of women (particularly Jennifer Aniston and Sharon Osbourne) need to be dealt with---by the IRC participants, especially administrators and WMF staff/officers and by the community. What I see now is a cover up—from Newyorkbrad's scrubbing of the talk pages of Aniston and Osbourne and the Popes to the rules imposed on this case, which do not include my being allowed to ask questions to Mark Arsten (who proposed the case).

  Honest discussion on the case occurs at Wikipediocracy, which has several threads:

  • "IRC Highlights",
  • "Down with Ironholds" (a title to which I've objected),
  • "Ironholds lecturing Drmies on LadyofShalott's body AN post" , and
  • "The Visual Editor is a huge failure".

  In 2007 Jimbo Wales stated that ArbCom was in charge of IRC. This ArbCom is doing its best "Sergeant Schultz" routine: "I know nothing! I see nothing!"

  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]