Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-24/Arbitration report

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Arbitration report

Infoboxes case opens

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Neotarf

The case Infoboxes was opened. The evidence phase continues in Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Voting on the proposed decision continues in the Tea Party movement case.

Open cases

Infoboxes

This case, brought by Ched, involves the issue of who should make the decision to include an infobox in an article and to determine its formatting (right margin, footer, both, etc) -- whether the preferences of the original author should be taken into consideration, if the decision should be made by various WikiProjects in order to promote uniformity between articles, or whether each article should be decided on a case-by-case basis after discussion. It also involves what is perceived by some to be an aggressive addition or reverting of infoboxes to articles without discussion by some editors, in areas where they do not normally edit. Areas that have seen disputes over infoboxes include opera, the Classical Music and Composers project, and Featured Articles. The evidence phase of the case closes 31 July, the workshop closes 7 August, and a proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 14 August 2013.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds

This case, brought by Mark Arsten, involves a dispute between Kiefer Wolfowitz and Ironholds, the original account of Wikimedia Foundation employee Oliver Keyes, that began on-wiki and escalated in off-wiki forums, ending with statements that could be interpreted as threats of violence. The evidence phase of the case closes 26 July, the workshop closes 2 August, and a proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2013.

Tea Party movement

This case involving a US political group, brought by KillerChihuahua, is now unsuspended, after a moderated discussion failed to agree on the ground rules for such a discussion. Voting continues on the proposed decision.


Other requests and committee action

  • Amendment request: Argentine History: A request was made by MarshalN20 for an amendment to a topic ban for history-related sections of the Falkland Islands article.
  • Clarification request: Argentine History: A request was made by Cambalachero for a clarification of whether a topic ban on pages related to the history of Latin America applies to articles about recent politics or a brief mention of historical context in non-historical articles.
  • Clarification request: Scientology: A clarification request was brought by User:Sandstein in response to an ongoing discussion at WP:ANI#Abuse of admin powers and Violation of WP:INVOLVED by User:Sandstein. The request seeks to clarify the role of discretionary sanctions and outing after discretionary sanctions for the ‘’Scientology’’ case were applied to two editors who posted a link on Sandstein’s talk page to an old Arbcom case that contained an editor’s previous username. A proposal has been made to vacate the sanction against one of the editors, and to impose a sanction regarding harassment. A discretionary sanction prohibiting onwiki publication of alleged real names of the named editor would be imposed, and all users who contributed to the discussions at either ANI or the clarification request would be notified of the new discretionary sanction. The notifications would be appealable.
  • Clarification request: Syrian civil war articles: A request made by Greyshark09 was closed with a 30-day extension of the application of 1RR sanctions for WP:ARBPIA (Arab-Israeli conflict) that were applied ad hoc to the Syria topic area to prevent edit warring. Participants were advised on how to request separate sanctions for this topic.
← Previous "Arbitration report"
Next "Arbitration report" →
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • The account of so-called "Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds" case is flawed. My concern has been the discovery of years of IRC comments by Ironholds, including after his employment by the Wikimedia Foundation as "communty liason".
Wikipedia and WMF have prioritized increasing the number of women editors, and so the community must address misogyny, particularly by administrators and WMF staff. User talk:Ironholds has discussion by 28bytes (talk · contribs) and Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) that is worth reading. Wikipediocracy and The Examiner have recently featured a report on Ironholds's IRC activities; more quotes from IRC are available at Wikipediocracy (at the unfortunately named thread, "Down with Ironholds").
The ArbCom case started as a request to clarify the status of Wikipedia's IRC channels, which use WMF's trademark "Wikipedia", which Jimbo Wales stated were ArbCom's responsibility (2007), and which are still promoted at WP:IRC. ArbCom has suspended its usual procedures of evidence, for this case, but won't allow discussion of IRC. For example, Administrators' canvassing other administrators on IRC to support an indefinite block of me cannot be discussed.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we traditionally allow wide leeway on Signpost talk pages, but this is quickly going over the line. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • The most recent story from Wikipediocracy spun off the Examiner article mentions Ironholds's purported comments and his reply about taking those comments "in context." I don't hang out on IRC but I am aware that some do. I was directed to IRC not long ago to participate in a discussion about Snuggle so I'm not sure how WMF can claim that the activity on IRC is beyond their purview. If the context of conversations on IRC reveals that crude sophomoric comments are the norm, then WMF needs to drain the proverbial IRC swamp before contagion spreads onto dry land. Prior to now I assumed conversations germane to WMF projects took place on talk pages. I'm lead to believe that IRC is the smoke-filled backroom where the wheeling and dealing actually takes place; provincial editors like myself aren't privy to the decisionmaking in the gutter. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'll agree that WMF can't control the myriad of wiki-centric conversations that take place off-wiki. I think a forum/chatroom WMF formally conducts business in becomes the responsibility of WMF to monitor. If a bunch of editors take their conversations "away from the flagpole" that's their own business. If a bunch of editors take their conversation across the street to a public location that's also a long-time WMF conference room, it's a problem for WMF in my opinion. If WMF can't control/monitor IRC maybe it shouldn't take official business there. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some WMF people, based in San Francisco, have indeed been in pubs in London, on occasion, to discuss WMF matters with ordinary Wikipedia editors. I don't think they got there under their own power (it's a long way), so I think that WMF paid for their travel costs. Was that more "official business" than whichever people are behind "snuggle"? Or not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, my advice would be ... don't believe everything that you're "lead to believe". I've seen this "IRC" thing of which they speak, and there isn't much there. Unless you're very bored, that is. And even then... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the pub in question was just a place a couple editors met up on their own time, probably not. If the pub was the venue for an official WMF meeting, yes, it was as official as the IRC chatroom I interacted in for Snuggle. And yes, I've used phrases like "lead to believe" and "purported" because I'm not certain of the claims or the evidence behind them. I'm not looking to falsely accuse any of the named parties, I'm just expressing concerns about apparent trends in business practices. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official WMF IRC chats (like, say, office hours which this snuggle thing may have been) are logged. Do you have a belief that such an official event was not logged; and was also a venue for "backroom wheeling and dealing"? Why do you think so? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll answer questions with questions: Is the discussion being logged the recognized determiner of "official business" in comparison to "just some folks shootin' the breeze"? As the uninitiated Wikipedian, shouldn't I expect administrator noticeboard discussions to be transparent? Although I knew WMF utilized IRC chatrooms for business, the Wikipediocracy article is the first time I've heard of "quasi-formally sanctioned Internet Relay Chat (IRC) forums dedicated to Wikipedia administrators and users" and I am concerned if the reported conversations are tolerated there. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One hears a lot of things at Wikipediocracy - all very fascinating. When one realises that such things are pushed by scientology advocates, one learns to take them with a very large pinch of salt. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence of IRC hijinks of WMF staff being forced up "against the wall" (with winks) has been twice removed here, [1] despite its being on-Wiki. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If USENET is anarchy, IRC is a paranoid schizophrenic after 6 days on speed." -Chris "Saundo" Saunderson --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Kiefer, I don't think this is the place to continue your crusade (be it right or wrong). Let's please not have any edit warring here. If you have concerns with those edits, you're not going to get anywhere on a Signpost talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you've written a story about him, and he's alleging that you've misrepresented his position. Blanking his comments makes it look like you really are misrepresenting him, and are trying to hide that for some reason. If you meant to cover the story, quotes from the subject of the article, especially impassioned ones, would be golden nuggets you should be scrambling to collect.24.19.234.62 (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a time and a place. He should write up an editorial rebuttal and submit it to the Signpost, not argue his case in the comments to a Signpost article. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you clamp down the discussion on this article but not on previous articles? Based on which principles or emotions? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please discuss this article as you wish, but posting links to IRC comments and trying to argue your case here (as opposed to Arbcom) is well outside this talk page's scope. If the article writers have misrepresented your views in any way, a well-reasoned rebuttal (with diffs) would go a long way... rather than arguing new points. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost: doing it for free since 2005.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-24/Arbitration_report&oldid=1193871508"