Oliver Keyes has made an implicit appeal for leniency. It's pretty smarmy stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... _Ironholds
Comment by Ironholds
A lot of the proposed decision here seems perfectly reasonable - the principles are certainly things that should be reiterated, for example - and I've got no issue with the idea that I should be sanctioned for my actions, which as I've said, were highly inappropriate: I make no bones about that. Having said that, I do have a few concerns.
As long as the sanctions mean nothing, I'm totally fine with them.
Probation is the most I'll accept. No prison time for white boys.
Findings
The first centres around the 3rd finding of fact. In order, it states that I have:
"a history of making a highly inappropriate remarks on-wiki";
"[that same history] off-wiki";
"Logged out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia project".
Keep in mind that this history would have anyone besides a member of the royalty indeffed a long, long time ago.
These statements are all presented with equal footing - I make inappropriate remarks on-wiki, off-wiki and logged out. They're very different situations, however. In support of the first point, the proposed decision provides a single diff from August 2011 - of an edit that was almost immediately reverted, by me. In support of the third statement, the decision contains two diffs, one from July 2011 and one from August. I have no issue with those being factored in given my off-wiki conduct, even with how old they are, but presenting it as a continuing pattern of behaviour with a single diff, or with two diffs, that are two years old, seems problematic. I would request that the finding be reworded, unless further evidence has been presented that suggests on-wiki problems have continued. If that is the case, it has not been presented to me, and is not incorporated into the proposed decision.
The only reason that there's not vastly more evidence is the stupid "no logging" rule that's in place for IRC.
There's nobody that thinks that these are the only shitty remarks you've made on IRC in the past few years.
We just can't find them all because of self serving rules that are designed to reduce accountability.
At this point, you've admitted to the misconduct you are accused of. You should expect to be banned. Anyone else would be.
My second issue is around my ban proposal; if the Committee feels that's appropriate, that's your prerogative, but I'm surprised to see that my statements are being treated in precisely the same way as Kiefer's. I'd argue they're two different classes of statement and two very different users.
Why wouldn't you be treated in precisely the same way?!
Are you promulgating the separation of the classes right there in a public ARBCOM finding?
In my case, yes, I have behaved inappropriately - tremendously so, on occasion. Much of this occurred very long in the past (the logs that the Arbitration Committee presented to me as evidence did not include year/month/day timestamps - were these provided to the Committee?) but some of it recently. Of the evidence presented to me, the most recent inappropriate statements happened on IRC, which previous statements by the Arbitration Committee suggests is, in line with the policy on off-wiki venues, treated as generally irrelevant - or only really considered as aggravating elements to other disputes.
Much of it is hidden by the ban on IRC logging, even in official WMF channels that are linked to and that editors are pointed to for official WMF contacts.
That you want to keep them unlogged is more telling than anything else you could say here.
I've been using IRC since at least 2008 without particular problems. The first occasion on which my behaviour was presented as a substantial issue was this Arbitration Case. Having been made aware of the consequences of my actions - both in terms of project perception, and the opinions of users I very much respect - I'd like to think I've corrected for them. I've withdrawn from the relevant IRC channels, I've kept my cool during this case, and I suspect that if there was any recent evidence of me acting problematically on-wiki it would already have been presented. My statements were inappropriate, and I am solving for that.
I call shenanigans. This is the first time you've been caught. Even your supporters have said, in kinder words than I'm about to, that you're a dickhead on IRC. "Oh, he's got a harsh sense of humor" is merely code for "he's a dickhead I like" and we all know it.
Kiefer's actions are (I would argue) more problematic than mine - but most of them aren't presented here.
Let me spell this out for you, you flailing simpleton:
* Kiefer is not a WMF employee.
* Kiefer is not a paid community liaison.
* Kiefer is not an administrator.
* Kiefer is not holding court in an official WMF IRC admin channel.
Do you get it?
The Arbitration Committee acknowledged receipt of my evidence of his off-wiki commentary, but has neither explicitly or implicitly recognised it: I would ask for a statement on that, if the Committee is willing to make one. Even if we only limit the case to his on-wiki statements, the consequences of them are not (I suspect) a surprise to anyone here; his behaviour was brought up in an RfC several years ago, and his block log and a cursory search of AN/I indicates it's continued to be something of concern to the community since. There's no question that he's been aware people find his behaviour problematic for some time. During the arbitration case itself, he's been repeatedly blocked for his behaviour and has engaged with myself and other users in a highly confrontational manner.
Buh, buh, buh he did it worse than me, mum.
Can your behavior not stand on its own?
In light of the differing situations, and different responses to the case, it seems odd to be treating both parties as entities that should be sanctioned equally.
The only difference is that your behavior is far, far below what is expected of an administrator and WMF employee.
You guys traded barbs, mostly initiated by YOU.
Absence of findings
My final (and perhaps largest) concern is around what the proposed decision doesn't say. As mentioned above, I submitted a body of evidence to the Arbitration Committee regarding Kiefer's off-wiki actions - this does not seem to be mentioned in the proposed decision as an area of concern, while my actions are. My primary hypothesis as to why this is is that the venues are different: that the Committee is implicitly acknowledging that some off-wiki venues are more worthy of concern and factoring in than others.
Perhaps it's because you were being a giant douchebag in an official admin channel, trashing someone there who could not respond do to his lack of ADVANCED PERMISSIONS?
Perhaps they just found your mewling and fawning statements to be unconvincing?
If this is the case - and I disagree with it, but that's by-the-by - the Committee needs to come out and say as much explicitly. Historically, the Committee has not only not distinguished between off-wiki venues but has actively found that IRC is not considered subject to on-wiki restrictions, and vice versa. If the Committee is choosing to implicitly reverse one or both of these positions the result is going to be substantial ambiguity in what is or is not permitted and where. In the long-term, that's more damaging than any finding of fact. Ironholds (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
You're as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
STFU and take your punishment.
I'll bet you've had an historic problem of being constitutionally unable to take responsibility for your actions.
P.S. Note that there has never been a formal, public apology for his remarks...ever.