Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Courcelles (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 22 November 2013 (→‎Arbitrator views and discussion: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Macedonia 2 none (orig. case) 14 November 2013
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation|Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation]] none (orig. case) 12 November 2013
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned|Clarification request: Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned]] none (orig. case) 12 November 2013

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

Amendment request: Macedonia 2

Initiated by Red Slash at 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Macedonia 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 29
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request

Statement by User:Red Slash

It's been over four years since the case was decided, and I think the country article has primary topic with regard to the name "Macedonia". If I think that Cheddar cheese has primary topic for "cheddar" I can file a move request, but I feel unsure if I can do that for Macedonia since there was this case that seems to have prohibited move requests. But the reasoning seems to not be as pressing. This is not a request for some grand rescoping of the decision; simply a request that we let the community revisit a decision from four years ago made under some duress as to the primary topic of "Macedonia".

Statement by Fut.Perf.

In answer to SilkTork's question "Have there been any discussions since the case closed?": the solutions brought about by the Arbcom-imposed RfC process (WP:NCMAC) have been remarkably successful and stable. Very few serious disagreements have occurred ever since then at least among experienced and established editors (occassional expressions of unhappiness from pro-"FYROM" driveby editors notwithstanding). Even many of the Greek editors who would have been most vocally against it at the time of the conflict have been helping to uphold the consensus against driveby revert-warriors. For ease of reference, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles is the main RfC page regarding the main Republic of Macedonia article, which Red Slash wishes to review now. If you look over it, you will see that the decision was taken on the basis of quite a large amount of carefully assembled data and quite a lot of well-informed independent input. This is in striking contrast to all earlier, less formal attempts at a solution, which basically had all ended up being shouted down and bogged down by POV stonewalling. The decision on this particular point was based on a slight majority of votes, with the alternative (country article at plain "Macedonia") also receiving substantial support and solid arguments. On the whole, after four years, I don't think the Arbcom decision should be taken as abrogating the general principle that "consensus can change", but if a new discussion is to be initiated we should make sure that it will again be done under close surveillance of clueful and neutral administrators to avoid a relapse into the kind of POV-warring we used to see regularly before 2009. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I think we all forgot to mention that the original Macedonia 2 decision actually contains quite explicit language answering Red Slash's proposal. Here it is:
"... Since consensus and policy can change, these binding decisions may be reviewed at appropriate times by that same administrator(s), or other uninvolved administrators. If the community is unable to find an administrator, or group of administrators, to address the situation, it may request that the Arbitration Committee appoint one. WP:GAME-ing a situation to head towards stalemate resolution will be highly frowned upon."
Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Taivo

As another participant in ARBMAC2, I heartily concur with Future Perfect's appraisal. And I also have been pleasantly surprised at how stable the solution has become, with opponents during the process becoming current allies to protect the consensus compromise against the "drive-by" editors pushing a nationalist agenda. --Taivo (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The wording is: "No Macedonia-related article, as defined in #All related articles under 1RR, shall be moved/renamed until after the community comes to a solution for the naming dispute. If any unauthorized move does occur, any uninvolved administrator may expeditiously revert it." My interpretation of that is that no move should take place until a community discussion, such as move request discussion, has taken place. So I don't see that it is forbidding such a discussion. The case was initiated because there were contentious page moves without having gone through the page move request procedure. I would say that a community move request would play a significant part in "a solution for the naming dispute". Have there been any discussions since the case closed? Worth having a look to see if there have been; if not, then I see no reason to object to a move request discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, what I am saying is that I don't see a need for amendment, as the remedy already encourages community discussion. In deciding on any future community discussions, it is always wise to refer to previous discussions on the same issue. Fut.Perf. has indicated there has been some discussion on this issue, so best practice would be to consider that discussion before deciding to initiate a new discussion. Also to be borne in mind is the current stability; however, it is not in the Committee's authority to impose content decisions, nor to prevent the community discussing them. It is well within the community's power to restrict any user who makes disruptive move requests; though worth pointing out that a user making a well reasoned move request supported by reliable sources should not be regarded as disruptive, unless they are making repeated requests on the same article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been pointed out, there was an extensive and supervised naming discussion after the case closed. This is similar to what happened in the Ireland naming case. In both cases, the discussion seems to to have brought some stability to the topic area. From a personal point of view, the intent of the moratoria on name discussions was not just stability for stability's sake, but to reduce the distraction of such discussions so that editors could continue to work on improving the content of the article (the bit after the title that people actually read to learn about the topic area). Could anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the topic area give some idea of whether the articles themselves have improved much in these four years or not? In general, I would hope that people would place more of a priority on improving article content than on arguing over the name of the articles, but that may be too optimistic. To answer the question posed, I'm not seeing any need for amendment here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues (and Fut. Perf.) here. The remedy does not prohibit re-opening orderly discussion seeking consensus about possible moves. There really is not need for us to amend,  Roger Davies talk 13:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with my colleagues that amendment is not necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also concur; the remedy does not stand in the way of orderly discussion, therefore no amendment is needed. Courcelles 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation

Initiated by Fram (talk) at 12:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Fram

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (RAN for short) has been topic banned from creating articles. He has recently requested another user, Carrite, to move a few pages RAN recently created in his user space to the main space (see User talk:Carrite#Migration. It is unclear whether this violates his topic ban or not. Carrite was a party to the previous case so is presumably aware of the topic ban. Note; this is a request for clarification, no action against anyone involved is wanted here. Fram (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

Here's the question: is RAN banned from all article-starting processes (AfC or use of an unambiguous, supervisable proxy) or is he banned from starting articles himself? And here's the underlying issue: is this topic-ban intended to prevent something or is it punitive for past behavior? To wit, is it the intent of ArbCom to stop the creation of new articles with copyright problems by RAN or is the intent of ArbCom to stop RAN from such contributions altogether? Creation though either Articles for Creation or a second party forces a second set of eyes on the creation to ensure copyright compliance — which is no issue on the two pieces here. I feel RAN's creation of new articles in this manner follows the intent if not the spirit of the topic ban. I do follow Fram in asking for clarification on the matter, of course. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WormTT. Per "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." — These articles are verifiable, productive, NPOV, copyright clean. As for my "independent reasons for making such efforts," that would involve my desire to see a productive content-creator return to work on the project. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@RAN. I still haven't had a news conference changing my gender yet, I'll be sure to let you know if I ever do though. Until then I'm a "he." xoxo, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker. Exactly. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf. I don't think one could come up with a more bureaucratic proposal if they tried. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom. Try this proposed motion for size: "ArbCom acknowledges that RAN may create articles through the Articles for Creation process or through use of a unambiguous proxy. Any editor moving an article into mainspace is cautioned that they become responsible for any copyright violations contained therein. Richard Norton is encouraged to seek formal amendment of his case by ArbCom at his soonest convenience."

And then, get rid of the ill-considered topic ban on creations, which was a really bad decision in his case. Limit him to 5 starts a month for 12 months or some other reasonable number. He'll be monitored with respect to copyvio, trust me. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Norton

I want to show that I can create new content free from copyright violation then have it vetted by a second person and if acceptable, posted. My goal is to show that I can create well-written content and then apply to have my ban lifted. I want to show Arbcom my newest entries. The ban should not be permanent punishment for past deeds. "Wikipedians ... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. " This is exactly what Carrite has done, note that he doesn't believe that the quote parameter should ever be used in a citation, and has removed the quotes from the text when he posts what I have created. You are all welcome to peruse my standard biographies to see if I can have my restriction lifted:


--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nyttend backup

During the Doncram case, Doncram was banned from creating new articles, but nobody (even those of us who were on the other side) objected to the idea of Doncram creating of articles via AFC. In the same way, if RAN's ban specifically said "no creating pages in mainspace", it would be a violation of the spirit of the ban for him to create a page in userspace and move it, because nobody's reviewing it, but it wouldn't be wrong if someone else were to move it, since the problem has been that RAN has created copyvios in the past. RAN shouldn't be given any sanction whatsoever for these pages, unless they violate Wikipedia:Copyright violations or some other standard to which everyone is held. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re: RAN)

As a way forward perhaps the committee should amend the case with a motion along the lines of (but probably simplified from) below:

  • RAN may create new articles in his userspace but may not move them to any other namespace.
  • RAN may ask any administrator or other user with the Reviewer userright to review his new articles subject to the following conditions:
    1. He must explicitly state that the draft article must be checked to ensure it contains no copyright violations. Linking to the case for explanation/clarification is encouraged but not required.
    2. He must explicitly state that any user who moves the draft article to another namespace takes full responsibility for its contents, including any copyright violations it contains. Any user moving a draft created by RAN is encouraged to explicitly acknowledge their taking of this responsibility.
    • These statements must be included at the top of the draft article page from at or before the time a review is requested and the continuously until at least the draft has been accepted or rejected. The form of words should be approved by one or more non-recused arbitrators or nominated administrators prior to the first review being requested.
    1. Users reviewing RAN's draft articles must keep a log of all drafts reviewed, explicitly noting for each draft whether it contained copyright violations or not.
  • Any drafts moved to the mainspace that have not been certified by a reviewer or administrator as free from copyright violations, may be speedily deleted as if they were a copyright violation without further investigation. The user moving such a page takes full responsibility and may be subject to sanction as if they had written the copyright violating material themselves.
  • Any reviewed drafts moved to the mainspace subsequently found to have contained copyright violations at the time of the move must be noted in the log. The person certifying the draft as not containing copyright violations takes full responsibility for the contents and may be subject to sanction as if they had written the copyright violating material themselves.
  • RAN's permission to create draft articles may be suspended for up to 3 months per offence by a consensus of uninvolved administrators at Arbitration Enforcement in any of the following circumstances:
    • Asking another user to review a draft that does not contain the statements required by conditions 1 and 2
    • Asking another user to review a draft that contains copyright violations.
  • After three offences the maximum suspension shall be 12 months.
  • This is in addition to the provisions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Enforcement.
  • Administrators who have reviewed RAN's draft articles shall not automatically be considered involved for the purposes of any Arbitration Enforcement action.
  • RAN may appeal this sanction to the committee after 6 months and at least 10 drafts have been reviewed and found not to contain copyright violations.

The aim of this is to:

  1. Make it clear that RAN may create article drafts if he makes it clear they must be verified free of copyright violations
  2. Make it clear that users accepting these drafts take all responsibility for the drafts
  3. Provide a route for RAN to rehabilitate himself as a contributor that has clearly defined boundaries to keep him on course and protect the project. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hasteur

I would like to note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram was a workable solution for how an editor could be restricted from creating problematic articles, yet at the same time be allowed to contribute. While the eventual outcome involved the subject being further topic banned in an Arb Enforcement request. I agree that it should not be ArbCom's place to on a whim amend the sanctions against this user, but feel that an amendment to allow an Articles For Creation submission regime would be a good compromise. Hasteur (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I consider this a violation of the spirit of the topic ban, though since it is not explicitly prohibited in the remedy I cannot fault RAN for his actions. Procedurally, the best way of proceeding would be to tighten the remedy by motion on this page. AGK [•] 13:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the age old question of proxying edits. RAN is banned from creating pages and Wikipedians ... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. I don't think there's any need for clarification, it seems pretty clear to me already. Having said that, I don't see the need for any sanctions, just a clear message that if RAN wants to create articles he needs to appeal the ban. WormTT(talk) 13:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, it was pretty clear to me already, but to make sure everyone knows where I stand, Carrite is perfectly within his rights to create the articles, but they're totally on his head. Any repercussions from creating the article are entirely on Carrite's head, therefore he should be absolutely clear that the changes are verifiable and productive. The independent reason is "because Wikipedia doesn't have an article on these subjects and this draft I have found and checked is high quality". Richard shouldn't be putting it upon anyone to create articles for him, and should be appealing his ban if he feels he is able to create articles. WormTT(talk) 08:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of the topic-ban is to preclude RAN from creating new articles because too many of the articles he did create contained copyright infringements. If someone can suggest a mechanism for ensuring that no further infringements will take place, that should be discussed here. However, simply posting a request that an editor move the articles, with no provision for any vetting or checking, is obviously unsatisfactory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Newyorkbrad. Any editor who takes it upon him or herself to move an article written by RAN in his userspace takes on the responsibility for ensuring that the content meets all criteria of the project, including but not limited to ensuring that there is no copyvio. If an editor moves an article by RAN to article space and it turns out to be copyvio, the moving editor is completely responsible for the copyvio and is subject to the usual sanctions of the project for such edits. In other words, if you haven't personally checked it for copyvio, it's on your head. I also agree with WTT that RAN should be appealing the ban rather than using a back door to get his articles published. Risker (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with my colleagues. RAN is trying to work around his restriction and should stop doing so. Carrite may publish the material if they wish but only by assuming complete and sole responsibility for it.  Roger Davies talk 09:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sensible and appropriate response to a request to proxy edit to circumvent a ban, is to consider suggesting that the banned user appeals the ban. That would be a more helpful and less potentially disruptive route than to agree to the proxying. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • RAN was restricted to protect the project from copyright infringement; if Carrite checks every single article, accepts the responsibility of making sure that no infringing material is present, then I'd say that, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with what he does. If, on the other hand, there is no quality control, then that's a problem. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what my colleagues have stated above. I also agree with what Carrite said: "Richard Norton should seek formal amendment of his case by ArbCom at his soonest convenience." One problem with proxying (other people taking responsibility for the content) is that it can be difficult to carry out copyright checks for articles that refer to sources that are not online. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned

Initiated by —John Cline (talk) at 10:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by John Cline

Richwales raised a question regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talk page edits in relation to his Arbcom ban.[8] Equazcion subsequently posted the incident at wp:ani[9] which erupted into a discussion without the potential for consensus. Eventually Beyond My Ken reverted Kiefer's talk page inclusion of an Arbcom voters guide[10] which Kiefer reverted with the following edit summary: "talk page guidelines prohibit such arbitrary action. take it to Arbitration committee enforcement, and stop acting like a cowboy".[11] Most users commenting seem to agree that this matter should be decided by the Committee, as do I. Curiously, Nikkimaria added Kiefer's voter guide to {{ACE2013}}[12] which in my opinion, strains the spirit and letter of our banning policy. Please tell me if Kiefer's talk page edits are acceptable in concert with his ban and evaluate Nikkimaria's decision to link his content in such fashion as has been shown. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Equazcion

As I said at ANI (which I now realize was the wrong venue for this), if a user is banned, it was already determined that they shouldn't be involved in the project (for whichever amount of time was specified). That they confine any further attempts technically to userspace shouldn't be a loophole. Talk page access is allowed for banned users merely to allow discussion relating to their ban (as is my understanding), and while practice tends to allow some leniency for benign chatter with former colleagues, clear attempts at further project involvement is an abuse of that leniency, and shouldn't be allowed. It leaves the door open for us to have to make a second determination regarding userspace content, when the spirit of the ban was to have already been a prohibition on their continued involvement. equazcion → 11:02, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz' comment below -- and I mention this even though I think it's pretty obvious -- there being no explicit policy on "guide writer" standing doesn't override the more general policies on what banned editors may use their userspace for. equazcion → 12:35, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Would those arbitrators who are commenting please clarify their stances on what, if anything, should happen to existing talk page content the user added during the ban -- assuming their talk page revocation stands -- particularly the voter guide? Thanks in advance. equazcion → 22:15, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Responding to Risker's clarification below, "Don't you normally remove whatever they've been writing that doesn't relate specifically to an unblock request?": I don't think I've ever had to deal with a situation like that before, so you may need to pardon my ignorance. I do appreciate you clarifying that point nonetheless. equazcion → 22:25, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Responding to some recent comments below collectively, I think it would be a mistake to allow this kind of userspace use after a ban. It just creates the need to judge that content as a sort of second ban discussion. If a user has been banned, the decision regarding whether or not they should continue to be allowed to contribute here has already been made. We banned them entirely, because for whatever reason, that was determined to be necessary. That they generally retain the technical ability to edit their talk page just to address the ban is not relevant, and does not constitute a de facto change to a mere namespace restriction. We shouldn't need to allow a banned user to put the community or ArbCom through another debate on whether their significant continued userspace activity constitutes a continuation of the bannable behavior, when bans are instituted largely to ensure we don't have to deal with this user's activity at all (for the specified time period). Significant talk page use during a ban should simply be prohibited. Otherwise bans are not bans, and will not effectively address the issues that bans are intended to address.

As for unfairly targeting this user, it was the significance of their edits that brought this attention on them. As I've said previously, there is leniency afforded to most banned users for idle chatter, and even some angry words. I wouldn't want to institute a removal of that leniency. When one uses that leniency to try and continue significant contributions despite having been banned, you've then abused that leniency. There need be no bright line across-the-board ruling to make way for lawyering about. Wikipedia isn't a system of laws. We subjectively call a duck a duck, and this is a duck. equazcion → 04:48, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, Salvio giuliano, I'm a little confused. You think the community should hold a discussion on what should happen to talk pages during bans, and that ArbCom should specify that at each ban decision from now on? I'm not sure how those would work in concert. Focusing on the latter part though, which seems more applicable here for now either way -- since you think it should be specified by ArbCom explicitly in each case, and being that it wasn't specified in this case -- and we are here to request clarification on the decision -- could you now clarify how you think the talk page issue should be specified for this particular ban? equazcion → 15:28, 14 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves

One of the most common RFA questions used to be "What is the difference between a ban and a block?" The most acceptable answer was some version of this:

A block is a technical restriction, designed to prevent disruption, whereas a ban is a community-determined restriction on editing, often in specific areas. A block may be used to enforce a ban.

In others words, a ban is a socially-derived action, and as per WP:BANPOL:

"An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances", with the sole exception of appeals.

KW has edited their talkpage significantly since their ban, contrary to WP:BANPOL. Creating an ArbCom voting guide is an attempt to influence Wikipedia policy, well outside the socially-induced ban. One could question his motives as well...is there an element of WP:POLEMIC to "get back at" those who banned him? Is it a way of electing Arbs who are sympathetic to his cause? The sole remedy is to remove the voting guide, revoke talkpage access and move forward - let KW back into the community when he's willing to follow the rules ES&L 11:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

This statement was posted by Kiefer.Wolfowitz to his talk page and was copied here by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 12:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The community runs Arbitration Committee elections and does so by its RfCs, which occur following discussion of the immediately preceding election and at the RfC before the election. The election rules require that candidates be in good standing; they do not require that guide writers be in good standing (not even in good standing with the Arbitration Committee).

Richwales has explicitly written that he has a conflict of interest because my guide discusses limitations of his candidacy. In the past, for example in the case of Pennywhale, the Arbitration Committee has allowed banned editors freedom on their talk pages, including criticism of ArbCom decisions.

Secondly, Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) was entitled to add my guide to the election template, per the RfC rules, which again do not require that guide writers be in good standing. (C.f., WP:I don't like it.)

Finally, this is the second time in a month that John Cline (talk · contribs) (formerly My76Strat (talk · contribs)) has left messages on this talk page, despite having been requested many times previously to stop. Would an administrator please remind him of the talk-page policy?

My daughter has a 38.9 C fever because of teething, and I doubt I have time to respond further.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Someone not using his real name

The not-quite-ban ban imposed by the village wise men in order to reduce disruption is achieving its goal. Or is it? LOL Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

I can't see how arbs can win this one. If they prevent K.W from writing his guide they'll be accused of involvement and of silencing their critics, if they allow K.W to go ahead they'll be accused of failing to enforce the rules, and if they recuse they'll be accused of shirking responsibility. The only winners I see here are the drama-mongers - what a brilliant way to encourage good arb candidates to stand for election!

(Oh, and on the topic of the request itself, should K.W be allowed to continue with his collaborative and constructive endeavour? Yes, he should.)

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cline: If you have to ask that question, then the chronic problem of authoritarianism vs intellectualism has gone completely over your head. Anyway, it's been settled now and the authoritarians have won, so I won't waste anyone's time any further.

Statement by AGK

This clarification request poses the question of whether users banned by the committee require talk page access, not whether banned users can write an election guide on-wiki. Users banned by ArbCom are required to appeal by e-mail under the community arbitration policy, and therefore do not require talk page access. AGK [•] 13:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Richwales: The arbitration policy permits arbitrators to recuse without stating why. The policy makes such provision for very good reasons. AGK [•] 22:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

(after edit conflict with AGK) KW was banned by the arbitration committee from participating in the English Wikipedia for 1 year. There were no caveats or exceptions, whether for collaborative and/or constructive endeavour or otherwise. It was not specified otherwise and so the ban is a site ban. The banning policy is unequivocal "An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with [the provisions specified]." (emphasis in original). The provisions simply detail how to appeal.

Based on this, the only question the arbcom adjudicate on is "Is Kiefer.Wolofowitz appealing his ban?"

  • If the answer is yes, and the Committee needs to decides to hear the appeal and the appeal is successful, then KW's guide should be accepted as would any other (assuming it does not breach any other rules).
  • In all other circumstances, KW is a banned user who is not permitted to edit Wikipedia and so his edits should be deleted and/or reverted per the usual practice. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SB Johnny: KW is as free as anyone else express opinions about any aspect of Wikipedia off site. For reasons detailed in the linked arbitration case though he has been banned from Wikipedia and as such all his editing privileges[T 1] have been revoked. The sole exception to this is that he is allowed to appeal his ban - but he can do that at least as easily by email. Personally I don't regard offering opinions about the arb election to be appealing a block, but that is for the committee to decide.

If we want to allow banned users to be allowed to contribute in other ways than appealing their ban then consensus must be gained to change the rules first (and I would argue against such a change). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Not all banned users abuse their talk page access. Those that do get their talk page access removed. That is not being unfair to KW or anyone else. If you know of some other banned user who is abusing their talk page access then either remove it yourself (if you are an admin) or ask an administrator to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Editors have only three rights: The right to be attributed, the right to vanish, and the right not to be harassed

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

If a banned user were using his user talk page to attempt to sway votes at RfA, or to campaign for or against particular positions at AfD, MfD, or in an RfC, or any other voting or deliberative process on Wikipedia, there wouldn't be this manufactured confusion and hand-wringing. The banning policy does not carve out a specific exemption for ArbCom elections, and there is no reason why it should—and there is definitely no reason for the ArbCom to 'legislate from the bench' by creating one. It goes without saying that Kiefer is welcome to exercise his freedoms of speech and association in whatever off-wiki venues will have him; Wikipedia is not obliged (and should not be encouraged) to provide banned users a soapbox. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle's action in reblocking without talk page access was correct, and should be uncontroversial. This matter could – and probably should – have been dealt with as a straight arbitration enforcement matter, without requiring the attention or input of the ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

Kiefer is banned. Full Stop. He does not have the right to post anything other than ban appeals on Wikipedia. Likewise, ArbCom does not have the right to modify the banning policy by fiat. This request should be closed as moot. Resolute 14:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers. Bad policy is letting a banned editor off the hook, even partially, simply because you like them or you like their contributions. KW put himself into this position with consistent drama mongering, consistent bad faith accusations and consistently wasting the community's time. He lost his privilege to edit Wikipedia as a result. Perhaps in August, he will come back willing to participate constructively in all aspects of Wikipedia - though I won't hold my breath. But until then, no, we should not allow him to use is talk page as a soapbox, and I agree with others: it should be blanked in addition to his access being revoked. Resolute 14:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gerda Arendt

Short summary of what I wrote in other venues where these questions were raised: Is it possible that a user contributes constructively to the encyclopedia on his talk page even when he is banned? I hope yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: On the specific talk page, I have seen not only an interesting voters guide (under construction) showing insight, but also ideas about a mathematician and guitar tuning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jprg1966

I have seen a number of editors say that Kiefer's efforts are not particularly disruptive a reflection of a desire to edit constructively, so it is better to allow him to continue. But this user was not banned for lack of ability to make useful edits. Everyone agrees he is HERE to build an encyclopedia. Still, a ban was instituted despite their constructive contributions. It should be enforced. As TParis wrote in summarizing an RFC/U concerning this case, "No matter a person's excellent contributions, all editors are treated with the same rules." --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dougweller

If banned doesn't actually mean banned then it seems pretty pointless. And as been pointed out, he doesn't need talk page access as his appeal must be by email. Using it seems a way of getting around his ban. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AutomaticStrikeout

It seems to me that bans are the most serious of all sanctions and therefore should be taken very seriously. If the committee fails to enforce its own sanctions, nobody else will do so. If KW is not going to use his talk page for appeals, revoke his talk page access. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Richwales

The banning policy is, IMO, very clear that a site-banned editor is "forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, ... under any and all circumstances". "Anywhere" means "anywhere", and it includes a banned user's talk page. The only stated exception to the blanket editing prohibition that an editor who still has access to his/her talk page may use it to lodge an appeal. Even if Kiefer's voter guide is considered to be a method of appealing his/her site ban, this is still not appropriate because (per the arbitration decision) he/she is not allowed to request reinstatement until next August at the earliest.

According to WP:BMB (a subsection of the banning policy), a site-banned user is not supposed to make any edits — not even "good" edits — because "even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." Further, any edits made in violation of a ban may be reverted on sight by anyone, so Beyond My Ken's deletion of Kiefer's voter guide material from his talk page was legitimate, and not a case of "arbitrary action" or "acting like a cowboy", despite the general prohibition in the talk page guidelines against removing material from someone else's talk page.

It should be noted, I believe, that the prohibition on banned users editing their own talk pages has not been consistently enforced — and if this were solely a matter of Kiefer making comments about arbitrator candidates for the benefit of those users who have chosen to watch his talk page, it might not be such a big deal. However, Kiefer went beyond a simple case of private blogging or soapboxing by adding a [[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2013 voter guides]] tag to his material, thereby explicitly seeking to engage the entire community by having his comments officially recognized as a legitimate part of the general discussion of candidates. This, in my view, clearly violates not only the letter, but also the spirit of the site ban imposed on him by ArbCom last August. If a decision is ultimately made to allow Kiefer to continue using his talk page to make comments (supportive and/or critical) on the upcoming ArbCom election, the category tag should (IMO) be removed, and his comments should not be linked to from any official election-related page.

Although I may be seen by some as having a conflict of interest here, since my positions and record are being criticized in Kiefer's guide, I believe the principles involved here go beyond my own ArbCom candidacy (or that of any of the other candidates mentioned positively or negatively in Kiefer's comments). However, in order to reduce the possibility that I might have been seen to be acting in my own self-interest, I brought up this issue at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 to solicit other comments, rather than taking any direct action (such as deleting Kiefer's voter guide comments, or using my admin abilities to revoke his talk page access) which, even if arguably justifiable under the banning policy, could easily have been seen as inappropriately using the admin tools to gain an advantage in a dispute. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If KW's talk page access is going to be revoked, then I would suggest that the "voting guide" section of his/her talk page should be deleted as well. It may also be wise to fully protect the talk page — both to discourage "grave dancing", and also to prevent someone else from reinstating the deleted voting guide material — though it might be better to wait before doing these latter steps until/unless they actually become necessary.
I am also inclined to agree with Leaky caldron that the seven currently sitting arbs who participated in the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case, and who voted to site-ban KW, can reasonably be expected to comment here regarding the intended scope of the ban which they voted to impose. Specifically, if Roger Davies and AGK feel there are pressing reasons why they should recuse themselves here, I believe the community has a right to understand why.
Regarding the general question of talk page access for banned users, it has seemed to me for some time that someone who is under an ArbCom-imposed site ban really does not have any valid reason for talk page access, since they can appeal their ban only to ArbCom or Jimbo (and should probably be doing so by e-mail anyway). I realize that even though the banning policy seems to say clearly that site-banned users should not use their talk pages except for appealing their bans, this has not generally been enforced in practice. I did not raise this whole question in the first place in order to force the talk page access issue or otherwise make a point, but if ArbCom decides to use this situation as a basis for clarifying the general issue of talk page access by banned users, I don't think I would object. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sjakkalle

I have removed the talkpage access. The wording of the banning policy is very clear here about what a banned user may do with the talkpage, and an overview of the edits made by KF shows that it has been used for everything else.

@Boing! said Zebedee: I have no problem with your opinion that KF should be allowed to continue with his endeavors, but it would require either that the ban be lifted or that ArbCom make a special exemption from the ban. ArbCom are without question fully authorized to do so, but so far they haven't. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: I responded to a similar query by Gerda Arendt on my talkpage. In this case, the wording of the banning policy is very clear and unambigouous. There is nothing to clarify. Kiefer Wolfowitz has continued using the talkpage to edit in contravention to the ban, and removing talkpage access is the only way of stopping him from doing so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: I believe that this really belonged in the Requests for Enforcement section. I think it wound up in the Clarification section because KW was able to edit the talkpage in violation of the ban for three months before someone complained about it, and that length of time has led people to believe that there is something to clarify. Had the talkpage access been removed after the first instance where he did so, no eyebrows would have been raised at all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

@Sjakkalle: Why have you taken this action whilst the discussion is taking place here? Surely this clarification motion is to decide the issue, rather than random admins imposing their own take on the issue? Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sjakkalle: I see your point, but if that was unambiguously the case, why is there a motion here in the first place? Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leaky Caldron

This was (until the recent Admin. action) a request for AC clarification. On the face of it a straightforward one. Any AC member involved in the original unanimous case must be accountable for clarifying that decision.

If those that argue that this is moot and that KW is indeed not allowed to edit his talk page are correct in that view, then those members of Arbcom who supported the original ban have absolutely no reason to absent themselves from clarifying that decision here. There can be no conflict of interest in simply restating a previous decision. But some have ducked the issue.

Admins. should have ensured the decision was fully implemented in August. The error here is almost entirely Arbcom’s responsibility in not ensuring that their decision was fully promulgated 3 months ago. Refusing to participate in clarifying that decision now because of perceived COI looks like dereliction.

If, on the other hand, KW's talk page access is debatable then the best argument I would offer is that his contributions, including the reason we are here – the AC candidate review - do no harm. Assuming we are not entertaining the idea that the material should be revdel’d then the cat, as they say, is out of the bag. The horse has bolted. It would seem to be a peculiar form of punishment now to revoke his TP access. All that will generate is even more heat than light. Leaky Caldron 19:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by WereSpielChequers

Sometimes hard cases make bad law, and sometimes they make useful precedents. I think this is one of the latter occasions. Yes the letter of current policy is that the only edits a banned user can make are their next appeal, however as has been noted above this is not the most consistently followed of policies. More importantly as far as I am aware it has been a long time since we reviewed this policy, and many of those calling for it to be enforced are doing so because it is policy, without necessarily saying why they think it is good policy.

There was a perfectly civil discussion going on about this at AN/I. My suggestion to Arbcom is that they have that conversation unhatted and moved to its own RFC , and trust the community to review and confirm or amend the policy of only allowing banned users to use their talkpage to make unblock appeals on the appropriate dates.

The only thing that Arbcom should then rule on is whether the guide can be included in the user guide template until such time as the RFC ends. For what its worth, though I'm minded to support changing the policy to only stop talkpage edits when necessary, I appreciate that it would be pre-emptive to link the guide into the template until and unless such an RFC closed with banned user talkpages defaulting to being open. ϢereSpielChequers 22:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker I didn't dispute that bringing it to Arbcom was technically correct. I merely pointed out that one of your options is to to say that the policy needs to be reaffirmed or changed, and that the appropriate way to change policy is by RFC. I don't have a problem with Arbcom doing things that the community can't resolve, especially where confidential information is involved. But I'm not seeing that here, from what I can see an RFC on a policy that hasn't been reviewed for a long time and has not been consistently enforced would be a valid and sensible option ϢereSpielChequers 01:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker. I can think of far worse precedents one could set, some of them would even look bad to the press. I honestly doubt that a banned editor's voting guide would be all that much more influential for being on Wiki rather than on a "badsite", and if they went from constructive criticism to personal attacks then of course talkpage access could then be revoked. ϢereSpielChequers 04:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Resolute. I agree that one shouldn't make exceptions "simply because you like them or you like their contributions." But that isn't my argument nor does it apply in this case, I am aware of KW, I'm sure our paths have crossed somewhere on Wiki - possibly in different sections of an RFA. But I haven't looked at his contributions or indeed his case in sufficient detail either to count him as a wiki friend or indeed to challenge Arbcom's ruling in that case. Though I suppose I should be grateful that he published the IRC threat against me from someone I used to hold in high regard. But my position here is not that exceptions should be made for people one likes, my suggestion is that if the ancient policy of removing talkpage access from banned editors has been inconsistently applied we should review and change or reaffirm the policy. I'm minded to support making it consistent with talkpage access for blocked editors, with a default to leaving it open but revoking it where there is good cause to do so.

Statement by SB_Johnny

Other than saying "yup, what WereSpielChequers said", it's also worth a passing thought that a person banned by arbcom might legitimately express an interest in the arbcom elections as part of the "seeking an unblock" exemption of using their own user talk.

Otherwise, this is an absolutely ridiculous way to treat someone who once contributed a bunch to the encyclopedia. It's not all that difficult to just unwatch his page and/or dismiss out of hand his election suggestions, right? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

This is, at present, unfairly targeting Kiefer. If this is going to be the new absolute interpretation of the banning policy, then it needs to be applied uniformly to every banned user on the project. You could go round and round in circles all month about why it's both right and wrong for Kiefer to produce an Arbcom voting guide or otherwise influence the Arbcom elections, and as my head hurts thinking about all the ramifications, I'm going to stay firmly on the fence and say I neither want his talk page locked or unlocked when dealt with in isolation, just that he needs to be treated entirely fairly alongside every other banned user on the project. Nick (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recuse WormTT(talk) 10:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse on this specific issue  Roger Davies talk 12:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. I will leave this matter to my colleagues with 2013–14 terms to decide. AGK [•] 13:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keifer is right that anyone can write a voter guide, but per longstanding practice (and good reason) users banned are restricted from normal editing behaviors. Generally there's some latitude given to the user's talk page—it's kept unlocked to facilitate appeals, and on the presumption that the user won't be providing a reason to require locking it. On looking at Keifer's talk page however I'm seeing a whole lot of soapboxing and not much else. While I have in the past very much appreciated Keifer's insight in his guides, I also see it being incompatible with the sanctions he is currently under. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse as well, because I was recused in the underlying case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User should be reblocked without talk page access, the page locked to prevent others from taunting him, and he can make an appeal via email to the Arbitration Committee at the applicable time. While there's latitude for appeals, anything else is unacceptable and is contrary to the user's ban. Risker (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Equazcion, really? What would you normally do with the talk page of a banned user who's had to have his talk page privileges revoked? Don't you normally remove whatever they've been writing that doesn't relate specifically to an unblock request? Why would this case be any different? If you're only thinking of removing the candidate guide, take that question to the Election Commission. Risker (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WereSpielChequers, Arbcom reviews Arbcom bans and blocks and those coming from Arbitration enforcement, and any issues related to those bans and blocks; this clearly falls within Arbcom's purview. The community should review all other bans and blocks and issues related to them; in fact, I've been trying to persuade the community to set up its own group to review community-based bans and blocks as "the appeal of last resort" for a couple of years. Once the community gets that part straightened out, and Arbcom doesn't get dozens of ban/block appeals a week, then we can talk about whether or not the community should have jurisdiction over Arbcom bans and blocks. The choice to bring this for clarification here was entirely correct. Risker (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @WereSpielChequers, go have an RFC if you want an RFC; this ban would still be under Arbcom's purview. I would have removed talk page access weeks ago if I'd realised that he was continuing the same dispute for which he had been banned. I'm disappointed that you don't feel that's the appropriate way to deal with banned users who abuse the community's tolerance on multiple occasions. I also do not understand why you think it is a good idea for someone who has deliberately been removed from the community to be given the opportunity to try to affect the one election that the community has, to the committee that will be responsible for making future decisions about his status in the community. There are all kinds of precedents for removing talk page access from banned users who continue to carry on the same dispute for which they are banned, whether by the community, by single administrators, or by Arbcom. Do you think we should allow all of them to try to influence arbcom elections? Permitting a banned user to use Wikipedia to attempt to influence Arbcom elections is possibly the worst precedent I can possibly imagine, and would raise questions about the integrity of all who are elected. Those who are courageous enough to stand for election (50 42 questions already???) and those who ultimately succeed do not need to start their terms with questions about whether or not they got elected based on the interventions of banned users. Risker (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse action taken by Sjakkalle and agree with Risker and David Fuchs. In passing, this issue is not recent. The issue of Kiefer's talk page access came up in August shortly after the case closed and came up again at the beginning of November. For some reason the issue wasn't dealt with back in August. I was inactive on the case itself. Looking at the reasons for the ban, I can understand what looks like a reluctance to be heavy-handed here, and things did fall quiet on Kiefer's talk page for around two months. However, when Kiefer returned and began making edits both about the case and other matters, something clearly needed to be done. My instinct was and still is that talk page access should be revoked with instructions left as to where to appeal and/or communicate concerns if needed. Now that talk page access has been revoked, there is little left to clarify here. Kiefer, of course, remains free to continue to communicate by e-mail or off-wiki (both with ArbCom and others) if he and others need to do so. This is separate from the matter of open and vigorous debate regarding past and present cases - such debate should be encouraged within the context of the current arbitration committee election. Any contentious issues regarding that election should be referred to the co-ordinators (see the talk page there) and/or the Electoral Commission as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this is an ArbCom matter. While the Committee did ban this user, and while ArbCom do have some measure of control over ArbCom procedures, the process and mechanics of a ban are in the hands of the community. If there is some vagueness over how much access a banned user (either an ArbCom or community banned user) can have to their talkpage, I think that is a community issue, not an ArbCom one. My understanding is that a banned user is left access to their talkpage in order to appeal the ban. In the case of an ArbCom ban, the appeal would anyway come direct to the Committee, and so access is not required. I assume access is left open to allow minor and insignificant responses to queries left on the talkpage. I also understand that if a user excessively uses their talkpage, access to it is removed - particularly if their use of that page has become contentious or unpleasant. I think the current process works well enough, and I understand in this situation that an admin in the community has locked the page because the access has become contentious. If people feel that in all cases a banned user should automatically lose access to their talkpage (or that a banned user's talkpage should be automatically locked so there is no unpleasant taunting) that is a community decision, not an ArbCom one, and a discussion should be started on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. What the Committee could take on board from this incident is that when banning users, consideration could be given to specifying a talkpage lock down in the remedy. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, what SilkTork just said; I agree that the underlying issue should be discussed by the community and that, for the future, it may be a good idea for us to specify whether or not an editor we banned should still be allowed to edit his talk page, which, right now, is left, most of the times, to the discretion of the admin enforcing our decision (the same happens with bans imposed by the community, where the admin who closes the discussion decides whether to remove talk page access or not). Consistency is good, so, as I said, I think a community discussion would be appropriate here. Also, since this issue concerned an election guide, I think that it should have been handled by the electoral commission; in my opinion, it's better for arbitrators, regardless of the fact they may be up for (re-)election or not, not to get involved in their official capacity in anything concerning elections. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=582874924"