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

Comment by uninvolved PumpkinSky
I urge the committee to accept this. We have what seems to be a dispute that has become personalized between two admins, wheel warring, inappropriate comments that get revdel'd, threats or perceived threats by admins, and the relation of IRC to onwiki activity. It's a virtual potpourri of bad admin conduct. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
This is basically the same thing being talked about further down. I think comments on IRC and comments on WO should only be considered an issue when it is a matter that will invariably have a negative impact on the on-wiki environment for a given individual. People blithely joke about committing violent acts all the time in the real world. Off-wiki areas should be a safe place where people can be more comfortable in speaking their minds. Being able to compartmentalize is important in all matters concerning Wikipedia and is where our concerns should lie, not on whether someone is saying mean things about you in some other part of the series of tubes.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, in most cases outside Wikipedia misconduct directed at an individual is viewed as mitigating any misconduct in response. Indeed, even a mistaken perception of misconduct directed at an individual is sufficient to mitigate misconduct in response. This may only lead to a reduced sanction or to no sanction, depending on severity. Here we essentially have a guy saying he would kick so-and-so's ass because so-and-so joked about flambéing him, presumably because so-and-so was still sore about the guy saying in an unintentionally suggestive fashion that so-and-so shouldn't tell lewd jokes when teenagers are in a chat room. Personally, I see none of the foregoing actions as problems in need of sanction, let alone arbitration.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by TCO
Arbitrators: Decline. (1)It's not feasible or just to regulate off site discussions and it makes this place more and more of a social game instead of a collaborative building project. (2) The threats of violence are not credible (or really even "threats"), more posturing.

IH: Apologize. It was a funny remark, but realize that there is an imbalance when you have a banhammer and the other guy doesn't...that changes some of the dynamic on the taunting. Also, Salvio gave you some good advice and it's not for Wiki/Arbcom sake but for your career/salary's sake. Just say yes sir and move on.

TCO (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
With respect to Salvio's opinion, if Fram intends to begin blocking for comments made on IRC, he had better be prepared to begin blocking for comments made on Wikipediocracy. Both Kiefer and Ironholds have their forums to vent and complain about other editors. Treat them equally, or ignore them equally and base decisions on on-wiki behaviour. Resolute 03:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754
@Ironholds, while as much as you would like to keep the roles separate, in practice you can't, not with something like that... it affects your ability to be a liaison to the community if you joke about stuff like that in relation to certain members of the community on your off time, in a channel under the #wikipedia / #wikimedia group. (Not that Ironholds' professional role falls under the purview of the community ArbCom but still, it needs saying).

I also feel that better operator management may have resolved matters on the IRC end, by both dealing with the joking as well as the public logging issues. I'm concerned that blocking for off-wiki conduct (with the obvious exception of outing/real-life harassment) skirts very close to the bounds of the scope of the Arbitration Committee, and is grossly inconsistent with enforcement on other Wikimedia sites (will two Spanish Wikipedia users get indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia for attacking each other on the Spanish-language equivalent of WO/WR, just because they have an English Wikipedia account?) --Rschen7754 04:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ks0stm
On the whole I'm not 100% convinced this situation is best suited for arbitration, let alone a full case. I'm half of the opinion that this particular situation could be handled by telling Ironholds and KW (and everyone else) to stick a sock in it and move on, but that may be a bit too optimistic.

On another note, I do believe that a case could be made for an arbitration case focusing on KW. He was the subject of a user conduct request for comment in 2011, and his block log has me far from convinced that his behavior has improved since the RFCU. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 11:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@Kiefer: Restricting IRC to adults identified to the foundation is completely unnecessary. There are a substantial amount of "youth" and non-identified adults who don't cause problems on IRC. What's more, making such a rule is more than likely beyond the power of the foundation (I would imagine it would be a Freenode decision), and is definitely beyond the powers of the Arbitration Committee. With regards to your child protection arguments, I'm not quite sure how they're relevant to the issue at hand, and I definitely think this isn't the place to be presenting them. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 12:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Wehwalt
I have also been the victim of insulting comments by Ironholds on IRC (who also spent, as I recall, much time discussing his liking for scotch, though I draw no connection). I have addressed it by avoiding both Ironholds and IRC, and declining to review his articles. If he and KW are allowing their private little war to spill over onto here, that's an issue, especially if he is using administrative privileges to further it, and if proper evidence is provided, I submit this is the sort of thing that ArbCom is in business to adjudicate. Struck after productive private conversation with Ironholds.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Alanscottwalker
Well, one of those interesting cases where the principals don't seem to need or want arbitration. On one issue, it appears that Fram, in his/her IRC warning glosses over that the comment was said "in private" and not meant to be heard in pubic nor by the target. While that may be a matter of embarrassment (once it gets out) and personal apology, it will be extremely difficult to make a finding of actual "threat," or even "personal" "attack." That makes it different from all public communication. Whether there are other issues here, is up to you. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironholds: It is best you view IRC as "semi-public" from now on. Moreover, that what you do there reflects on you as an administrator here.  For administrators, the reason such "involved" communications should fully take place in public, if at all, is so that the Pedia policy on involved administrators can function properly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Dennis Brown
Personally, I think it is absurd to suggest that off-wiki activity can't be considered in admin status, even while understanding the level of scrutiny is lower for off-wiki acts. If I ran a hate speech website, obviously I should be desysopped even if my actions on-wiki are within policy. That is an extreme example that isn't comparable to this situation but it proves the point that off-wiki activity matters and the only real question is "where does this current situation fit into the grey area?" Does it warrant strong admonishment or some sanction? Should it be quietly declined and ignored? Or am I wrong, and admins are given carte blanche to do or say anything they want off-wiki with no consequences here whatsoever? I don't know enough to draw a conclusion, maybe he was provoked, maybe that matters and maybe it doesn't, but it isn't my place to judge anyway.

I really don't know if Arb should take the case or a motion or whatever (I don't know all the rules here, I avoid it when I can), but if they fail to at least make a strong, unified statement here that provides some perspective and direction, they will have missed an opportunity to provide the leadership that the community desperately needs. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  15:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Add I probably should add that off-wiki comments by everyone should be considered in a dispute, even if weighted differently than on-wiki comments. Even while I hold admin to a much higher standard of conduct, that doesn't mean that non-admin should get a blank check for off-wiki comments either. In this case, it looks like it was off-wiki activity in general that is the core of the problems. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  16:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad Thank you for the thoughtful response, which I think qualifies as doing something. Even when it isn't an "official action", I think it is helpful when someone from the Arbitration Committee takes the time to give a well thought out perspective on the issue as you have done. Whether anyone agrees or not, it still provides direction and clarity. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  02:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Ched
I have no idea about the specifics here, so perhaps not related; BUT if the Arbs are looking for precedent, then there was a case (I think in the 2009 era) where a conversation on IRC led to someone "outing" an editor. User:Law admitted to being the former editor "User:the_undertow". Not only did Law/the_ut get banned, blocked and defrocked, but admins. who even KNEW that he was the_undertow got smacked. I think I know who did the outing too - but without being certain, I won't post the name. Sorry, I don't recall name of the "case" .. but some of the arbs that were arbs back then may remember. — Ched : ?  15:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Count Iblis
Only the behavior here on Wikipedia should matter. Off-Wiki comments should only be examined in order to understand problems that exist here on Wikipedia. If bad off-Wiki behavior spills over to Wikipedia then that is a problem for Wikipedia because of the spillover effects and that can be addressed. But in principle, it doesn't matter how bad you behave off-Wiki, as long as you don't cause problems here. This hard rule is necessary to prevent Wikipedia from being hijacked. The moment we would allow off-Wiki behavior to be relevant in its own right, then that would open the door for all sorts of off-wiki disputes to be raised here by editors to gain an advantage in editing disputes. It would also motivate people to investigate the off-Wiki behavior of people who they have disagreements with here, leading to outing issues. Count Iblis (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Anthonyhcole
On NYB's talk page Giano to  2007 statement by Jimbo:17:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Kudpung
I think  this is probably  the first  time I  have commented on  an Arbcom  case -  I'm not  too  fond of the place, and I'm  sometimes not  satisfied with  the outcomes. I would like to  point  out that the case in  question  is the climax of patterns of long-term behaviour by  some of the mentioned parties, whether it  involves their  interactions with  each  other or with  other members of the community and/or staff. I am  also  of the firm  conviction that  by  necessity, admins and especially  WMF staff should be held to  high standards of behaviour in  order to  maintain  the credibility  of Wikipedia and the confidence that  the community  should have in  its  admins, bureaucrats, and Foundation  employees. Taking Dennis Brown's statement as a cue, I  feel that  in  this case, Arbcom  should assume its responsibilities, demonstrate some leadership, and act accordingly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know too  much  about  the rules and regulations of Arbcom  cases, but  although  I  concur in  principle with Newyorkbrad's decline statement, I  do  feel  that  the issues  being addressed by  the nominator are ones that  reflect  long-term patterns of behaviour by  some of the respondents. I feel that the committee should draft  and issue some joint  statement  on  behaviour in  order to  improve its ability  to  be able to  act  in  situations such  as these, and take long-term  patterns into  consideration rather than adjudicating  on individual events brought  before it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Carrite
A formal statement of the status of IRC relative to WP would be useful. Is the IRC for En-WP or En-WP Administrators part of English Wikipedia itself? Or is it more akin to Wikipediocracy, being an off-site forum for the unfettered exchange of opinions, sometimes phrased in mean terms that would draw sanctions if made on-Wiki? That's a reasonable subject for ArbCom consideration. I personally would like to see WMF's IRC channels shut down completely to force communication onto the Wiki and to bust up cliques, but that's probably outside of the power of ArbCom... Carrite (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@Fram. Accepting what you say as true, then it logically follows that somebody was blowing smoke at me when I was menaced for having "linked" Rich Farmborough to IRC handle "Richy Rich" in an AN/I thread, yes? People can't have these things both ways... Linking a pseudonymous IRC handle to an WP user name, if IRC is an off-wiki resource having no connection whatsoever to WMF, is not in any way, shape, or form "outing," is that correct? Carrite (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another thing which occurs to me, which I will mention here before I do off-site, is that if IRC is found by ArbCom to be an independent, off-wiki entity, accusations of having logged "prohibited" channels would fall outside the aegis of Wikipedia rules; only the remedy of civil law for "copyright violation" would seem to remain. And that, of course, could be neatly dodged with extracts of limited nature under the American doctrine of "fair use." ArbCom really does need to make clear to what extent, if any, the "restricted" channels of IRC are part of Wikipedia. This has pretty big implications, one way or the other. Carrite (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kww
I don't view the behaviour of either party as being acceptable. In Kiefer.Wolfowitz's case, it was his seventh block for personal attacks. I believe my three-month block of Kiefer was well justified, and view the unilateral undoing of that block, sans discussion, by Fram to be a problem. As for Ironholds's comments, I have stated several times, and will state again for the record, that I have no objection to anyone that is capable of verifying the IRC log blocking Ironholds for his part. I'm not going to block because of things that I can not directly verify, and I'm not about to set up an IRC account specifically to personally verify the log. I don't believe that the IRC channel should be used by any admin, and I'm not going to start using it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Begoon
I don't often comment on things like this - so forgive me if I do it wrong. Dennis Brown's comments have the most resonance with me. We elect an arbcom to solve intractable behaviour problems that we, as a community, cannot solve. Editors not wishing to perform that role, even when it is difficult, should not stand for election. Even if for some reason you decide a full case is inappropriate or unworkable, at the very least a motion or a strong statement of principle is surely necessary, and exactly what this committee exists for. You have been asked for guidance - please do not disappoint us. (@AGK: Recusal "because I am a channel op" doesn't seem necessary to me, any more than "recusal because I am an admin" would. I'd expect that status to enhance your relevant knowledge, enabling you to make a vital contribution to the discussion.) Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Note by Beetstra
Note, two of the parties have not had a chance to comment (maybe because it is weekend? Or they are on holiday, or have other obligations or ...), yet two of the arbitrators have already accepted the case within 24 hours of the opening of the case request. Can we please give all involved parties a reasonable time so they have a decent chance to comment? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein
Disclaimer of possible bias: I am commenting here because I recognized Ironholds's user name from a recent disagreement he and I had about a harrassment block by me which he sought to have overturned. I looked at this request to check whether there might be any connection to that disagreement. In general, I agree with Kww above:

Concerning Ironholds: In the IRC log of 26 June 2013 excerpted at (there confirmed as authentic by administrator ),  Ironholds used the wikipedia-en-admins channel to express his desire to rub down a named other editor with oil, and to set them aflame. I am appalled at this. It should go without saying that it is under no circumstances acceptable to express a wish for another editor's death by burning, even as a joke. That the comments were made in a "private" channel is no excuse, because I understand that the channel is potentially accessible to all 1600+ admins, and therefore it is for most intents and purposes public. Irrespective of whether these IRC comments are within the jurisdiction of the Committee in the same way on-wiki edits would be, the Committee should open a case to examine whether these comments are compatible with our expectations in the character and good judgment of a holder of advanced permissions. I believe they are not. Also, the Committee should inform the HR department of the Wikimedia Foundation about this case. I would be very surprised if they believe that discussing how to burn other Wikimedians alive is part of the duties of a Foundation employee.

Concerning Kiefer.Wolfowitz: In the now revdeleted comment at, Kiefer.Wolfowitz threatens Ironholds with bodily harm. I do not understand why this comment did not result in an immediate and indefinite block by the first administrator who read it. There are no valid excuses for such statements, and particularly not provocations by others. I recommend reinstating the three-month block as a minimum.

Concerning Fram: I recommend considering to warn Fram that by unblocking Kiefer.Wolfowitz without community consensus, or at least without the discussion required by the policy WP:RAAA, Fram's unblock had the effect of enabling harrassing conduct. Fram's explanation at shows that they acted in good faith, but, I think, mistakenly: misconduct by one person does not excuse or mitigate misconduct by another. Fram should not have lifted Kiefer.Wolfowitz's block, but should have requested sanctions against Ironholds for his offwiki conduct.  Sandstein  09:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Delicious carbuncle
I am surprised at the lack of good faith being shown here. As I understand it, this whole debacle has been sparked by Ironholds reply to the comment "Well, you grab the oil, I'll meet you there" with "only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter". Some editors have inflamed the situation by taking this to mean that he wants to burn another editor alive! I suggest that other interpretations are possible (if not more likely). Has anyone asked Ironholds to confirm that he meant to suggest burning another editor alive? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter... because I borrowed a copy of Frampton Comes Alive from my uncle and we can wave them around while listening to it."
 * "Only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter... because I think it would be a nicer experience if we smoked a joint while you gave Kiefer a sensuous, oily massage."
 * "Only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter... because it might be dark there and we don't want anyone to trip and hurt themselves."
 * "Only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter... because Kiefer might want some moxibustion."

Comment by Unscintillating
We do not need a safe haven for the admin class of editor to discuss the combination of a specific non-admin editor, oil, and a lighter. What we need is an open door policy, which means either a public transcript of discussions there, or shutting the channel down. Unscintillating (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Fram
It is very hard to explain to non-admins that the official IRC channel for en wikipedia admins is not controlled by or under the authority of any Wikipedia / Wikimedia related organism, and that comments made there are not actionable on Wikipedia. If admins want to make stupid or ill-considered offensive jokes about other editors, they can join Wikipediocracy or a similar environment where such activity is expected, and where the editors can reply in kind if they feel the urge to do so. If there is consensus that comments on en-admin are not actionable here, I'll withdraw my promise to block for comments made there. I stand behind the rest of my actions and comments. Fram (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Feyd Huxtable
I agree with WTT that for the general issue of offsite conduct, an RFC might be best, though no strong opinion on that. What I'd be really disappointed with is if any of the parties are sanctioned, or even cautioned. Describing the lighter joke like this - "... to express his desire to rub down a named other editor with oil, and to set them aflame." - is as gross a distortion as it gets.

It was Tparis who made a harmless if not very realistic joke about giving Keifer a nice oily massage. (Much more comfortable to have a talc massage in this heat): < TParis> "Well, you grab the oil, I'll meet you there." Ironholds replied: "only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter." - [diff that seems to show an extract of the IRC logs

Take away the humour from Ironhold's remark and the essence is "No I emphatically would not like to give Keifer a massage!" . In as much as the remark has a subtext of hostility towards Keifer, it was of a non hurtful kind, arguably even a compliment acknowledging Keifer as a worthy opponent.

What are our literal minded enforcers going to descend to next, perhaps permabanning someone for posting a pic of trout, claiming "The editor threatened me with a painful, potentially deadly blow to the head,  from an object weighing up to 50Lbs!"!!?

On a more general note, I agree the Wikipedia seems to be getting more stressful and less collegial. I even agree with short blocks for aggressive editors, (especially when not aggression between equals) and for blocks of a few weeks for extreme profanity. But we're only going to make things worse if we make a huge deal about every hint of direct aggression. Wikipedia relys on amateurs, the word amateur means someone motivated by love and passion as opposed to money. Passionate people need to vent occasionally, or else either suffer ill health or take it out unfairly on innocents. This reminds me of the master strategist Ikip who warned over 4 years ago that passive aggression is king on Wikipedia. Things have only got worse. One change that might help would be if conflicts were defused by more elegant ways than long blocks, or even long public text based DR. Its looks like the KW <> Ironholds conflict may already have ran its course, but if it does flare up again, just ask them to contact each other for a voice call on skype. Switching medium is a classic cure for folk who have developed hostility due to text discussion (e.g. folk collaborating on global projects via email). With KW & Ironholds, they have at least a dozen traits in common, and the method would most likely work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Only in death
I was not going to say anything until NW's CU/OS post popped up. Its all very well for Arbcom to deny it has any duty to preside over IRC, but when you are actively seeking members of IRC ("Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission.")[] its a bit of a farce to wring your hands when abuse in IRC channels pops up. Of course as Arbcom you actually have the ability to solve this very quickly by motion/s. 1. Ironholds is admonished for conduct unbecoming of an Admin and is reminded that future instances on wiki or off, may result in a desysop. 2. KW is admonished for over-reacting and reminded that violent threats, even when provoked, have no place on wikipedia. 3. The community needs to have a discussion to see if IRC channels devoted to wikipedia should be formally included as 'on-wiki' for the purposes of arbitration. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are IRC channels that are devoted to, and utilised specifically for, wikipedia related business. At an admin, CU & OS level. These are restricted to members of the community who have the relevant authority.
 * While wikipedia related admin-level tasks are being planned & implemented via IRC discussion, as an extension of the discussion process on-wiki, its clear that it should be considered under Arbcom (and by extension, the community) authority. Would you argue that anything on the arbcom mailing list is not under your authority if someone starts misbehaving there?
 * Ironholds is an admin, with access to admin-only IRC channel. His conduct there is by its nature, wrapped up with his admin authority. His status as a WMF employee is pretty irrelevant. Arbcom certainly does have have the ability to look at an administrators ongoing conduct to see if its up to what the community expects.
 * Should a case be opened, I am pretty sure (as I suspect everyone else here is) more logs could be produced to show ongoing conduct issues on IRC.

Comment by Nick
Kiefer produced evidence above which included a comment I made regarding canvassing taking place via IRC channels. I can confirm this evidence is correct and that I have evidence (in the form of logs) that show this to be the case. The channel operators (of which I am one in most channels, just not -en-admins) have in the past taken a fairly hard line against canvassing but because of the way IRC can be accessed and the degree of anonymity available for IRC users, it can be extremely challenging or impossible to prevent them from canvassing, especially if they speak to users privately via the PM feature. It would be useful to have, in writing, that canvassing and other problematic behaviour can and will result in sanctions against accounts on the English Wikipedia (I'd leave the task of defining the boundaries of what qualifies as problematic behaviour open to the Wikipedia community and IRC users). Nick (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Cla68
Are the IRC channels hosted on WMF or Wikia servers? If so, what is said there is actionable and sanctionable by WP's administration and the Committee. It's so clear that I think a simple motion could resolve this quickly because it is clear who violated the policies. Cla68 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is Freenode? Also, are the chats on IRC visible to the public?  If so, then canvassing is not an issue.  Cla68 (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Collect
Are the IRC channels directly linked to from any Wikipedia page? That would constitute a direct nexus between Wikipedia and the IRC channels, I surmise. It is not necessary to be "on the same server" if a link of that sort exists which a normal person would regard as a connection. Collect (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Geni
Since my actions aren't the focus of this case and it would take a fair bit of digging for difs to explain them I'm not going to comment unless the case is accepted.

For those asking about IRC see freenode and IRC.Geni (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by SirFozzie
I would suggest that the Committee look at something like the Racepacket decision, and tell the main parties not to comment publicly on the other with regards to Wikipedia. Time to put up a large wall between the two. SirFozzie (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Pedro
Sigh. Could a clerk review this andthis. I can't see how Keifer's increasingly bizarre claims are helping anyone, and the addition of a bunch of admins he basically doesn't like to this case isn't likely to help. Pedro : Chat  15:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Clerks, thanks for fixing the list. I'm not responding to Keifer per WP:DENY. He's enjoying his trolling, and if everyone else wants to go along with it, then that's fine by me :-) Pedro : Chat  18:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO
The committee should reject this case. Keifer is reaching the point of exhausting the community's patience....which is a shame as I had hoped he would chill out. --MONGO 18:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Deskana
I normally avoid commenting on these sorts of things as comments quickly get buried and are often mostly irrelevant, but I feel that the following needs saying. Should this case be accepted, any remedies that pass which affect IRC access may be troublesome to implement. For example, as one of the channel contacts for #wikipedia-en-help (the other being Thehelpfulone), I can say with confidence that I would not ban or otherwise alter a user's access to that channel simply because the Arbitration Committee demands it. I am not under the Committee's jurisdiction in my management of that, or other, channels.

The Committee should carefully consider its remit before proceeding with this case.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax
I am a former participant on IRC, and withdrew for reasons having to do with my concerns about IRC being a sort of "in crowd" off-wiki communications channel that many editors don't even know exists. However, IRC serves some useful functions, so I have held my concerns back. I suggest a very well-advertised Rfc on the subject of IRC and issues involving volunteer user access to it so that subjects brought up here and elsewhere, including personal attacks on IRC, may be addressed by the editing community prior to an ArbCom case with a decision regarding IRC. I make no comment regarding the dispute between the parties involved, as I am utterly unfamiliar with the issues. Jus da  fax   21:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Giano
The Arbitration Committee seems resolute that J Wales was wrong and that it has no control over IRC. That some may feel is odd, but it seems even more odd to me that there is no control over the Wikipdia name - can we now all use that name to endorse a product in our private lives? No, of course we can't. IRC uses the Wikipedia name because it is endorsed by Wikipedia. However, the project could certainly remove that endorsement, but the truth is that it doesn't want to. Similarly, Admins could be officially discouraged from using the IRC Admin channel which over the years has acquired a more than dubious reputation - the project can also de-sysop Admins for bringing the project into disrepute while posting on IRC, but again it doesn't want to. The sad truth is that the IRC Admin Channel is most definitely a part of Wikipedia, but it's a part that is exclusive and out of control, purely because no one is courageous enough to try and control it; also, those privileged enough to belong (most of the Arbs), love it as it is. Which is unfortunate for those abused and ridiculed within its hallowed precincts.  Giano  21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Kurtis
I virtually never go on IRC (in fact, I've probably only logged in about four or five times in total), but I have no problem with people who do. So a number of editors socialize outside of Wikipedia, so what? You'll never stop people from being people, and if you didn't have IRC, they'd just chat through email or some other social networking service. That being said, I am very much against administrators or anyone else making important decisions amongst themselves in a non-public venue. Transparency is important, and not just for the convenience of other contributors, but also for editor retention. Aside from Wikipedia, I've been an active contributor to other Wikia fan sites, as well as independent Wikipedia-inspired domains powered by MediaWiki software. By far the most significant among these for me has been the Zelda Wiki, essentially a fansite written in an encyclopedic style that covers topics pertaining to The Legend of Zelda video game franchise; for those who are interested, my userpage is located [http://www.zeldawiki.org/User:Kurtis_C. here]. I particularly enjoyed editing articles related to The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, which generally involved uploading several screenshots (covered under fair use, of course), writing multiple different articles from scratch, adding music tracks to pages (albeit via YouTube; unfortunately, the site had a programming issue which prevented .ogg files from being uploaded), and copyediting large swathes of text. Yet within a month or two, it became glaringly obvious that the place was run by a small clique of prominent editors &mdash; and I really do mean that they have complete and unmitigated control over every single aspect of the site's maintenance. They will literally track your every move, paying close attention to all the minute details of any given edit. They will even go out of their way to call people out for making several edits to a single page instead of using the preview button, simply because it "clogs up" their recent changes filter. They make most of the important decisions on Skype. No, I'm not making this up. It was actually confirmed to me in a private email from one of their most prominent contributors, who also told me that they were actively discussing my activities there as well. The Zelda Wiki is built around a hierarchy, where the bourgeois patrollers and administrators convene in private to discuss matters of policy enforcement whilst the proletarian editors are left out in the dark. There was never a time when I didn't feel like an outsider there.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand. I've had my own relatively limited experiences with both Kiefer and Ironholds, having specifically interacted with the latter on IRC several months back. I'm not sure about the remits of publicly logging private conversations and I don't intend for this to be misinterpreted in an overtly negative way, but I would like to bring up my conversation with Ironholds as more of an anecdote within the context of this case than anything else. Out of sheer boredom and hoping to strike up a conversation with someone, I decided to send him a friendly one-on-one message with neither malicious intent nor provocative overtones. As I recall, it was written something like this: "Hey! =)" Not more than ten seconds later, I received a response which I found to be beautifully endearing in every sense of the term: "Fuck off." Now, obviously I was very impressed by his welcoming demeanour, but just in case he was unfamiliar with me, I went ahead and asked him something along the following lines: "OK? You do know who I am, right?" He then told me that he was acting under the assumption that I was one of those "IRC trolls" who made his life miserable. I explained who I was (specifically that I formerly edited as "Master&Expert"), and then we talked for a brief period of time &mdash; it was nothing unpleasant, just a typical conversation about Wikipedia, Skyrim, and some other nonsense I can't remember for the life of me. He even admitted that he was "ever-so-slightly drunk" at the time, so I'll exonerate him for his misdeeds &mdash; bearing this in mind, I'll forgive him if he hasn't the foggiest idea of what in God's name I'm talking about. Thus, my only advice for him would be to try not to go online so much while under the influence of absinthe. ;-)

With regards to Kiefer, I'm really starting to take issue with the way he's been carrying on lately, particularly at RFA. I thought he had improved since his RfC/U from 2011, but now he appears to have lapsed back into his past temperament issues. It is disappointing to see how his relationship with the community has deteriorated, but it's not going to get any better until he adopts a totally different attitude.

Long story short, I think it's probably best that ArbCom takes this case on, reviews the evidence, and offers their position on how the community should handle IRC-related concerns from here on out. We can't continue to brush this longstanding issue under the rug any longer. Wikipedia is evolving. Backroom dealings should be a thing of the past. Kurtis (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Scott Martin
It appears that very little has changed since 2007. Anyone considering #wikipedia-en-admins, how it reflects on Wikipedia, and Arbcom's relationship to it, should read that page and its talk page as well. —  Scott  •  talk  11:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification (November 2013)

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&direction=prev&oldid=582917236#Clarification_request:_Kiefer.Wolfowitz_banned Original discussion]

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


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned
 * Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * The above users have been notified of this request as shown by the included links.—John Cline (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by John Cline
Richwales raised a question regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talk page edits in relation to his Arbcom ban. Equazcion subsequently posted the incident at wp:ani 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 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". 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  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)
 * in saying K.W should be allowed to continue with his "collaborative and constructive endeavour", are you suggesting K.W deserves a unique policy exemption from wp:ban, or that all banned editors should be allowed to operate their respective accounts from their user talk page, unhindered; to engage in "constructive collaborations"?—John Cline (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , You are correct that this clarification request poses the question(s) of the committee. I am encouraged that so many users are commenting from a broad perspective, opposed to narrowly focusing on the !voting issues alone.—John Cline (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * you don't mute a discussion because the question is moot; instead, you ensure the question is throughly mooted.—John Cline (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sjakkalle is correct! Prolonged tolerance of K.W's talk page misconduct (while banned) is a primary factor leading me to ask these questions here. Consider that a user asked if K.W's talk page edits were allowed by the terms of his ban. An administrator (of high competence) answers, saying yes . Shortly thereafter, another administrator (highly regarded as well) concurs with the answer given, reiterating that Kiefer's ban allowed talk page participation while suggesting the talk page would be blocked if the alternative (Kiefer not being allowed to edit his talk page) were true. The admins' combined counsel is solidified when next, an esteemed sitting arbitrator edits K.W's talk page with conversational prose and a clear intent to collaborate directly with K.W . Two more edits follow,  bolstering the misnomer that collaborating with a banned user does not contravene the effect of a ban.—John Cline (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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 '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)

,, 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  &#38;L  11:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

 * This statement was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKiefer.Wolfowitz&action=view&diff=581323310 posted] by Kiefer.Wolfowitz to his talk page and was copied here by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 12:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC).

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, 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 (formerly ) 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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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&mdash;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)


 * 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)

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)
 * @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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 '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   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. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 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  and  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.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

@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)
 * @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)

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)
 * @ 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)

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)

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.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@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  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  01:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@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.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  04:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@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 &#124; talk✌ 23:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

Clerk notes

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


 * I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKiefer.Wolfowitz&action=view&diff=581316114 informed] Kiefer.Wolfowitz that if he'd like to make a statement he can make in his talk page and someone will copy it over to here for him. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Recuse as I commented in the case, and also have a voters' guide this year. --Rschen7754 18:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse Worm TT( talk ) 10:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Recuse on this specific issue  Roger Davies  talk 12:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Recuse. I will leave this matter to my colleagues with 2013–14 terms to decide. AGK  [•] 13:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Recuse as well, because I was recused in the underlying case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)