Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement

Case opened on 01:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch Front], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch Ev.], [/index.php?title=/Workshop&action=watch Wshp.], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch PD.]

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Prior dispute resolution

 * User talk:GorillaWarfare diff
 * User talk:Eric Corbett diff
 * WP:AN (no diff)

Statement by GregJackP
made a comment on his talk page that could be construed as violating his GGTF tban. A discussion took place at WP:AE, and admin closed the discussion as no action per consensus. who was aware of the discussion at AE, wheel-warred by reverting Black Kite's actions by blocking Eric Corbett. This has been discussed at WP:AN, but wheel-warring allegations are to be brought directly to ArbCom. The specific points that appear to be violations are:
 * Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action, and
 * Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation

GorillaWarfare admitted that she was aware of the existing discussion and AE close here.

Black Kite stated that his administrator action in closing the AE without action was undone without consultation here.

It is clear that Eric Corbett could have been blocked for a tban, whether he was blocked or not is not the issue in this case. The issue is whether an ArbCom member/admin can unilaterally take their preferred action after deliberately ignoring an AE discussion, and abruptly undoing another admin's no-block close of that AE discussion without consulting either with him or others. GregJackP  Boomer!   04:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Bbb23, I would agree, except that the admin instructions clearly state that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy. Here, GW reversed in substance an action taken by BK pursuant to AE. GregJackP   Boomer!   04:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand but disagree. See, , , , , , , and so on. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Thryduulf, I don't have a problem if this is changed to a motion for clarification, although I believe that GW's actions were clearly inappropriate, at the least the issue at AE needs further definition, see.


 * As to the numerous comments on whether this should be rejected or not, I'll leave that to the judgment of the committee members. I obviously think that it needs to be addressed. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Ncmvocalist: I concur with his comments, and he was much more articulate and clear than I have been. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If nothing else, this needs to be clarified: two well respected admins, Jehochman and Kevin Gorman have opposing views. See and . Only one of them can be correct. It is better to determine that here, rather than in countless debates at other locations.  GregJackP   Boomer!   22:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GorillaWarfare
I have yet to hear from anyone who feels that Eric Corbett did not violate his topic ban.

Whether the closure of the AE discussion was legitimate seems to be somewhat up for debate. Whether the closure of a discussion at AE constitutes an "admin action" should certainly be clarified. Whether my action was wheel warring against a consensus at WP:AE is up to others to decide, but I've yet to see anyone who feels the discussion at AE was complete or representative of the issue at hand. I enforced sanctions that Eric Corbett unequivocally breached, and I've yet to see anyone deny that he breached the sanctions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
Right, firstly, the title of this case is misleading. GW did not wheel-war under the definition, she simply - at worst - reversed my decision to take no action. OK, that's been fixed. The reason that I posted at AN was that there seems to be a paradox under the AE rules. If an administrator blocks someone under AE, they cannot be reversed by another admin without a community discussion. However if an administrator declines to block someone under an AE case, it appears they can then be blocked anyway - as has happened here. This to me seems illogical. However, it is something that should be discussed somewhere other than an ArbCom case, unless ArbCom wish to take it to issue clarification on the issue. Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved Reaper Eternal
I stand by my close, which I'll copy here for your pleasure:

"Urgh, this is a mess. My reading of consensus is that there is a leaning that GorillaWarfare's block was a bit out of process, given that Black Kite had already closed the WP:AE report as 'no action taken'. There is definitely no consensus here for a block; indeed, the results seem to show a slight consensus in favor of unblocking. A pure vote count shows a 60/40 split in favor of unblocking. Wikipedia's blocking policy is designed such that the default state for editors is unblocked, and thus, given the lack of consensus for Eric Corbett's block, I am unblocking him now. It is unfair to let editors languish blocked because people cannot agree on the appropriate sanctions, thus leaving the most severe sanction implemented in effect. I would like to encourage GorillaWarfare to pay more attention to consensus and the prior decisions of other admins at various noticeboards before taking unilateral action. On a similar note, I would like to request that the accusations of 'involved blocks' and 'wheel warring' stop. GorillaWarfare did not wheel war, since a reversal of a previous admin action is not wheel warring. (The first potential 'wheel warring' action would be my unblock, except that I am taking action based on the [lack of] consensus here.) Additionally, no evidence has been shown that she is involved with Eric in a non-admin case. Voting to ban in an arbitration motion is an admin (well, arbitrator) action. I would like to advise Eric Corbett to take what some of the voters here have mentioned to heart and recognize that he is indeed topic-banned from WP:GGTF. The consensus seems to be that the potential violation was of insignificant magnitude, not that no violation occurred. Nothing good is coming of publicly complaining about the GGTF mailing list. Finally, to the admin who said on IRC (in a burst of anger, not seriously) that he would like to give Eric a bath in hydroflouric acid, do not repeat anything of the kind, on wiki or IRC, or I will block you for a significant period of time. You know who you are. It is not appropriate, and is indeed way worse than someone bitching about a post on a mailing list and potentially violating a topic ban. If I see any more comments of a similar sort from anybody referring to anyone, I will hand out blocks without further warning. I am not covering the other topics mentioned here; namely, whether or not to close the WP:AE board or whether to limit arbitrators from taking action on WP:AE. I would like to encourage the proposers to perhaps wait several days to a week for hot tempers to die down before re-proposing their proposals. Furthermore, such proposals belong on the idea lab village pump if you are trying to clarify your proposal or the policy village pump if you are ready to make your proposal. Additionally, such significant changes would need to be advertised on the centralized discussion template so more than just the AN/I crowd can weigh in. Thanks to all of you all for your time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)"

My opinion and reading of consensus stands: GorillaWarfare did not wheel war, and neither did I, since my actions were based off the community's decision. Furthermore, the process of appealing arbitration enforcement blocks was, largely, followed. Yes, the letter of the law may have been slightly broken (request not filed by Eric himself), but the spirit was not. I regularly unblock editors who misfile their unblock requests, since the purpose of the unblocking policy is to get editors unblocked. It is not an end in itself. It is merely one of many means to an end.

I would like to re-iterate what I hinted at above in my close. The blocking policy is designed such that the default state for any editor is unblocked. This is why reversals of admin actions are permitted while re-reversals are not, so that users are not stuck blocked while everyone has a big argument over the merits of the block. The spirit of the blocking policy was not being followed in this case because Eric was being left blocked while deliberations were ongoing. This is not a fair scenario. Either appropriate sanctions supported by consensus must be placed, or else Eric needs to be unblocked. It was clear from the administrators' noticeboard discussion that there was definitely no consensus to block, and, indeed, there was a slight consensus to unblock. For that reason, I unblocked Eric.

Several people have been trying to point out to me that arbitration enforcement blocks cannot be overturned. However, when they fly in the face of consensus, they can be overturned. This was the case. Otherwise, any arbitration enforcement blocks are absolute, and the admin placing them has absolute power over them. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Finally, Courcelles can make blanket claims until the stars fall, but the Arbitration Committee cannot override the blocking policy as implemented by the community. Yes, I was aware of this when I closed, and yes, I was aware of what potential consequences that Courcelles, and by extension, the Arbitration Committee, might seek for my crime of lèse-majesté. I thought it through, and then I made my decision: I am an admin to enforce the will of the community and to remove unwanted editors like vandals and sockpuppets. Accordingly, I followed the blocking policy as implemented by the community and unblocked Eric Corbett. I am not an administrator to serve as the Arbitration Committee's hired thug&mdash;by that I mean that I will not bow to blanket demands by arbitrators that run afoul of the spirit of the policies and guidelines the community has implemented and that have served us well over the years. If the Arbitration Committee thinks that this makes me unacceptable as an admin and wants to prevent dissidence, so be it. If they want to make themselves the Supreme DictatorsTM of Wikipedia, there is little I or any other admin can do to stop them. I can't fight the GovCom. I elected ArbCom to resolve disputes, not to boss everyone around.

I am of the belief that one should do what is right, regardless of any potential personal loss. And thus, I have acted. And thus, I will be judged. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

}
 * As an addendum, I would like to add this table which illustrates the only two possible courses of action, and why my action is the logical conclusion to either path.


 * There are no other options. I hope this clarifies why my action was justified. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just informed of a potential issue that I have added as clause #2, which adds scenarios #3 and #4. I had always assumed that the answer to clause #2 was "no". Scenario #3 runs into issues with the potential for independent admins colliding&mdash;it's a bit of a paradox. Scenario #4, which I hadn't initially considered, results in my unblock being probably out of process. However, it also runs into a very, very serious "blocker advantage", where all it takes is one admin to make a claim that their block is an arbitration enforcement block, and suddenly a "no consensus to block" can become "user is indefblocked" and effectively banned by one single admin. Clause #1 and clause #2 are not well defined, so I still believe my actions were done for the best based on what was known at the time, regardless of what the end result will be. ArbCom seriously needs to look at this to define the answers to the clauses. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd encourage ArbCom to accept this case to review the following:
 * Does closure of an WP:AE report constitute an admin action?
 * If a report is closed, can another admin decide to take action anyway?
 * Does "no action taken" have the same protection as "blocked for anywhere from one hour to indefinite"?
 * Do arbitration enforcement blocks require an WP:AE reports?
 * Did GorillaWarfare unilaterally revoke an arbitration enforcement action? If this is found to be the case, I would urge a very light sanction, if any at all, due to the ambiguity of the above four questions.
 * Does community consensus, or lack thereof, allow an admin to overturn an arbitration enforcement block made after the report was closed by another admin?
 * Did my action constitute a violation of the protection of arbitration enforcement blocks? I would encourage the arbitrators to read my table and the first four questions above to note the ambiguity in what action admins can take.
 * Finally, I would like to point out that all four admins who took action here, Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Adjwilley, and lastly myself did so in good faith, believing that we are following the intent of the policies Wikipedia has implemented. Thus, if it is possible for four different admins to all come to such drastically different conclusions, clarification of the blocking policy and discretionary sanctions is probably needed. Mass de-sysopping / de-arbing / blocking is probably unnecessary. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: Leaving Eric blocked for the duration of this case is a dick move. A bunch of admins cannot even agree on what the sanction, if any, should be. Thus, it isn't fair to block someone for what may later be determined to be inappropriate. Additionally, if you've noticed, I left Callenecc's blocks alone. This is because they were applied according to policy, and it was immaterial whether I approved of them or not. I removed GorillaWarfare's block per the discussion and it not adhering to policy. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my involvement: Almost every admin is or has been involved in Eric's blocks at some point or another. Additionally, I am much more friendly with GorillaWarfare than with Eric, so accusations of me being WP:INVOLVED are moot&mdash;if I were acting based on what friends say, I'd be supporting the block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: As one of the two primary admins being accused of misconduct (the other being GorillaWarfare), am I not allowed some exemption to the 500 word rule? This isn't some simplistic "he violated 3RR" or "she wheel warred", so I need to be able to explain, in depth, the reasoning for my actions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Gorman
In summary:
 * Reaper Eternal should have all of his advanced privileges stripped by motion for intentionally and knowingly violating one of arbcom's most well accepted red-lines. Reaper knew full well what he was doing, and the ordinary penalties for doing it  He may be a good checkuser, but the judgement he has demonstrated here demands that his CU and sysop bits to be stripped, possibly to be restored later by their appropriate processes.
 * Eric's original block duration should be reinstated ASAP, because it was removed out of process. If he wants to appeal it, he can appeal it.
 * A 'no action' close - particularly a rapid one - is not an 'enforcement decision' per policy. If it were, anyone could find a friendly admin to rapidly close ae sections about them thus dodging sanctions or people could collaborate to quickly file a AE with an admin arranged irresponsibly off wiki to enforce the harshest punishment possible. If this happened, we could deal with it with a lot of unnecessary drama and desysop cases.
 * Black Kite deserves a trout for closing the AE so early, when so few admins and so many of Eric's friends had chimed in. I had certainly not had a chance to chime in.
 * Gorilla may deserve a minor trout. If Arb majority view (and I view this as a serious error) is that a no action AE close is an 'enforcement action' then any action taken against GW should take in to fact that that was not at all established when she acted (whereas Reaper knew exactly what he was doing,) that Black Kite had left the AE thread open for an abnormally short period of time, and the fact that she was in fact enforcing an arb decision with appropriate block length.  At best she should be minorly admonished by motion. She could have reopened the AE thread, but enforcing the violation (that everyone agrees is a violation) of Eric's topic ban is well within her power. In no circumstances should GW's penalties, if any, approach Reaper Eternal's.
 * Issues regarding AE policy - like the appropriate length of time a section should be open and other revisions - can be handled by the community.
 * RGloucester behaved in a significantly problematic way. For word count reasons, I'll share my description of what I think he did wrong for the evidence phase. For word counts, not responding to his accusations here.
 * Adjwiley deserves admiration for being willing to even consider closing the ANI thread, and has already made the wise choice not to shorten the block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Arbs supporting the idea that a no action close is an enforcement decision - you realize you're shooting yourself in the foot and greatly limiting the utility of AE, as outlined above? People can shop friendly (or unfriendly) admins, and then get the decisions they want.  If a No action close is an 'enforcement decision' in the meaning of policy, it's not at all clear that even reopening the discussion would be permissible. This would allow massive manipulation of AE. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Having seen that there's now a majority to accept, I would highly encourage all arbs to resolve this as much as possible by motion, rather than full case. Most if not all can certainly be fixed with motions Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Re Reaper: I think that his explicit decline to self-revert his unblock of Eric, despite the fact that even poorly formed AE blocks require consensus to overturn that is lacking here and despite the fact that this was clearly an AE block makes it even more clear that he needs to be stripped of his advanced tools. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RGloucester
In general, I have no involvement in this matter, and am not concerned with the particulars of the case. In response to the allegations by a Mr Gorman, I will make my response simple. I do not know what "wheel-warring" is. I did not think it was appropriate for Mr Gorman, an involved party in the discussion with strong opinions, to remove another administrator-in-good-standing's well-written assessment of consensus and closing statement, which he used as justification for an unblocking, without first having gone through a closure review. Therefore, I reverted per WP:BRD. In fact, given that these events were already being developed in an arbitration case, it was almost certain that the matter would be dealt with here, making such an overturning disruptive to the process. I do not think that Mr Gorman's statement about "policy violations" makes much sense. Whether the closing statement was a "policy violation" or not is not for Mr Gorman to decide unilaterally. It is a matter for the Committee or the community to decide. I imagine that the Committee will make that determination here. Mr Gorman's removal of the closing statement was nothing more than an attempt to throw a spanner in the works, and also to force his own interpretation of policy through without regard of the consensus in the discussion or of the other ongoing processes. Finally, I find my addition to this case as a party both offensive and misleading. Mr Gorman is muddying the waters, has threatened me on my talk page, and shown behaviour that is unbecoming of administrator. Regardless of other matters pertaining to this case, of which I am not familiar, I imagine that Mr Gorman should be stripped of his rank for threatening the citizenry and for attempting to issue diktats without the standing to do so. RGloucester — ☎ 19:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Mr Gorman has continued to push his view on everyone else, as it seems is his habit. I would like to once again remind my colleagues here that Mr Gorman, as an involved party in this matter, should not've unilaterally overturned the AN closure, and should've left it to the Committee. His continued campaign in this matter warrants note, and should, as I said above, result in the immediate stripping of his rank. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Arbitrators, is the case preliminarily named Enforcement of previous ArbCom decisions or AE closes, timelines, and independent admin actions? One needs to be picked for consistency; the level two section header says the former, while the "Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter" section uses the latter. Can I indent your second comment, consistent with common practice?  Do you want to be marked as recused on this case formally? You are not currently so marked. Thanks, L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 02:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Darned, I read that tally wrong... my bad, no action needed from you. (The rest of the note earlier still stands for the other arbs.) Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 05:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly couldn't care less about indentations (it is not a threaded discussion), do what you think fits best. Courcelles (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <11/0/2/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
 * Awaiting statements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Accept. ReaperEternal makes a good point with the outcome table, and if nothing else, I think clarification is urgently needed here. I would accept with a view more toward providing such clarification than applying sanctions and/or desysops all over the place, though without prejudice to any such if there were egregious problems. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will, quite obviously, not be active on this case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not? Yes, I should formally be marked as recused. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just changed the name of the case to something which I felt was more appropriate; if any of my colleagues can come up with anything more accurate, please feel free to change the name again without consulting me. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of grey areas in policy which should be clarified (for instance, when is it appropriate to speedily close an AE thread, should arbitrators be enforcing previous arbcom decisions, is a "no action" closure of an AE thread an admin action?) and, to that end, a case may be useful, which is why at the moment I am leaning toward accepting this request, though I welcome further statements from the community, especially from those members who are familiar with the workings of AE. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is declining to take an admin action itself an admin action within the rules of modifying arbitration sanctions. I answer this an unequivocal no. I could not disagree more. As I've said elsewhere, closing an AE thread is a. a decision on the merits of the report and b. an action restricted to admins; it may not require the use of admin tools, but it requires admin status and, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it's an admin action. As this disagreement proves, there is the need to clarify the grey areas in policy; to do that, we need a case, which, incidentally, would also give us the perfect opportunity to publish a set of principles codifying best practices to help admins who are already enforcing our decisions and those who would like to start. For that, accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone who has said this was not wheel warring, as wheel warring requires at least three admin actions and regardless of your point of view there were at most two here. Speaking personally, I feel there were two admin actions here - the closing of the AE discussion, and GorillaWarfare's block (not that either are examples of good admin actions). I'm not sure whether this point needs a full case or just a motion of clarification. There is also the question of when it is appropriate to speedily close an AE thread, I have some thoughts on this but I'm inclined to think they would be better presented as part of a community discussion rather than as an official statement of an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no need at all for there to be any resignations or removals of admin bits in this case. GW was explicitly acting as an admin not an arbitrator, and a very frequent principle we adopt is "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." (e.g. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione). No accusations have been made that this is part of a pattern of misconduct so resignation or desysopping would seem at this juncture not to be proportionate outcomes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the first case request brought against a sitting committee member, but I can't immediately bring to mind previous examples to link to (Newyorkbrad is often good at remembering that sort of stuff), but remember Chase me ladies is a former arbitrator who served with some of the present committee and he did not get preferential treatment (note I was recused from that case and not a party to internal discussions). If a case is accepted, it will be heard by all the non-recused arbitrators and discussion will take place on the -b or -c mailing lists from which GW (and anyone else who recuses from the case) will be unsubscribed for the duration of the case. Those non-recused arbitrators will hear the case fairly and impartially exactly as we do for all other cases. There is no "reserve committee" - every committee member individually received majority support from the community to hear all cases, regardless of participants, and trusted our judgement to recuse when we had a conflict of interest or otherwise felt we would not be neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Accept to look at what clarification is needed regarding closures of AE discussions and actions taken regarding closed AE discussions in general and this instance in particular. To avoid anything getting messy and confusing, if there are ongoing issues regarding the conduct of any party that is broader than this specific incident that should be subject to a separate arbitration request iff prior steps of dispute resolution have been exhausted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I do not consider the level of the actual sanction part of this request (beyond determining, that, yes, it was a violation of the topic ban), Eric can easily appeal that himself, and I think, after reading the AN, he would be unblocked in process if he did so. What we're here for is the process in which the sanction was imposed -- the entire matter hangs on one issue:  Is declining to take an admin action itself an admin action within the rules of modifying arbitration sanctions.  I answer this an unequivocal no. The policy talks about modifying sanctions being prohibited, and a non-sanction cannot be construed as a sanction; at least under the procedures that apply to enforcing arbitration sanctions.  In this specific case, though, I think the close by Black Kite of the AE thread was a terrible decision; because whatever sanction was or wasn't warranted, the filing was not baseless (it was clearly a breach of the topic ban in place), and dismissing it after three and a half hours with very little commentary (and a decent proportion of even that being criticism against the filing party). But, an AE consensus, or even filing, has never and should never be required to enforce direct sanctions of the committee. (Or DS, really, but enforcing a direct sanction should be a much clearer case.)  Decline Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To, I am aware of one instance in which a sitting arbitrator was admonished as part of a final decision in a case. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Accept In the light of Reaper Eternal's action, we have no choice. Courcelles (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to do this, but as the case evolves and I reflect on things, might be somewhat better to step away from it. Recuse. Courcelles (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Recuse. L Faraone  23:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Accept, but I will recuse from any findings or remedies regarding . L Faraone  01:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Accept per, who sums it up very well. Everyone is acting in good faith, but there is a considerable lack of clarity on the appropriate way forward. I think it likely this can ultimately be resolved by motion rather than PD, but let's have the conversation via the case structure so everyone gets a say (and if there's any genuine conduct issues, these can be aired in a formal forum). -- Euryalus (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In general, dismissing an enforcement request (by closing it as "no action") is itself an enforcement decision. However, it is clear that this point is widely misunderstood. Accept to examine conduct within this incident and to clarify the underlying guidelines for administrators. Having voted, I have a couple of additional brief remarks. First, closing as no action plainly is an enforcement decision. If one administrator bins a complaint, then another fishes it out of the garbage and hands out a ban, it is ludicrous to say the second administrator has not overruled the first. Dismissing an enforcement request is still an enforcement action, and to write procedure without accepting that point is to give an enormous upper hand to trigger-shy, biased, or incompetent sysops. Second, Sandstein's submission is wrong: the Standard provision: appeals and modifications procedure clause allows bad closures to be overturned by appeal. AGK  [•] 14:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Accept  Roger Davies  talk 17:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please get your statements down to around the 500-word mark please? (See notice at the top of the page) Essentials now are fine. You can always submit more on the /Evidence when the case is opened.   Roger Davies  talk 20:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure ... a bit of leeway, but you're four times over the limit. The purpose of this page is only really to decide if it's worth opening a case. You don't need to put your whole case, just a summary.  Roger Davies  talk 20:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Accept Doug Weller (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Accept, for   the issues involving specific editors, and also for the clarification of general issues.  DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Accept -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Accept for NativeForeigner by Mailing list. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, this vote is for NativeForeigner who is able to read WP right now, but not edit it. I've changed the wording above. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Motion



 * Proposed:

Enacted: L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ''Paragraphs (2) and (3) rescinded on 12:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC). See motion below.'' - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 12:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support:
 * Can someone add links please?  Roger Davies  talk 21:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I would have preferred it to be broader (as discussed on the mailing list) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 21:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 21:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely yes. The back and forth has to end here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have qualms like Thryduulf, but i'm in less opposition about them. It seems decent enough in it's current state.-- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  01:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * voting late but for the record. Doug Weller (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Imperfect but gets the job done", NativeForeigner by email,   Roger Davies  talk 05:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I've added links. Would you like me to ME a bit for style, readability, etc? L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 21:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger, did you mean the actual requests/threads like I think you mean? -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad, I'll add those in as well if you want me to. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 23:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I just don't want the "well you didn't specify which page" argument to come up on enforcement. Roger can revert/change the links if he disagrees. So, yes, please make them the specific threads. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is necessary to stop any more drama, and by definition therefore a good idea. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Motion rescinding temporary injunction and granting an amnesty
Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering: the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and  the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Passed 6-0 with 3 abstentions on 12:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC), and enacted 12:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision = All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are are undertaken in good faith.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee
2) The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve (§ Arbitration Policy). Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are often thereafter subject to ongoing special enforcement arrangements, such as discretionary sanctions. From time to time the committee may revisit these enforcement systems – in order to, for example, clarify ambiguities or to evaluate whether they remain necessary.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement
3) Arbitration enforcement (AE) is the noticeboard, set up by the Arbitration Committee and staffed by administrators, for editors to report suspected breaches of arbitration decisions. When enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators act as delegates of the Arbitration Committee and, in that role, they review the facts and, if necessary, take action.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement
4) Although administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement. In addition, when a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. Administrators overruling their colleagues without good cause may be directed to refrain from further participation in arbitration enforcement.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Common sense in enforcement
5) In enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators are expected to use their common sense. Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions to be imposed for violations of a final decision, the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. Administrators may also close a report with no action when no actual violation occurred or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate; in these cases, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches. Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request are reminded that they should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions. Administrators are also reminded they are still expected to comply with the expectations set out in Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. Violating these expectations may lead to sanctions.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate)
6.1) Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened. In these cases, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, but care should be taken that this only be done when appropriate. Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Appeals against sanctions
7) Only the sanctioned editor may file an appeal against a sanction. Other editors may offer assistance, but the decision to appeal and the choice of venue may only be made by the sanctioned editor. Appeals filed by any user other than the one sanctioned may be closed at any time. However, any interested users may ask for clarifications, if they are acting in good faith.


 * Passed 9 to 1 at 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Presumption of validity
8) For the purpose of applying the special rules against modifying or overturning an enforcement action (see Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions), all enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper until an appeal is successful.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate participation in Arbitration Enforcement in every forum
9) Editors participating in enforcement cases and appeals must disclose fully their involvement, if any. While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The proximate cause of this dispute was a comment made by on his talk page which was reported to arbitration enforcement as a violation of the indefinite topic ban imposed on him as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case. Upon reviewing the report,  closed it with no action. At the time, no other uninvolved administrator had made any comments and the report had been open for only about five hours., aware of of the fact Black Kite had dismissed the report, overruled his decision and unilaterally blocked Eric for a month without discussion. Black Kite subsequently opened an  regarding GorillaWarfare's block of Eric which was treated as an appeal, despite the fact that Eric at no time expressed any desire to appeal the restriction. The discussion was then by, who unblocked Eric, arguing that there [was] definitely no consensus [there] for a block; indeed, the results seem[ed] to show a slight consensus in favor of unblocking. A pure vote count show[ed] a 60/40 split in favor of unblocking.


 * Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstentions at 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Conduct of the administrators involved
2) The conduct of all administrators involved in the dispute was suboptimal. Black Kite's actions had the effect of interfering with the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision; in fact, since Eric's comment was a violation of his restriction and was not minor in nature, Black Kite should not have dismissed the enforcement request so quickly and without waiting for input from other uninvolved administrators GorillaWarfare's actions fell foul of the rules set out in Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and in Administrators, namely the expectation that administrative actions should not be reversed without [...] a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. Reaper Eternal's actions violated Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions requiring, for an appeal to be successful, a request on the part of the sanctioned editor and the clear and substantial consensus of [...] uninvolved editors at AN.


 * Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstentions at 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Drafters delegated
1) The Arbitration Committee delegates the drafters of this case to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the text on Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to bring them in line with the clarifications contained in this decision.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)