Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the |talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators and clerks may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented 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)

Evidence
Most of my evidence is presented above. A few corrections need to be made. My use of the term "wheel-warring" for the actions was incorrect. If Black Kite's close was an admin AE action, as I believe it clearly was, GorillaWarfare's subsequent violated that policy, although that was not wheel-warring. In my mind, it was comparable to 3RR and 1RR, since AE did not allow other actions, then the block after no-action was improper.

As noted above, GorillaWarfare knew of the AE action before she took action. She did not consult with Black Kite nor did she obtain consensus prior to overturning his action.

Black Kite's closure of the AE thread constituted an AE action. Salvio My personal feeling is that the only action which qualifies as admin action, in these cases, would be closing (and hatting) an AE thread without action. at (note, I was unable to figure out how to find a diff on that page, if anyone knows how, any help would be appreciated). DQ Admin action would be closure of an AE thread in my books, not just opining there. at the same link.

As to my own participation here, I think it is clear that this is something that needed to be addressed, and this was the only body that could do so. Although other editors have called for sanctions, I think it is clear that none are called for, although I am willing address any questions that may come up. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sandstein. Just a comment, by this logic, GorillaWarfare would also be involved for her discussions at ArbCom and elsewhere about Eric. Merely discussing an editor at AN or ANI does not, IMO, make one "involved." GregJackP  Boomer!   15:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * More diffs of discussion don't make BK more involved, any more than additional diffs would make GW more involved. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir. Just to note that there is no indication that removing the comments were an admin action. The edit summary stated that he was removing an "unproductive comment," which as far as I could tell at the time was not a policy violation, see. Admins cannot just arbitrarily remove comments, it has to be based on policy, and "unproductive" is not a policy. The warning that Evergreen mentions was posted on the following day (at ). How exactly am I supposed to know about a warning to another user that hasn't been posted yet? Second, had Gamaliel contacted me, pointed out a policy, and asked me about it, I would have apologized and self-reverted. GregJackP  Boomer!   22:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the earlier date now, the diff you provided was from the next day. Second, unless it is an obvious admin action, such as a closure of an AE discussion, being an admin grants no additional status, or at least that's the myth. That was one of GW's errors in her comments on her block, the comment that only one admin had weighed in on AE, and completely disregarding the input of "mere" editors. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare. This is why some editors and admins believe that you are involved. It gives the impression that you jumped the gun on the block because you didn't agree with Black Kite's close. Eric's not a party, it is not about Eric, it is about the process. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , no, I'm well aware that you didn't agree with BK's close, but that was not the point of my comment. The point I was trying to make is that you "jumped the gun," moving way too fast because of what appears to be an animus held against Eric. I don't know what the basis of that feeling is or could be, whether it is the GGTF or any of the other issues that Eric has been involved in, nor do I really care. I don't even know if you really do have it in for him, I can only comment on what it appears to be and note that others have said the same thing. The comment of yours that I replied to adds to the appearance of a desire to go after him, especially after Eric has been removed as a party. GregJackP   Boomer!   03:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't need to add anything, but I've got 239 words left. You are welcome to use mine if you want. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented 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)

Evidence
I realize that people reading this statement may not necessarily see the discussions that happened elsewhere (my talk page, Eric Corbett's talk page, the original AE discussion, the subsequent AN discussion, and goodness knows where else), so apologies if it's duplicative for those who have.

Eric Corbett made a comment on his talkpage, taking issue with a notice that had been posted to the gendergap mailing list, informing the subscribers of an Ally Skills Workshop that will evidently be hosted at Wikimania 2015. Eric received a topic ban on December 1, 2014 in the Interactions at GGTF case that prevents him "from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed." Linking to the posting on the gendergap list, and discussing the ally skills workshop (which clearly states that it is intended to address the gender gap on Wikipedia), is unquestionably a breach of the topic ban from making any edit about any process or discussion relating to the gender disparity among Wikipedians. Eric Corbett has breached this sanction four times (not including this incident) in the seven months it was imposed. In his comment, he included the sentence, "Callanecc can block me again for as long as he likes, for whatever reason takes his fancy, but to my mind this is simply unacceptable." Callanecc was the administrator who performed the previous two blocks, and this comment demonstrates that Eric knew his edit was a violation of the topic ban.

EvergreenFir filed a request at arbitration enforcement. The request was open for under five hours, during which time nine editors commented. None of the editors who commented there actually referred to the content of Eric Corbett's edit, or said whether they found it to be a violation of the sanction or not. Black Kite then closed the request, saying "General consensus amongst admins and others appears to be that there is no issue to pursue here." The sanction does not include any wording about how severe a violation needs to be in order for it to be enforced, and the ban applies to all pages (including Eric Corbett's own talk page), so this strikes me as somewhat beside the point.

I did not see Eric Corbett's edit until after the AE discussion had already been closed. Any uninvolved administrator (and I will again note that I was careful to be clear that this block was only in my administrative capacity, and not an arbitrator action) may enforce a sanction such as this without first going to AE for discussion. Given that the discussion there was so incomplete and gave no opinion on whether Eric Corbett's comment violated his topic ban, it did not strike me as necessary to reopen the discussion when the normal course of action would be to block. I realize now that discussing the close with Black Kite and reopening it would have been the correct choice, as it would probably have avoided this drama.

I don't intend to go into the subsequent closing, reopening, and closing of the discussion at AN, or the unblock, as that seems fairly tangential to my own involvement. However I am happy to elaborate on that or any of my involvement with this issue if someone feels I haven't gone into enough depth.GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Responses
Though I have no issue with being identified as a member of the gendergap-l mailing list, it's inaccurate to portray me as "an active member of the Gendergap-l list that was interested in making use of it as a tool for political organizing"... My activity there is limited to eight posts to three threads on the list between 9 December 2014 and 17 January 2015. In the one you're linking to try to show me as being "interested in making use of it as a tool for political organizing," someone suggested implementing "steps to ensure diversity" in the Arbitration Committee elections, and I was responding to say I did not believe such a thing would even be possible. My other posts there were all to suggest that Kumioko/Reguyla not co-opt the list to continue lobbying against arbitrators and the Arbitration Committee, save for one in which I gave a suggestion to a potential wording issue raised by another user. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Sandstein has a very good point below in the section about Eric Corbett's topic ban being unenforceable. Although I did support the topic ban originally, the amount of blowback that both myself and the other editors have received as a result of suggesting or implementing the enforcement of his sanctions is considerable, to the point where I'm surprised anyone does. Sjakkalle gives examples of this below, though they note (and I agree) that these are only small samples of the nastiness that surrounds this kind of enforcement. I also agree with Sandstein in their choice of three possibilities; I don't think any other solution would be workable. I am disappointed that the Arbitration Committee is not including Eric Corbett as a party to this case, because the current restrictions are quite clearly not working well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't agree with Black Kite's close. I thought I'd made that abundantly clear when I discussed the complete lack of discussion about whether Eric Corbett had breached his sanction. I am aware that Eric is not a party, but I disagree with that decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am coming up on my word limits (this takes me to above 950), so we may need to take this elsewhere if you wish to continue discussing it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Sjakkalle might have been able to make a better point about your behavior when enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanctions is involved if they had linked to your comments surrounding this block and not the last one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that nearly all of your comments surrounding this incident have consisted of frenetic rhetorical questions and incivility to the point where it's not hard to find an example. I'm surprised a number of portions of your section have been allowed to remain, and it's interesting that you do not see the irony in your accusations of incivility and attacks by others. That said, as I'm at or above my word count, unless you become a named party to this case, I will save further discussion for another venue. You know where to find my talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented 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)

Evidence
I don't think there is much to add regarding the actual mechanics of AE sanctions, which is something that ArbCom will have to look at.

However, I didn't think it would be too long before someone accused me of being involved regarding Eric Corbett, and lo and behold Sandstein (an admin with a questionable record at AE regarding Eric, as pointed out below) has stepped up to the plate, so I'll address this. Yes, I have defended Eric in the past, quite a few times. I have also defended other editors who I believed were getting an unfair deal regarding blocking or sanctions; it just so happens that Eric has been in that position quite a lot. I have also agreed with blocks made on Eric before; I simply haven't felt the need to add to the baying mob at those particular ANI discussions; other admins and editors have been quite capable of doing that for themselves. Eric has been unblocked a number of times; that doesn't mean that Eric is untouchable (he obviously isn't), but in most cases it means that they were simply bad (or excessive) blocks. I note that today an ex-admin who was desysopped for a wildly out-of-process and wheel-warring block on Eric has placed a "Defender of the Wiki" barnstar on Gorilla Warfare's user page. That probably says a lot (about the general attitude of many editors to EC, not about Gorilla Warfare).

There are too many admins who overuse the block button. Apart from in the cases of obvious vandalism, BLP violations, general disruption or socking, it should be the means of last resort, not the first. Admins need to ask themselves before pressing that button "am I improving the encyclopedia by doing this?". Too many, however, simply say "is there a rule that says can I do this"?

I looked at that AE request and looked at three things. (a) I looked at the comments, which were mainly against blocking (b) I looked at the actual claimed violation, which I believed was probably a minor infraction of the rules (c) I made a decision as to whether that minor infraction was worth a month's block (I didn't have the option of making it shorter, them's the rules of the topic ban (although it looks like I (and GW) might have got that wrong, see talkpage) ). And I came to the decision that no, a month's block of Eric was not the best option for Wikipedia at that point. If the infraction had been more obvious and/or problematic, I may well have decided differently. Also, for those pointing out that it was closed too quickly and with no other admin input, I've looked at Eric's previous AE block which was closed with a one-week block after only six hours by a single admin despite, again, some dispute. Or here's Sandstein blocking Eric at AE despite nearly every other admin who commented saying it wasn't actionable, claiming "this is a supervote insofar as AE actions do not require and are not based on consensus, but Eric Corbett is free to appeal the block" Is this how AE should work? If it is, it's ridiculous.

(Note: I see that my evidence has prompted Sandstein to expand on my alleged "involvedness" with EC. I'll let ArbCom decide whether my action, or his action in riding roughshod over a consensus of admins at AE, is a better example of "conduct unbecoming an administrator".)

I also note with interest the evidence provided by Carrite. I'll say it again, admins and editors should be here for only one thing - to improve the encyclopedia. If you're merely here to involve yourself in unnecessary politicization of an issue, or to push petty vendettas, I'd respectfully suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for you. I stand by my actions here; if that means I am subject to some sort of sanction, then so be it; I'll accept it knowing that I believe it was the right thing to do. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by 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)

@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)

Initial evidence and scenario table
I would like to add this table which illustrates the only two four possible courses of action, and why my action is the logical conclusion to either path the first two paths, and why the latter two run into serious issues. Initially, I had only thought of clause #1, having always assumed clause #2 would have the answer of "no". However, when it is answered "yes", it runs into issues presented below:

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)

Regarding Eric Corbett and GenderGap
I honestly don't care about the petty politics surrounding the GenderGap Task Force. I'm not on Wikipedia to be a petty politician, and it matters little to me what their dispute is. I'm only an admin to do my best to be as fair and honest as I can be, to protect the encyclopedia and its editors from attacks by vandals and sockpuppets, and to assist editors who are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Administrative involvement and wheel wars
We all agree that they're bad.

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.

Regarding potential wheel warring: No wheel warring has taken place. My reversal of GorillaWarfare's reversal was only made after a discussion at the admin's noticeboard showed no consensus for a blocking. GorillaWarfare's reversal is the first, and therefore is not a wheel war.

Administrative "supervoting"
Admins should not unilaterally revert or otherwise "supervote" over a consensus found at a noticeboard when they disagree with the results. Even if the close is demonstrably wrong, it should be repealed, rather than engaging in wheel warring with the closing admin over the close. To take an example, if someone disagrees with another editor's close at articles for deletion, he or she can appeal the decision at deletion review. He or she cannot simply revert the close and wait for a close he likes better.

Discussion closing
When an admin closes a discussion, it is an administrative action. As such, it is subject to all the usual restrictions like involvement and wheel warring. This includes, but is not limited to, results such as "no consensus to act", "declined", or "rejected". If we consider that a closure is not an admin action, we might as well throw out discussion boards like WP:ANI, WP:AFD, and WP:AE, since the only possible action is to perform the action. Imagine if this were applied to AFD: All keep closes become essentially moot since any admin can simply delete the article anyway. The whole discussion is pointless, since someone can simply go admin shopping until he or she finds an admin willing to perform the deletion. The same is true of the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If we decide that a "no action" close is not enforceable, then the only enforceable result is a block, which indicates a serious issue. Furthermore, the discussion could simply be supervoted (as mentioned above), or the admin could simply block anyway, knowing that there is little anybody can do.

Furthermore, this raises the interesting problem that if an admin blocks for one minute, his closure is enforceable. If he does not block, his closure is not enforceable. This makes little sense, since a one minute block and no block have essentially the same effect.

Questions ArbCom needs to answer
I'd encourage ArbCom to accept this case to review the following:
 * 1) Does closure of an arbitration enforcement report constitute an admin action?
 * 2) If a report is closed, can another admin decide to take action anyway?
 * 3) Does "no action taken" have the same protection as "blocked for anywhere from one hour to indefinite"?
 * 4) Do arbitration enforcement blocks require an WP:AE reports?
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) Does community consensus, or lack thereof, allow an admin to overturn an arbitration enforcement block made after the report was closed by another admin?
 * 7) 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.

Assuming good faith
One of our core pillars is that we assume good faith about each other. So far, I have done my best to try to stand in the other admins' shoes and to try to see where they are coming from. I believe I have been reasonable in this regard, and, accordingly, would like to request that a similar measure of good faith be shown to me. If we allow petty bickering and "tit-for-tat" retribution to rule, then we will likely end up with more hurt feelings and anger.

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.

Civility
I would like to apologize for my intemperate paragraph (collapsed above and noted as a partisan screed) directed at the arbitration committee. One of our core principles is that we treat each other reasonably and civilly, and my wording was inappropriately inflammatory.

Ignoring the rules
In cases like this, where the rules are ambiguous, our core principle of ignoring all the rules (commonly referred to as WP:IAR) is sometimes needed. This is not to say that we throw policy completely out the window; rather, sometimes we must make a decision based on the best knowledge and possible outcome that is available to us. Given that the arbitration enforcement policies are somewhat unclear regarding whether a close of a WP:AE report is an admin action, I did my best to implement the consensus as I saw it on the administrators' noticeboard in line with our policies on blocking and banning.

Value to Wikipedia
One thing ArbCom needs to consider, when discussing sanctions, is the value to Wikipedia that the various admins involved in this case provide.

As can be seen above, all of us have been highly active administrators for a number of years. Each of us, has, I think made exactly one controversial action out of all of our combined 37,000 admin / functionary actions. Accordingly, to the people calling for desysops, how does our one action each makes us that unsuitable that we are net negatives to the project as administrators? If we are desysopped or banned, how does the project benefit?

Responses
@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)
 * Kevin Gorman

@Kevin Gorman: Again, I have not gone out on a whim and declared my intention to violate policy. Indeed, my actions were far from that. All I said was that I was aware of the potential consequences if ArbCom decides against me. The initial close by Black Kite was an arbitration enforcement action. Accordingly, the "clear and defined consensus" would have been needed by GorillaWarfare to overturn Black Kite's close. Again, my action was based on the rough consensus established at the admins' noticeboard that the block was improper, and thus I reinstated the initial arbitration enforcement decision.

Additionally, your comment concerning Eric Corbett is unnecessarily assuming of bad faith. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: I don't know what you mean by, "the proper thing to do would have been to challenge it at a relevant noticeboard". The block was challenged at a relevant noticeboard. The consensus was that the block was out of process. "But basically your judgement is you both did something desysoppable?" No, it isn't. My judgment is that GorillaWarfare made an error due to the ambiguity in the process, and my action was merely re-enforcing the arbitration enforcement decision that Black Kite made. Furthermore, my action was the direct result of a noticeboard discussion, not me randomly deciding to play cowboy admin like you are making my action out to be. "You had pathways to approach GW's behavior other than what was explicitly overturning an AE decision." My action was to enforce consensus as found at WP:AN in line with policy. I did not have an agenda to unblock Eric and was not looking for any method possible to unblock him like you are implying. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bbb23
Assuming for the sake of argument that Black Kite's closure with no action was an administrative action, GorillaWarfare's block was not wheel warring. It was simply a "reversal" of another administrator's action. If a third administrator - or Black Kite - had undone GorillaWarfare's block, that would have been wheel warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to spend much time on this. Enough time has already been spent at WP:AN. However, your quote has nothing to do with wheel warring. Equally important, that particular provision is generally applied when an administrator blocks an editor for violating an arbitration decision and another administrator unblocks the editor without the required consensus. I can't speak for all time as I don't have the historical reach of many, but I have never heard it being applied when an administrator decides no action is warranted against an editor and another administrator blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you or any arbitrator please clarify what the difference is between "take administrative action" and "initiate administrative action"? Along those same lines, can a non-administrator violate the injunction (it says "user")? Finally, assuming the motion passes, which seems likely, is someone going to notify all the users in the three forums of the terms of the injunction? That's a lot of people. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Georgewilliamherbert
I commented to the filer on his talk page, but I believe while it could be seen by the community as a wheel war type action, the discussion so far has been of the nature of a procedural or administrative faux pas rather than a wheel war. I believe there's consensus on that. I recommended he work to argue the case that it came under wheel war on the respective noticeboards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer
Eric probably sees me as biased, so I am going to refrain from any discussion or evidence on the actions themselves.

Lack of consensus as to what policy is
I believe that the contemporaneous comments by parties and AE and other discussions taken together establish that there was a lack of consensus on what policy is in this case, due to it not properly having been recognized as a scenario previously. I would like to thank Reaper Eternal for what appears to be a logically correct analysis and consequences table above in evidence, though I disagree with the severity of the outcomes. Nobody deserves to be sanctioned here.

Shrubbery
I oppose requiring Admins to check AE prior to imposing arbitration enforcement blocks as a shrubbery; If you see something you feel is a clear and unambiguous arbitration case violation you should simply act upon that. AE's value is in the grey area where clarity is lacking. Grey area boundaries are not equally unclear to everyone.

Nature of closes at AE
I don't believe a close counts as an administrative action. Closes have never been immutable, they get reopened at times. A close to block or sanction and then enforcing the block or sanction is an administrative action in the enforcement, not in the close. Noticeboard discussions do not enforce policy; administrators do, either independently or informed by consensus. The discussion is not a vote and the closing admin has to use their judgement and understanding of policy, etc. Closing without acting is just a close.

Best practice
Admins should but don't have to check if there's a noticeboard discussion. Admins acting individually where there is a discussion should expect controversy and should (but don't have to) explain the action better than average admin actions are explained.

Recommendation
If an admin acts against a developing or closed AE consensus not to act, I believe we should establish policy that the existing consensus is not a consensus to then unblock, but that the discussion should be re-opened to determine if a consensus exists to unblock given the admin's separate action. Admins should be cautioned that an existing consensus not to act may well turn into a consensus to unblock and that should inform their decision to take contrary independent action and the need for explaining most clearly what they are doing and why, ideally addressing the consensus opinions in the process.

IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Dennis Brown
I think it is wheel warring, but I don't think there was malice as much as a lack of clarity in policy, so I wouldn't ask for sanctions, only clarification. Only an admin can close an AE discussion, so it DOES require the tools to do this, even if not literally. Had she reverted the closing to allow more discussion, there wouldn't be much controversy at all, but instead, she essentially reverted an admin decision at AE (a "no block"), using the most powerful of admin tools we have, the block button. If closing wasn't an "admin action", we wouldn't require the tools to do it. Saying "admin action" is only when we literally push a button is an unnecessarily rigid read of policy.

Additionally, there is the question of whether Arbs should use the block tool to enforce sanctions they themselves put in place. I don't think it should be barred, but it should be a last resort, not a first option, particularly in a case like this where it is very arguable that WP:INVOLVED is an issue. As there was no immediate threat, it was unnecessary and ended up causing a tremendous amount of drama that could easily been avoided, thus obviously, NOT best practice. For these reasons, Arb should take the case, as there is no other venue to decide these issues. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 06:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Arbs: While traditionally "wheel warring" requires three actions, Arb enforcement doesn't allow a second action, so this may not technically fit the definition, the end result is the same. We don't have a term to describe an admin overturning an admin action out of process with only two moves. "Wheel warring" is the closest analogy we have, which is why it is being used, as it is equally improper and forbidden in both circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by The ed17
Comments from friends of the editor notwithstanding, this was a clear-cut violation of a sanction the Arbitration Committee placed. He tested the limits of it and was rightfully blocked. Arbcom can either assert that they have the authority to enforce their decisions or let it continue to slip away. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Nick-D
This obviously wasn't wheel warring as defined at WP:WHEEL given that GW took an action which was contrary to that of Black Kite, and didn't "repeat a reversed administrative action" as is required to violate that policy. As such, there are no grounds for an arbitration case there. I'll leave the interpretation of the wording at WP:AE to editors more familiar with its history, but the context for the motion suggests it refers to blocks, etc, being overturned rather than the closure of discussion threads with a decision to take no action - especially in the case of bright line topic bans. I'd note that several editors have also raised serious concerns around Black Kite's closure of the AE thread in the discussion at WP:AN, which should also be taken into account if a case was opened here (especially given the history of admins giving Eric lots and lots of chances for behaviour which typically leads to sanctions, often involving overly-hasty actions). I don't think that an arbitration case is warranted, as this request is seriously premature given that the discussion at WP:AN remains under way (with what looks to be fairly broad support for GW's action) and focusing on the niceties of process at AE seems pointless at best. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ritchie333
I think enough custard pies have been thrown at GorillaWarfare for now, I am happy the case title has been changed and I don't believe wheel warring by the definition there took place. That said, there are some underlying issues that should be looked at with conduct in Arbitration Enforcement. Also, the latest AN thread proves the community is completely and utterly incapable of managing Eric Corbett, and any sanctions against him result in a huge amount of disruption from third parties.

I think there is merit in revisiting the scope of the GGTF topic ban and restricting it to the Gender Gap Task Force as an on-wiki group only. Saying "I am offended by a workshop tackling inter-gender relationships at the next Wikimania" is civil, attacks no person and is fair comment, but that's what's got Eric a month off. Everyone says "yes, Eric violated the ban", nobody has said if the terms of the ban are actually sensible in hindsight and why they're required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Kudpung
Clearly Eric's statement was an infringement of AE and I don't see anyone really disputing it. The AE discussion hinged more on that it was a possible case of unnecessary harrassment of Corbett. In normal circumstances, such repeated indiscretion is met with escalating periods of blocking which don't even necessarily need an AE discussion; this only being out of the ordinary because it concerns Eric Corbett. The discussion wasn't given time to develop (certainly not for some of us in geographical opposite time zones) before it was closed and unless I have missed something, there was no actual formal closing statement. One admin overturning another without discussion is possibly inappropriate but whether this is a case of wheelwarring per WP:WHEEL needs clarification. I think there is no way out of this without some proper arbitration to clarify the rules, but without sanctions being applied to any of the involved admins. I recommend that the committee take the case because IMO such a situation is likely to occur again, and the community needs to be spared discussions ad nauseam. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's just been pointed out to me on my tp that there was in fact a closure that was't there at the time I looked. I still maintain however that the discussion was closed prematurely and that it therefore might not have been representative of a consensus that could have developed with more time and time for people in other time zones to wake up and then find out about it and navigate to it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC).

Evidence presented by Hell in a Bucket
In the real world when we have these type of fuck ups we usually see a resignation, here we just see an arb request. I haven't seen anything near contrition or I may have acted out of process from GW. This tells me that she is a lot more invested in this situation then she will admit to. The writing has been there on the wall for some time and in this case she exercised poor judgement. I doubt it raises to taking her bit but a clarification or codification of AE would be a better idea for the entire project. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are likely right User:Thryduulf however I do wonder how much her being a present arb member will sway the committee opinions? I have a question, or rather a series of them. Has there been a case on a sitting arb like this in the past? I am curious what has been done in the past to what might be a conflict of interest or a desire to "protect your own". It may be a rare occurrence but something like this may need to be seen by a different committee, like a reserve committee. This is likely the correct venue but one of the reasons I wouldn't try a formal venue because of my perception that it would be filled by sycophants and partisans. What processes protect the case assuming it is accepted and it's perceived neutrality. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Amortias
I may be somewhat involved as I was the initiator of a previous AE action with regards to Eric Corbett, however i am aiming to be as impartial as is humanly possible. I agree that he does good work but thisis not the issue that is at hand here. There was a clear cut violation of a topic ban that was in force. If we are going to allow breeches of topic basn by one author then for consistencies sake we must allow other editors to do so.

If we are going to allow editors to evade these then the objective of them is moot and they should all be rescinded. I can see no good of us treating editors in a different light purely on their content contributions. If we were to do so we would have a balance of power that is not collabarative but more akin to I've been here longer and therefore have more rights than you. I have seen blocks and bans handed out to several long term editors in my brief existence here and fell that although they may be a great loss the actions taken are for the greater good.

GorillaWarfares actions were from my understanding following the letter of the law (for lack of a better description). Yes they may have wished to reopen the AE section that had been swiftly closed (something which I feel also needs evaluating) but their actions had grounds in policy and this is the line we must judge everyones actions by. Was the policy followed or not if we descend into name calling and personal opinions on the matter then we are going to end up as a 2nd version of ANI. Amortias (T)(C) 11:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Arbs Per 's statement is there a policy for arbs to be removed from a case where appropriate if they do not recuse themselves? Noting that it doesn't affect the case at hand. Amortias (T)(C) 14:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we get a list of editors involved posted here and pinged so they are all aware of injunction 2. I'd be happy to collate the list. Amortias (T)(C) 21:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, that's very helpful. Please do so.  Roger Davies  talk 21:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Moved from  L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 22:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * list as above (all 110 of them) now here. Amortias (T)(C) 22:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence

 * Eric was made subject to a topic ban
 * The topic ban states "Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.". Nowhere does it state that an AE request has to be made.


 * Eric repeatedly breeched his topic ban so should have been well aware of the sanctions and what was likely to happen if he breeched them again and he made clear reference to this in his statement. The edit may have been an error in judgement on his part or may have been done with the explicit intention of being blocked. Only Eric can confirm on this matter.


 * An AE request was lodged and closed in quite a quick turnaround considering the length of time AE decisions are open for and the amount of discussion that was raised before a close at WP:ANI compared to the amount of discussion allowed at AE before this was done.


 * Gorilla Warfare blocked Eric for his comment that was in breech of his topic ban. Despite the pleas otherwise from what I can read of involved Arbitration decisions are not met under this policy.


 * Much discussion was held around the incident and a warning given that an AE blcok could not be modified was given. After the warning Eric was unblocked by another admin who despite the previous warning (unknowingly or otherwise) overruled the AE block.

A lot of issues here appear to be about lack of clear policy. There are some things that appear clearer than others though such as the scope of the ban, that there isnt a it was a minor infraction so we can overlook it policy that a block was applied (within what appears to be policy) and then overturned (possibly with consensus) apparently against policy. A lot of time and energy appears to have been spent trying to ensure that a single editor obeys the restricitons put on them and as much as I agree that Erics content contributions are a positive we do need a line in the sand somewhere, that applies to all of us otherwise we are just going to end up being a place for high level content contributors who are above what we have as rules. And as so many of the claims being made by those opposing the block state that others have to abide by them then surely by their own logic must Eric. Amortias (T)(C) 15:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Beyond My Ken

 * (1) I don't see where GregJackP, as a non-party to these events, has standing to bring this request. As such it should be rejected.
 * (2) Black Kite closed the AE request after a mere 4 hours without any uninvolved admin discussion, something I've never seen happen before. For that reason, I do not see it as a legitimate close, but instead as an expression of Black Kite's opinion. I don't doubt that he came by that opinion honestly, and by taking the opinions of the commenters into account, but AE is a place for admin discussion and action, not a discussion board, and issues there have always been settled by a consensus of uninvolved admins, informed by, but not dependent on, the opinions of the commenters.
 * (3) Therefore, GorillaWarfare's decision to block Eric Corbett was not a refutation of an AE decision, it was a choice to take action where Black Kite had decided to take none. That's not wheel-warring, and it's also not in any respect disrespectful to an AE decision, since there was effectively no AE decision as defined by normal processes, simply a statement of non-action by a single admin.
 * (4) As pointed out by GorillaWarfare, the clear community consensus is that Eric Corbett's statement was an obvious violation of his topic ban. This fact needs to be kept firmly in mind when evaluating this situation.
 * (5) The committee should reject this request.
 * (6) If so inclined, a very mild rebuke could be issued by motion to Black Kite for usurping the normal AE process and shutting down the possibility of a discussion between uninvolved admins leading to a consensus, which, had it been allowed to happen, would most probably have prevented all this drama.
 * (7) A more substantial sanction could also be considered for GregJackP for unnecessarily extending that drama with this request. BMK (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the additional events Davewilde summed up well below, I suppose the Committee really has no choice but to accept this case. BMK (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Alanscottwalker
Under Discretionary Sanctions, the arbitration policy meant to actuate the committee's non-consensus powers and which creates the arbitration enforcement board, there is no procedure for "close" of discussions on AE, so any "procedural objections" to a block arising after a "close", simply do not exist (if one is going to object to something on "procedure", you at least have to show where the procedure is). The Discretionary Sanctions also give discretion to admins, like GW, to enforce the committee's non-consensus powers, and do specify that only the blocked party may appeal (so in actual "procedure" any appeal must be denied). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect to Arbs forbidden to act as admins, that sounds like bureaucratic nonsense (and is also not supported in policy). To draw an imperfect analogy, judges enforce their own decisions all the time: so, an arb/admin enforcing -- not their own decision -- but the decision of the committee is perfectly reasonable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Following-up on this, the idea that it would be "best practice" for arbs not to enforce arbitration committee decisions, does not seem to have been thought through - to the contrary, individually, as admins, they should regularly be cursed (or blessed) with enforcing committee decisions - that would be the best way to get good practical decisions because experience is the best teacher. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To further discuss "close:" Non-Admin's "close" things all the time, generally, as long as they don't need tools to affect their close - so, "closing" does not make it an admin action. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well. No Monty, for example non-admins can close things "keep", "no merge", "no action", "it would be best if you all just move along", " no consensus", etc., etc., etc. Your AE "closing" claim is just not founded in the actual policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Reaper Eternal: Only the blocked may appeal an arbitration enforcement block. So, how can you unblock for "Per the (lack of) consensus", or on any basis at all? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Accept the case: I hope that User:Reaper Eternal(RE) can be talked down as RE is in defiance of the "will of the community." The will of the community is explicit in the Blocking policy RE cites, that RE must not do what RE has done. See, the Unblocking section. RE is also in defiance of the will of the community in the the Consensus policy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Reaper Eternal: Your table collapses upon itself, as you found no consensus in the discussion - including no consensus that the block was not a block for arbitration enforcement. So, you cannot claim any protection for your actions from the discussion, in either column. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC) NOTE THE TABLE HAS BEEN AMENDED WITH MORE COLUMNS - SO, IF YOU READ THIS READ IT IN THAT LIGHT.

I will note, that what User:Reaper Eternal (and a few others) fear about what someone called rogue admins is unfounded. There just needs to be a proper appeal (even though Reaper does not recognize what policy states a proper appeal is) and of course the rogue admin can also be booted, or otherwise taken to task in the proper forum (here). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * At AN, I came across BK accusing another Admin, GW, of breaching WP:Involved concerning a Discretionary Sanction(DS) -- the stated reason was that she made comments while working as an arbitrator.


 * I asked three questions in order to understand the involved claims of BlackKite and two others whom I recognized as admins who had quickly voted "Overturn" (apparently a DS appeal vote).. One forthrightly, stated he was "involved", another refused to answer the questions saying it was irrelevant because none of them "used tools." After I pointed out that the standard for his "overturn" !vote was the he be "uninvolved," he told me to "shoo" and referred to me as a "fly."   User:Black Kite did not answer my Involved questions but he did state to the next User who commented that BK had "unclean hands", that when he closed the DS, Black Kite states "unclean hands" does not matter. .  At the very least, BK's seemingly unfounded accusation of Involved, is very wrong - it obviously poisons the well against GW, in contravention of DS policy on Expectations and Decorum.


 * In the discussion, under review at AN, there was nothing in the section for Result concerning Eric Corbett -- above Result many comments appear to breach AE Decorum policy. After being referred to as a "fly" by an admin, I generally lost interest in participating in the discussion, I did however note my findings from the discussion board. (I made no !vote).


 * The community (including all its admins) consents upfront to be bound by arbitration of disputes - which necessarily include Scope of Ban. The tension here is that DS is discretionary (meaning any uninvolved admin could "enforce", could "sanction"  ) - not the standard of 'that's what I would do' but, here, any action is already based on an Arbitrated record and remedy.


 * The DS policy does not even mention "close" or "closing", anywhere, it speaks of "placing sanction" and "enforcement action." (Nothing does not readily look like those words, even despite creative argument). Now, that particular fault in policy is not with the Admin parties -- we can only communicate to each other in clear policy writing -- but that cannot mean we throw-up our hands and just count heads of people who should not be !voting, or don't follow clear policy, like requirements for an appeal where it exists.


 * User:Adjwilley, closed the AN/DS finding "no consensus".


 * User:Reaper Eternal, unaccountably counted heads in her AN/DS re-close, and says above she was at the time unaware parts of policy (perhaps like that she had to determine who was an uninvolved !voter, and the requirement for a substantial consensus, or the allowance for independent discretion). The 'no appeal' process is designed specifically to cut off the "mess" she found -- it's not there for no reason. Instead her action will just replicate such mess, over and over in the future. What RE needs to realize is it's disrespectful to ask and have commentators comment on policy and facts, and then she says she gets to ignore the policy they carefully discussed. How are the participants to know what RE is going to ignore? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sandstein
I'm here to share experience as somebody who was previously often active at WP:AE. As concerns GorillaWarfare's actions, this request (which is a block appeal in disguise) should be rejected because it was not made by a user who claims to have been disadvantaged by her actions. Per WP:AC/DS, only sanctioned users themselves may appeal discretionary sanctions.

As concerns Black Kite's actions, I don't think that closing an AE thread is an admin action. After all, it does not involve the use of admin tools, or the exercise of any particular authority delegated to administrators. Also, the AE board is not intended as a forum in which discussions are held and consensus is formed (because no consensus is needed for AE actions), but rather only as a place in which to make enforcement requests for individual admins to act on, much like WP:AIV. Nothing in any applicable procedure (except with respect to appeals, which are not at issue here) requires that there be any discussion threads at WP:AE, or that any such threads are explicitly closed by anybody. "Closing" threads at WP:AE, in my experience, is merely a housekeeping practice done to signal that a decision has been made and that no other admins need attend to the request. But because abandoned threads are automatically archived, it is not necessary to close them.

If one were to consider that an individual administrator could, by "closing" an enforcement request, prevent colleagues from acting on it, that would be tantamount to granting any admin preemptive veto power over future enforcement actions by other admins. I cannot imagine that any such thing was intended by ArbCom in setting up the relevant procedures. However, such a veto, by way of invoking a "consensus" of (judging by the tone of their messages, not very uninvolved) non-admin bystanders that had no material significance for the enforcement request, seems to be what Black Kite attempted to accomplish with their closure of the thread at issue. I recommend that the Arbitration Committee examine whether Black Kite has, in doing so, attempted to disrupt the effective enforcement of an arbitral sanction, has attempted to act as an administrator while involved, or has otherwise not met the Committee's expectations in administrators participating in arbitration enforcement.  Sandstein  12:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite attempted to act as an administrator while involved, and to prevent the enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanction
Black Kite has participated in most of the archived AN/I threads about Eric Corbett's conduct in the last few years. In all of these discussions, Black Kite has consistently and explicitly associated themselves with the position of Eric Corbett:


 * AN thread, July 2013:
 * Considering that a block of Eric Corbett was "far too excessive" (16:29, 4 July 2013)
 * Opining that "an Eric who calls someone an asshole occasionally is still far more of a positive to the encyclopedia that the vast majority of our editors" (19:31, 4 July 2013)


 * ANI thread, July 2013:
 * Excusing Eric Corbett's conduct as "venting about the admin that blocked him" (07:14, 25 July 2013)


 * ANI thread, October 2013:
 * Accusing another editor of having a "mission to rid Wikipedia of Eric" (18:27, 29 October 2013)
 * Wishing that those who "instigate such actions through ill-advised poking the bear receive the same sanctions as those [i.e., Eric Corbett] they provoke" (17:37, 29 October 2013)
 * Supporting reducing the then-indefinite block of Eric Corbett (18:28, 29 October 2013)
 * Opposing increasing blocks of Eric Corbett because "there are too many people who like to wind people up on this project who then go whining to mummy when they quite correctly get told to fuck off" (21:56, 29 October 2013)


 * ANI thread, July 2014:
 * Arguing that Eric Corbett's content edits should not have been reverted (20:04, 28 July 2014)


 * ANI thread, July 2014:
 * Accusing an admin who blocked Eric Corbett of misconduct (23:37, 28 July 2014)


 * ANI thread, September 2014:
 * Commenting unfavorably about the assumed motives of an editor who once blocked Eric Corbett (17:55, 4 September 2014)
 * Opposing a request to page-ban Eric Corbett and others (12:48, 6 September 2014)


 * ANI thread, January 2015:
 * Alleging misconduct on the part of another editor against Eric Corbett, and suggesting a ban of that editor (20:38, 28 January 2015).


 * ANI thread, February 2015:
 * Arguing that a comment by Eric Corbett, "Isn't it about time that these militant feminists were dealt with once and for all?", did not violate Eric Corbett's topic ban from matters of "gender" (19:13, 26 February 2015)

Black Kite made these statements not in the course of the exercise of their functions as an administrator, but as an editor discussing sanctions and other actions regarding Eric Corbett. The fact that Black Kite has consistently defended Eric Corbett, and disagreed with those who wished to sanction Eric Corbett, indicates that the recurring issues with the conduct of Eric Corbett, are a "dispute they [Black Kite] have been a party to or have strong feelings about" (WP:INVOLVED), and that Black Kite cannot therefore act as an uninvolved administrator with respect to the conduct of Eric Corbett.

It follows that in closing the AE thread concerning Eric Corbett, Black Kite attempted to act as an administrator while involved, which is forbidden. (I say "attempt" because, as explained above, I don't think that closing an AE thread is an actual admin action).

Together with this involvedness, the other circumstances of the closure (very quickly after the request was made, before any other admin or indeed relevant comments had been made) strongly suggest that Black Kite made the closure with the intent to actively prevent the enforcement of the arbitral sanction applying to Eric Corbett, which is conduct unbecoming an administrator.  Sandstein  13:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC) (edited 09:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC))

Black Kite has previously acted in an administrative capacity to the benefit of Eric Corbett despite being involved
Despite having expressed a strong personal opinion with regard to Eric Corbett's conduct, as shown above, Black Kite has already previously made edits in an administrative capacity with respect to (and exclusively to the benefit of) Eric Corbett, in violation of WP:INVOLVED, and sometimes in an inappropriate tone:


 * ANI thread, September 2014:
 * Closing without action a thread in which action was requested against alleged personal attacks and incivility by Eric Corbett (07:20, 23 September 2014).


 * ANI thread, January 2015:
 * Closing the discussion despite having expressed an opinion on the merits (to the benefit of Eric Corbett) in it (21:40, 28 January 2015 ).


 * AE request, January 2015:
 * Closing the request's thread after less than a day with a result of "Consensus is clearly that this request be declined." (18:39, 28 January 2015)


 * AE request, February 2015:
 * In the section reserved for uninvolved administrators, arguing that Eric Corbett did not violate his topic ban, and that, with respect to the editor requesting action, "if any uninvolved admin had the bollocks (...) to simply remove User:Lightbreather from the encyclopedia completely, neither this, nor multiple other wastes of everyone's fucking time would continue to appear" (00:38, 27 February 2015). Eric Corbett was eventually blocked.


 * AE request, May 2015:
 * In the section reserved for uninvolved administrators, arguing that a previous AE request that resulted in a block of Eric Corbett should not be considered because it "was open for just 6 hours, whilst half the planet was asleep" (a position at odds with Black Kite's own even faster closure of the AE thread at issue here), and accusing the filer of that previous request of misconduct (17:00, 27 May 2015). Eric Corbett was eventually blocked.


 * AE request, April 2015:
 * In the section reserved for uninvolved administrators, arguing (initially) that Eric Corbett did not violate his topic ban (07:25, 28 April 2015). Eric Corbett was eventually blocked.

 Sandstein  09:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The arbitral topic ban of Eric Corbett is in practice unenforceable and should be reconsidered
There are dozens of AN/I threads and AE requests dedicated to the conduct of and his previous account, dating back years. These accounts together have 59 block log entries (including unblocks). How and whether to deal with Eric Corbett's conduct, frequently perceived as incivil or otherwise disruptive according to the block logs, is an extremely polarizing topic, with many users holding strong opinions either way.

This is reflected in the history of the enforcement of the arbitral sanction Eric Corbett is subject to. As Sjakkalle's evidence shows, the various admins who have taken enforcement action have been subjected to a barrage of harrassment, making their job very difficult. In my case, this contributed to my decision to cease arbitration enforcement because as an unelected volunteer I don't see why I should have to put up with this kind of stuff. In any event, in cases such as this, the enforcement system does not seem to work (effectively), and I very much don't think that this is merely because of a series of good-faith mistakes, but rather because of concerted efforts to obstruct the enforcement. The Committee should therefore
 * lift the sanctions applying to Eric Corbett, or
 * make the Committee itself exclusively responsible for the enforcement of the sanctions, or
 * site-ban Eric Corbett for his repeated breaches of the sanctions, which would avoid the necessity of any further enforcement.  Sandstein   09:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sitush
We have a reasonable number of active admins. I know that nowhere near all of them involve themselves with matters at AE, and that some only rarely make any admin action at all, but there is no actual need for an Arbitrator who was involved in a case to enforce anything that is raised there which relates to the same case. That it is billed as an admin action doesn't really change a thing, and GorillaWarfare is most definitely not a neutral in the specific instance that has led to this case/clarification request. I'm not even sure whether clerks should do so, but that rather depends on the cross-over that exists between the arbs' mailing list and that of the clerks - if there is none then there is no issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, we should be aiming for a separation of powers at AE, if only in the interests of transparency. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

, the "barrage of harassment" that you see as affecting enforcers might on many occasions apply instead (or as well) to Eric Corbett himself, with the enforcers just being the next in line to experience it. In any event, the Committee have already decided not to use this case to relitigate the sanctions, so your perhaps skewed accusation is irrelevant and may be seen by some as a somewhat veiled attack on Corbett. That will only increase drama here, surely? - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by GoodDay
Recommend this Request be rejected. Let's turn back the clock to the moment the AE report-in-question was made & this time, allow uninvolved adminstrators to comment in the page's appropiate section :) GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sjakkalle
Editors that enforce sanctions against Eric Corbett have routinely been subjected to a barrage of personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, and calls for their desysopping. I believe there is a significant segment of the community that objects to the topic ban, and whose actions have been sabotaging its enforcement. The ArbCom should take one of two courses: Either (1) Lift Eric Corbett's GGTF topic ban if it concludes that the ban never should have been imposed in the first place, or (2) Take it upon itself to impose a block or site ban since this is the fifth violation in half a year. ArbCom needs to step up to the plate here. The status quo, where admins who enforce the topic ban are forced to run a vicious gauntlet of assaults, is disgraceful. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

My evidence here is aimed at illustrating why the current state of affairs is untenable. ArbCom passed a topic ban, but its enforcement extremely problematic since there is a segment of the community that incessantly harrasses and bullies any administrator who tries to enforce it. Questioning blocks in a civil manner is not a problem, making personal attacks or accusations of bad faith are not.

Block of 25 January 2015 by Sandstein

 * 25 January 19:05 "Tell me, how long have you been waiting with fingertips poised on that one?"
 * 25 January 22:37 "You are a disgrace to Wikipedia. If there was a way to desysop you, I would wholeheartedly pursue it. A proverbial admin on a power trip that cannot see further from the nose."
 * Reinstated after it was removed
 * Personal attack endorsed by Cassianto.
 * 26 January 05:00 "Yes, DS allows you to make your own decision, and thus in this case you were indeed free to wipe your ass with what the rest of us had to say."

Block of 27 February 2015 by Coffee
Coffee was subjected to a very lengthy ANI thread where enforcing the GGTF topic ban was a major issue, albeit not the only issue. It includes for example:
 * which adds the heading "Unjust block of Eric Corbett by Coffee" and the line "Stop bleating and trying to cober your inadequacies".

Block of 29 May 2015 by Callanecc
This block (and block extension) resulted in a severe barrage of attacks over a period of two weeks. I am giving a small sample here:
 * 29 May 09:23 Includes: "I expect you to ignore my comments. I wouldn't even be surprised if you then blocked me in return (yes, my expectations of admin behaviour are that low)."
 * 30 May 09:10 "...a quick skim through your recent contributions suggests you are more interested in dishing out punishments than writing an encyclopedia".
 * 31 May 04:12 Attack post, including accusation of bad faith "I have thought for some time that you were working on a "fast track" to "govcom"." and call to block Callanecc for enforcing the topic ban: "Shame on you for for your behavior. Trying to silence a content editor is disruptive - and personally I think you should be blocked for your behavior."
 * 3 June 20:19 Accusation of ethics failure: "I believe our duty is to be ethical in the first place, and obey the rules only if we feel they are just. I think you failed to do that."
 * 10 June 07:03 (in a thread that demands that Callanecc refrain from dealing with Eric Corbett issues again) "We're talking about more potential damage thru your weilding of admin power."

Block of 26 June 2015 by GorillaWarfare
Was abused on the talkpage by who has since been properly blocked and the edit revdeleted. Also she was forced to answer a deluge of questions about the block, not always politely worded:
 * 26 June 03:12 "her decisions aren't based on reason but her personal biases rule in this matter."
 * 26 June 18:58 ""I guess you don't care about that or the feelings/concerns of other editors?

Responses
GorillaWarfare is correct that I could have picked out a better example. 30 May 11:30 including "Could it be your "better angel" has evolved [or devolved] by your experiences in clerking & the other enforcement roles you pointed out!?", questioning if clerking has caused Callanecc to "devolve", is not related to the issue at hand, but the person. Now, my point is not to seek sanctions against you or any of the other users that I named. It is to show that the current state of affairs, where ArbCom passed a remedy and left it to the community to enforce it, is not working and that either the remedy or enforcement mechanism needs to be changed. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Collect
Addressing some points raised:
 * The primary issue is the famed zugzwang or "first mover" issue on all acts by administrators. This has been discussed a few times, but never with an actual solution.  Such a solution well ought to be discussed and agreed upon.  In the past, an action based upon actual discussion was considered to be made by multiple persons, and thus a reversal of a discussion based upon a consensus of some sort is, indeed, "wheel warring."  Otherwise any admin should simply wait until the person  who notes a consensus acts, and then can simply reverse that act - and buys an entire second discussion.  The first discussion, where a consensus exists (even a consensus of "no action" is, by definition an "action" by consensus) should stand.   I make no statement as to whether any consensus exists or existed in the matter at hand, only that the precedent is that a consensus is not an "act by a single administrator" which can lightly be reversed.
 * The second issue is whether a judge who issues an order and then acts to enforce that order is also allowed to hear the appeal about his actions. He isn't.     The idea that "arbitrators are elected, therefore have a right to recuse or not on their own volition" is exceedingly weak. (" - 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"   is far off the mark here.) If an arbitrator has prejudged an issue (and blocking a person indicates such a prejudgment as far as I can tell)  then logic demands that they recuse from appeals of their own personal acts.

I hold no position at all whatever about the affair at hand. Collect (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Monty845
To respond to some points raised about the validity of an AE close, any other action EXCEPT a no-action close would unambiguously constitute an admin action, and under the discretionary sanctions rules, could not be overturned without an active consensus at a noticeboard. To wikilawyer a bit, if the block had been 1 minute long, extending it to a month without consensus (or permission of the original admin) would have violated the DS rules, and subjected the extender to a likely de-sysop. An interpretation of DS policy that would honor a 1 minute block, by not a close declining action seems arbitrary and capricious. The committee should definitely do something here to clarify policy, and either unambiguously accept or reject the position that the close of an AE thread is an enforcement action on DS that may only be reversed by clear consensus. This is something that it only makes sense for the committee to do. Given the policy was unclear at best, and there is no actual dispute about the underlying DS violation, a full case may not be necessary, but a clarification motion should occur at a minimum. Monty 845  14:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, it is normally the case that non-admins can close discussions, and thus the closes are not strictly admin actions(I'd call them quasi-admin actions). But AE is one of the only places that privilege admins above non-admins when it comes to discussions. A non-admin can theoretically close a community imposed topic ban discussion at AN or AN/I and impose it on another editor. A non-admin categorically cannot impose a DS topic ban, either directly or by closing an AE discussion. So AE is just different here. Monty  845  15:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by KTC
well this was a motion rather than a whole case, and this was a case request on a former arb that was made moot by a resignation. Of course, there's been others that an arb had been a named party as well if someone want to go through the archives. -- KTC (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Capeo
This doesn't require a full blown case I wouldn't think. It does require some hefty clarification by motion though. Just look at the AN thread and some of the statements above. We have admins whose interpretation of AE policies are completely at odds. Is consensus required in any way? My understanding is that it isn't. In fact I've seen admins block against the consensus of other admins. More commonly, you couldn't even have a consensus between admins because only one admin has chimed in. What constitutes an admin action? Given the wording "explicitly or in substance" my interpretation would be that closing without action, something only an admin can do, would be an admin action and the subsequent block would overturning that action. Is that the case though? The best outcome here, in my opinion anyway, would be clarification on the policies. If it's determined the block was out of process GW should get an admonishment at most and the block should be rescinded. The last thing WP needs now is more fuel on this fire. Capeo (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the involved admins have already covered everything that could be considered direct evidence. Since this is more about procedure I'd say the biggest flaw in the system is AE is unilateral rather consensus driven. Make AE require a consensus of admins to close. 3 minimum. That solves the issue of closes being to fast. It solves the issue of one admin bearing the brunt of the decision's fallout as well. It also solves the first mover issue. Editors still comment as usual and can then possibly inform an admin's decision but the final say is from a consensus of admins. I know this isn't evidence really but I'm not quite sure what the scope of this case is. It's my view that it's about fixing a problem in policy and I don't think anyone should be sanctioned so I don't have evidence "against" them. I do think there are behavioral issues in play but I don't see them as being part of this particular case. So if suggestions like the above aren't suited for the evidence phase please feel free to hat it. It is perhaps better suited to the workshop phase. Capeo (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize the workshop was already open. In that light the above is totally superfluous. Capeo (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Carrite
We now have a situation in which any one rogue administrator can unilaterally overturn an AE close, so long as they are blocking, and impose an unalterable block. ArbCom needs to clarify this matter. The secondary question here is whether Gorilla Warfare, with her out of process block, abused tools in a sanctionable way. ArbCom is the only mechanism for enforcement of proper administrative behavior. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman has engaged in battleground behavior against Eric Corbett
Kevin Gorman has been a moderator of WMF's Gendergap-l mailing list. This has been used as a tool for political organizing. In his capacity as moderator, Gorman has asserted "I don't see anything wrong with talking about the merits of particular arbcom candidates even if it results in a chunk of list members voting as a group."

He has also in this capacity greenlighted investigation of Eric Corbett in particular as a reasonable activity of list participants, so long as the investigation does not reveal "undisclosed portions of their non-Wikipedia lives." He wrote of Corbett, "if someone wrote a decent analysis of how Eric came to prominence that he has...I would find it pretty interesting and could see it appropriately discussed on the list."

Dec. 13, 2014

Gorman previously expressed on list his being "incredible disappointed" and "flabbergasted" in ArbCom's handling of the 2014 GenderGap Task Force case, which he characterized as "ending with banning a bunch of women with flimsy excuses" and "Eric getting another slap on the wrist for gross and repeated vicious personal attacks on other editors."

Nov. 26, 2014

When I pointed out the GGTF/GG-l's continual conflation of so-called "civility" with the "gender gap" (a specious relationship backed by no empirical evidence of which I am aware), Gorman responded interestingly that Arbitration Enforcement blocks in Eric Corbett's specific case were appealable, although "consensus to unblock" might take a bit longer.

Nov. 29, 2014

Slowking4, the proposer of the Gender Gap Allies training, has engaged in battleground behavior
Use of Gendergap-l for political organizing was suggested for the 2015 ArbCom election by Slowking4, including a proposal to use gender gap-themed editathons as a mechanism for vote-stacking in favor of a so-called "civility slate of candidates."

Dec. 9, 2014

This is the same individual who proposed the so-called "Gender Gap Allies training" program that offended Eric Corbett.

Meta Proposal Page

He made use of the Gendergap-l list to promote his grant idea:

Dec. 16, 2014

Gorilla Warfare has not been oblivious to the politicization of the Gendergap-l list
Gorilla Warfare is also an active member of the Gendergap-l list that was interested in making use of it as a tool for political organizing.

Dec. 9, 2014

NB: I was unilaterally booted from being able to post to Gendergap-l for alleged "trolling" — as ultimately happens to all opponents of their agenda, it would seem. It remains a highly politicized list and Eric Corbett seems well within his rights keeping a close eye on their organized activity against him. Carrite (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Resolute
Echoing Allanscottwalker and Beyond My Ken's reasoning entirely, save that I don't believe Arbcom needs to rebuke Black Kite for a good faith error. In short, this was not a violation of WP:WHEEL, and re-interpreting WP:INVOLVED to suggest an a current or former arbitrator cannot take administrative action on an editor who was subject to a case they adjudicated opens the door wide open to arguing that taking any administrative action itself makes one involved. Finally, to reinforce what a few others have said and which Eric's defenders have deftly buried, this was Eric's fifth violation of his arbcom enforced topic ban in six months. If this was any other editor, does anyone actually think "no action" is the proper result? Resolute 16:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments on the four core parties

 * Eric: Unequestionably violated his sanction. And he explicitly noted it too with his comments daring a previous blocking admin to do it again.
 * Black Kite: I'm inclined to disagree that his having previously expressed opinions re: Eric makes him involved. In one of the few aspects of this which I agree with GregJackP, that logic makes GW involved too. I do think BK erred badly in closing the discussion so quickly and claiming consensus when nobody was commenting on the merit of the report and instead confining themselves to "I like Eric" posts and mudslinging at the editor who initiated the request, but that remains a good faith error.
 * GorillaWarfare: I don't count her as involved either. Acting as an arbitrator is acting in administrative capacity, so supporting a ban for Eric in a previous case is no different than an admin blocking an editor once, then doing so again later. She clearly did not wheel war, even if we do count BK's close as an "admin action", as others have noted it takes three actions to reach that policy's breaking point.
 * ReaperEternal: I think his view of consensus leaned a bit too far into head counting territory, but at the same time, I think it is absurd that he is even a named party for a good faith reading of what he viewed consensus to be. The AN thread had become a de facto appeal of the block, and it required an uninvolved admin to make that call.  There is absolutely zero reason to fault ReaperEternal for his willingness to do so.

All in all, I think all three admins acted in good faith, each thinking they were doing what is best for the project. None should be sanctioned as the conduct concerns we have are caused by poorly understood policy. As such, this should focus on clarifying what behaviour is expected when dealing with these policies. In particular:


 * When is is appropriate to close an AE request, particularly, how long should a request stay open. Especially in a case that is guaranteed to be controversial.
 * Whether closing a discussion with no action counts as an admin action or whether a use of the tools is required. And if so, whether that counts as an admin action in the limited venue of AE.  When deciding this, be absolutely sure your wording matches your intentions, as the last thing we need is admins hauled here for "wheel warring" over a disagreement about closing an ANI report (as one example).
 * Beyond the scope of this case, but something you should consider internally: Whether escalating blocks for each infraction is helpful and whether AE admins should have discretion to bend the rules on such blocks. Probably no happy answer here - some have suggested there is no problem if Eric is blocked for a short time for a "minor" breach.  At the same time, he's breached five times in six months. It is pretty damn obvious that another slap on the wrist won't clue him in.
 * Also mentioned in AN and here: Whether and when editors can request appeals by proxy. Namely, BlackKite's request for clarification on GW's actions became a de facto appeal, though Eric expressed no desire to do so, and GregJackP's creation of this RFAR despite being a peripheral player in this.

What is most needed here is clarification of what behaviour these policies demand rather than the fight over which admin editors dislike most that this is threatening to become. Resolute 23:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Biblioworm
GorillaWarfare's action did not actually constitute wheel-warring, since she did not reinstate an administrative action which had already been undone. Therefore, I don't think this particular case should be accepted. -- Biblio worm  16:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it appears that this case will be accepted, I will briefly lay out my views in bullet-point form:
 * Black Kite's close of the AE case was premature.
 * GorillaWarfare, however, rather than re-opening the case or consulting with Black Kite, unilaterally blocked Eric Corbett for a month.
 * GorillaWarfare has been involved with the gender gap topic and Eric. (I can easily provide diffs for this.)
 * GorillaWarfare denied that she had been involved with said topics.
 * I'm not denying that Eric may have violated his topic ban, because he actually may have, but in any case the alleged violation was much too doubtful and should have been reviewed by multiple uninvolved admins. A unilateral one-month block by an involved arbitrator was not appropriate.
 * The case was then taken to AN.
 * After a good deal of drama and a reversal of Adjwilley's closure, Reaper Eternal closed the discussion, with what seemed to be a slim consensus that the block was out of process.
 * There was no wheel-warring involved in this case. Wheel-warring is defined as reinstating an administrative action that was already undone. GorillaWarfare did not actually do this by unilaterally blocking Eric despite the AE closure. The first actual reversal of an administrative action was Reaper Eternal's unblock, and even then she did not reinstate an already reversed administrative action.
 * Finally, we would do ourselves good to consider the larger picture. Is all the trouble that arises from Eric-blocks really worth it? Simply banning him will also not solve anything, since that will probably result in one of the largest and most heated controversies since Essjay. -- Biblio worm  17:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you voted "Accept" twice. ;) -- Biblio worm  00:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ncmvocalist
This has been a most unfortunate mess to be reading through, with many comments which are disappointing. I don't think saying something to the effect of "nobody is arguing it wasn't a violation" really cuts it.

I sought clarification from this Committee in relation to exactly this type of issue in February 2015 (click here) - and that was sparked after Sandstein's handling of a similar AE request). It also dealt with the question of whether it would be wheel-warring. Each and every arb was fully aware of it, and knew this was coming; yet an arb has effectively perpetuated the issue. Instead of assisting in resolving disputes, the involvement by an arb has recklessly caused more problems. And that too, at AE.

I think a number of questions, including those below, need to be considered as far as a case is concerned or what is to happen next. I have given my answers and comments to some; others I've left alone to answer sooner or to be answered later.


 * Black Kite (admin)
 * Did his closure of the AE thread constitute an AE action? To name a couple of arbs, Salvio & DQ considered a closure of an AE request does constitute such an action when we discussed this at my clarification request. Otherwise, any uninvolved editor would be able to close an AE request.
 * What is a valid closure of an AE request? Is it from a consensus of AE admins or after an action is determined by an AE admin individually? Which of the two was this particular closure? If a consensus was required and there was no consensus or it was closed prematurely, then the closure needed to be overturned. If there was a consensus or if it was enough for an admin to determine that no action was needed, the closure was valid.
 * Is he INVOLVED as far as the blocked user is concerned?
 * Was the closure appropriate (with no action) in the circumstances of what was said at the thread, the time which had elapsed since the request was made, and the level of seriousness (however high or low) of the violation? This may not necessarily be answered here right here, given it is partially under discussion at AN.


 * GorillaWarfare (arb & admin)
 * Was she aware of the AE thread and its closure? Yes.
 * Was she aware of the vulnerability at AE in relation to this issue? Yes - she was a sitting arb at the time of my clarification request.
 * Did she consult with the other users who discussed the matter at AE about her objection with the closure? Or did she consult with the admin who closed the thread about her intended reversal of the AE non-action?
 * Was there a pressing need for her to use force to take the action that she did? No, it was inappropriate - and especially so for an arbitrator who should be leading by example in an arbitration-related matter (even if not a committee action). Due caution and restraint was not exercised.
 * Could she have re-opened the AE discussion boldly, or sought to re-open the AE discussion?
 * Was the unnecessary drama and disruption which resulted from the way she approached this situation predictable? Yes, this isn't as new as some suggest. It was her deliberate choice; she knew exactly what she was doing.
 * Does the community hold arbitrators to higher standards when they perform actions on Wikipedia even as an admin? Yes.
 * Were concerns regarding her strong feelings on the topic and user raised previously? Yes - I think it went to the point that a recusal request was raised during the gender gap case. Is she INVOLVED as far as the gender gap topic is concerned or the blocked user is concerned?
 * Should she recuse - and refrain from taking any further admin actions in relation to the topic and this particular user? Is she open to resolving the concerns moving forward, or does she wish to behave as rigidly as certain other admins at AE have done previously?


 * Eric Corbett (sanctioned editor)
 * Did he violate his topic ban?
 * Was there a pressing need to enforce the topic ban if he did? As I said above, no.
 * Was enforcement necessary? In particular, was there a developing pattern of breaching the restriction which was developing?
 * I stop the questions here in relation to this user as the AN discussion has not yet closed.


 * GregJackP (filing party)
 * Was there grounds for making a request to the committee? Quite obviously, and it didn't matter who did. The matter warrants some form of investigation, review, or clarification to ensure this type of disruption no longer arises.
 * Was his request made in bad faith and does it alone warrant sanctions? I don't see how it does.
 * Did his action constitute forum-shopping? I don't see how it can; it is after all an arbitration matter and he is not seeking an appeal.
 * Have attempts been made to intimidate him for coming here? Yes. One administrator has made a flimsy accusation of bullying and forum-shopping. Another editor has made an accusation of extending drama and called for sanctions.

Given the above, a case seems to be needed; the clarification at my last request seems to be unknown by most of the users commenting here. If the committee prefers the community is to have a discussion on aspects of this matter or the process which should be in place, it can by motion organise an RfC first (or after the case if it wants). A committee-organised RfC may help ensure it is not hijacked by the type of inappropriate commentary seen at this case request, at AN threads relating to this, at user talk pages relating to this, and elsewhere. It can also ensure there is a structure to the RfC so that the result is (hopefully) meaningful or beneficial to the project, broadly construed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Rschen7754
Given that Black Kite has been quite outspoken in regards to Eric Corbett in the past (link refers to ), I am concerned about his closure of the thread. With that being said, I do not think that arbitrators should be performing enforcement in most cases, but it is more of a "best practices" matter to me. --Rschen7754 17:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

(I do not plan to add any evidence beyond my statement above. --Rschen7754 03:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC))

Evidence presented by Lightbreather
This request should be declined. I opened and read "Information for administrators processing requests" at WP:AE several times now.

First bullet: If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.
 * I don't believe Black Kite was prepared to mete out a ban.

Second bullet (partial): ''... 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, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy...'' (emphasis mine)
 * While doing nothing might be considered an "action," the action in question was not done "pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy" nor was it "explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy." Consensus among comments - in the span of four hours - was that EvergreenFir was engaging in "harassment." There was NO discussion of whether or not an ArbCom remedy had been violated, which is what AE is for. Lightbreather (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Kingsindian
I am uninvolved in the matter. I just got to know about it because I watch WP:AE because of my involvement in WP:ARBPIA. 2 points I find myself in agreement with Black Kite. What is the point of WP:AE if anyone can simply ignore what goes on there? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 18:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the point that WP:AE closing is not an "admin" matter, it is routine to reopen WP:AE discussions when another admin has closed it, to offer different viewpoints. User GW was certainly aware of the WP:AE closing, and she could have reopened it, if it seemed to her that the measure was inadequate.
 * Let's assume for the moment that Eric Corbett actually violated the remedy. Does it mean that he should be blocked without any discretion whatsoever? There is plenty of precedent in WP:ARBPIA where one person breaks WP:1RR, which can happen even accidentally, the other person either makes a request at WP:AE or makes a comment on the talk page. Even veteran users are unclear as to whether WP:1RR is broken. The other person can accept that WP:1RR is broken and self-reverts, (sometimes self-reverts even without accepting it) and that is the end of the matter.

Not much to add. I am an outsider to this topic, having very little idea of GGTF except what I've seen an WP:AE and a few user talk pages I watch. My own feeling, which I have expressed many times at WP:AE in relation to WP:ARBPIA, is that the sanctions often seem extremely harsh to me, and way out of proportion to the supposed offence. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 03:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Davey2010
..Personally I don't think there was any wheel warring - BK closed the AE report as no result and GW blocked him anyway... so had anyone reverted the block/GW then a case could've been brought forward ... But there was no unblocking-wars.... – Davey 2010 Talk 19:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence
There's no point in repeating what's already been said here however I think it's evident that policies do need changing in regards to AE closures and perhaps tbans, On another note I don't believe Eric violated his tban either - I firmly believe you're allowed to say what you want (within reason) on your own talkpage - His comment was IMHO simply criticizing a WMF grant (That's how I perceived it anyway), I think those directly involved don't deserve sanctioning as IMHO I think there was confusion along the way, Anyway thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate
I would remind the Committee of the complaints I raised in the GamerGate case regarding Black Kite's administrative conduct, particularly acting as an admin while WP:INVOLVED, which has continued after the conclusion of the case. Also reminding the Committee of GorillaWarfare's "unrecusal" in the GamerGate case itself despite her very strong views as noted in the dispute on her talk page. There has been similar controversy over her participation in the Lightbreather case. Neither of these admins seem to have improved their behavior since the concerns I raised during that case.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Nick
I'd urge the committee to accept the case, even if it's framed as a sort of RfC solely for the purposes of identifying and rectifying grey areas, loopholes, points of contention etc that can be used to support or oppose Arbitration Enforcement. The fact the policy, as it currently stands, would have allowed me to block Eric for 1 minute and for nobody else to be able to impose a longer block makes a mockery of the whole system, as does the ability for all but 1 administrator to refuse to take action. AE as is really is an atrocious process resulting in some pretty abysmal decisions. Please, put it out of its misery and give us the opportunity to make something better. Nick (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jehochman
Arbitration enforcement actions, as in closing a discussion with a particular result, are never to be undone without further discussion and consensus. ArbCom has said this in no uncertain terms. I think GorillaWarfare made a mistake, but the error was not wheel warring. It was interference with arbitration enforcement. The proper action would be to question BlackKite or to reopen the discussion as improperly decided and then see if other administrators would agree to change the result. On Wikipedia it is sometimes necessary to exhibit great patience to get a correct result that sticks. I oppose sanctioning anybody over this matter, and do not think a case is needed, so long as GorillaWarfare expresses an understanding of how her action destabilized the arbitration enforcement regime. Parties to a request for enforcement should not be able to shop around for the most strict administrator who will apply a sanction when others will not (and as Kevin says below, they shouldn't be able to shop around for the least strict). If a discussion does not produce a clear result and is closed prematurely, it can be reopened.

As for Eric, I think we need to construe things as leniently as possible when an editor is on their own talk page. Nobody needs to watch Eric's talk page unless they want to. On an article or project talk page, enforcement should be stricter, and on somebody else's talk page, hostile comments directed at the talk page owner should receive the sternest enforcement. Applying this principle, it would be better to ignore the comment Eric made. Working against Eric is his own admission that he's baiting a block. But, as they say, a smart fish doesn't take the bait. Jehochman Talk 20:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing an AE request with a sanction or with a sanction of zero are logically identical. If the sanction is found to be zero, there is no logical reason that the close should be overturned by any admin who comes along and feels that the sanction should be >0. No more so than a close of >0 sanction should be overturned by an admin who thinks 0 is the correct sanction. Jehochman Talk 03:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented 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)

Regarding Reaper
Reaper Eternal is a CU and a sysop. The idea that he sn't familiar with one of arbcom's most well-accepted redlines is silly. He knew full well what he ws doing, and he ordinary penalties for doing it. I've heard he's an excellent CU, but that should not protect him from punishment. Reaper's explicit decline to self-revert his unblock of Eric despite the fact that even poorly formed AE blocks require consensus to overturn that is clearly lacking here and despite the fact that Reaper clearly knew it was an AE block and the consequences for going out of process in this area makes it even more clear he needs to lose his toolset - he's lost the trust they require. Reaper also demonstrated a very poor ability to read consensus, another important skill in a sysop. Even if you think GW acted out of proces, there's no way that thread could be closed as consensus to unblock, even if it weren't an AE block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Eric
Eric should immediately be reblocked. He could have appealed his own block. He has not. I rather expect he is sitting somewhere chuckling.

Regarding other stuff
The community can handle policy issues, like whether or not reopening an AE section would be violating an 'enforcement action' Black Kite deserves a trout for thinking it was good to close an AE thrad about Eric where only one admin and basically only Eric's supporters had commented after four hours. I don't think he needs anything but a big fat trout. I think it says something about arbcom that this case wasn't just handled by a motion reblocking Eric and deprivving Reaper. Currently, if a no action AE close is an 'enforcement action' then reopening that thread would be violating an enforcement action. That is, bluntly, stupid.

Regarding RG:

 * Reaper Eternal closed an ANI section related to Eric
 * I reverted Reaper's close, in part because I thought a closing statement should not contain a clear policy vio
 * RGloucester then reverted my close, saying the close was final
 * On his talk page, RGloucester then stated that I needed to obtain consensus somewhere to revert the close

If RG was an admin, this would've been a wheel war. However, RGloucester's suggestion that I could not possibly revert unless I obtained consensus somewhere to do so (despite being asked for policy or precedent supporting such an idea) comes dangerously close to the harm of a wheelwar. I had intended to reclose the section (and reclosing sections is commonpractice, and certainly doesn't need consensus) with a cmomment something to the effect of 'no consensus, further comments not worth the drama' while moving Reaper's comment to my lower section, in part because I don't think a clear policy vio should be maintained in a major AN closing. It's worth noting that because of his actions, no comment from Reaper was present in the lower section until he woke up, and a clear policy vio (overturning an AE block without consensus) still stands in the closure statement. However, RGloucester's suggestion that I could not possibly revert a closure unless I obtained consensus somewhere both prevented me from doing so, comes dangerously close to a 'non-admin wheel war', and would've been a formal wheelwar had RG been an admin. I believe RG's actions are essentially a 'non-admin wheelwar' - conduct worse than editwarring, but less severe than an actual wheelwar. I still don't think a full case is necessary here, but if one is to be had, I believe RG's behavior deserves examination. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Responses to others

 * Carrite: I said that I'd see no problem with people talking about Eric if they didn't violate WP:OUTING. I said I saw no problem with discussion of arbcom candidates even if that discussion - shocker - changed the minds of multiple people.  I see nothing wrong with either statement and stand by both. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Reaper: if you believed that Gorilla overturned BK's AE action improperly, the proper thing to do would have been to challenge it at a relevant noticeboard. Instead you overturned another AE action with no consensus, which, even if we believe was an out of process AE enforcement action, was still an AE enforcement action.  Additionally, I severely question your judgement about consensus. But basically your judgement is you both did something desysoppable? Because you had pathways to approach GW's behavior other than what was explicitly overturning an AE decision, Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Reaper: sitting arbs (who are admittedly recused from this case) had already warned Adj that there was in no way reasonable consensus to overturn GW's AE decision. No reasonable reading of consensus would find it either. You could have reported GW for ostensibly overturning an enforcement action without consensus.  Instead you chose to do the same thing yourself. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding IHTS - this guy is funny, isn't he? Thanks for making me smile in the early morn. Kevin Gorman (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by EvergreenFir
AN made it clear there are a number of issues that need addressing:


 * 1) How does admin discretion come into play if admins are a part of the community's inability to independently resolve an issue?
 * 2) Similarly, what is INVOLVED in regards to admin actions on AE filings?
 * 3) What is considered "admin action" on AE?
 * 4) What does an ideal AE course of events look like for filing with merit?
 * 5) How should tban violations be handled if the violation is minor?
 * 6) How should tbans and sanctions for them be viewed?

Part of the fundamental problem is that admins typically use their discretion when addressing problem behavior, but this discretion is problematic with respect to tban enforcement when they have strong opinions counter to the arbcom's ruling. If they oppose the sanctions, they will look for ways to avoid enforcing them. The same can be said for the reverse that someone may look for excusing to mete out blocks. We have mechanisms in place to review such poor blocks, but any way to review lack of action.

Moreover, arbcom is used when the community cannot resolve problems. This means that ANI and admins themselves were unable to deal with an issue effectively. So how can we expect admins to adequately handle AE requests if they themselves are also so polarized unless they are directed to simply enforce as in Arbitration Enforement the arb com remedies? Admins should only use discretion and consider community input to determine if the alleged violation is indeed a violation and was done so knowingly and intentionally. Nothing more. (Note, only referring to dealing with tbans from cases, not discretionary sanctions).

If anyone cares to read the rest of my thoughts on this (lol I know you don't), see here.

AE blocks are not in response to the single action, they're in response to the pattern of actions. In this sense, blocks are not quite punitive or preventative. They are meant to stop the pattern of behavior. They prevent further ongoing disruption but also discourage continuation of that disruption by use of negative sanctions (blocks).

Thus I encourage arbcom to consider and clarify the purpose of AE, its ideal protocol for admin responses to AE filings, and the purpose and nature of tbans.


 * Given Reaper Eternal's unblock of Corbett, this needs arbcom attention. There was not certainly not clear and substantial consensus.
 * Question for - If BK's action is "admin action", do you see this case as investigating if it was an appropriate action?
 * Thank you! Follow up question: will all those who this applies to be notified of the injunction individually? I imagine that some folks from AN might not be following things here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you add during the duration of the proceedings or something similar to the end of your second point in the motion? Else it sounds like they may never take or initiate actions.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. AGK  [•] 21:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Moved from  L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 22:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of events

 * 1) 16:19, 25 June 2015 Corbett posts comment on talk page about how WMF's workshop related to gender issues is "grossly offensive". Adds that can block me again for as long as he likes, for whatever reason takes his fancy, but to my mind this is simply unacceptable.
 * 2) 16:31, 25 June 2015 Adds another comments to the section linked in #1 above.
 * 3) 17:13, 25 June 2015 I (EvergreenFir) filed an AE request related to the previous two diffs.
 * 4) 21:58, 25 June 2015 Black Kite closes the AE with the reason General consensus amongst admins and others appears to be that there is no issue to pursue here.
 * 5) 22:58, 25 June 2015 GorillaWarfare blocks Corbett for 1 month for Violation of GGTF topic ban
 * 6) 06:53, 26 June 2015‎ Black Kite opens an AN discussion regarding GW's block of Corbett.
 * 7) 00:02, 27 June 2015‎ GregJackP initiates A/R titled Wheel-warring by GorillaWarfare.
 * 8) 13:01, 27 June 2015 Adjwilley closes the AN stating they intend to reduce the block length of Corbett to 1 week.
 * 9) 16:59, 27 June 2015 Courcelles warns Adjwilley that You may not, under any circumstances, modify any block that enforces an arbitration decision without a clear and substantial consensus. This applies to any sanction made under the authority, or to enforce an arbitration remedy. You acknowledge there was no consensus, so making this was a highly improper action.
 * 10) 20:29, 27 June 2015 Adjwilley undoes the AN closure citing Courcelles' warning.
 * 11) 23:31, 27 June 2015 Reaper Eternal unblocks Corbett after closing the AN thread at 23:30, 27 June 2015‎. In the closure, Reaper claimed consensus among users, despite saying A pure vote count shows a 60/40 split in favor of unblocking.
 * 12) 00:17, 28 June 2015‎ Kevin Gorman starts discussion of Reaper's unblock on the AN.
 * 13) 00:30, 28 June 2015 The ed17 warns Reaper that the block by GW was not a regular block.
 * 14) 02:45, 28 June 2015 Kevin Gorman adds themself and Reaper Eternal as parties to the A/R.
 * 15) 11:18, 28 June 2015‎ Xeno closes the entire AN discuss and points to the case request.
 * 16) 12:52, 28 June 2015‎ Kevin Gorman adds RGloucester as party to case.
 * 17) 21:58, 28 June 2015 L235 opens this case.

The AE and its closure by Black Kite
A total of nine people (one sysop) commented on the AE before it was closed by Black Kite. Black Kite began closing the AE after 4:41 hours.

Summary of comments by those nine: 3 said to leave him be, 1 indicated the comment was too minor, 2 said that the request did not help the encyclopedia, 2 commented against the topic ban itself, 4 commented on the filer (me). None commented on the actual diff or whether or not it was a violation of the tban. Of those who commented, most seem to follow Corbett's talk page and actively support him. Given the short time for comments and the nature of those who commented, and the nature of the comments themselves, it was improper to close the AE as there was no consensus and no discussion of the actual alleged tban violation.

The refrain during the AE and AN was that the action was too minor to warrant a block. Black Kite as mentioned this view on this page. I argue that AE blocks are not for the individual violation alone, but the long pattern of abuse by the individual.

GregJackP
On the AE, GregJackP restored a comment by Andy Dingley that was removed by Gamaliel. Gamaliel did so as an admin action as evidenced by their warning to SagaciousPhil who also removed the comment prior to GregJackP )


 * you restored the comment at 21:43, 25 June 2015. Sagaciousphil was warned at 21:01, 25 June 2015. For note, after SagPhil, an IP editor removed it too (with a lovely edit summary), which Gamaliel reverted and warned the user for . Point taken that Gamaliel was not crystal clear in the edit summary, but Gamaliel is an admin. It would have been better to inquire directly imho.

Evidence presented by Gerda Arendt
I request the committee to look at an aspect of AE that troubles me: a report without a talk to the other user before. A talk hoping for a revert, and I suggest to request it if not done, before comments even begin, hoping that the user in question will revert or modify the edit in question. The Sunday sermon in music is about mercy.


 * Further reading:

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Read a book
 * Take a stroll

I see evidence that we have here much ado about almost nothing, and should look at the reasons. I see no imminent danger for Wikipedia in the original comments, and proceeded to the workshop, saying what and reflected. - The book will appear as TFA on 19 July, a shortcut for those who have no time for the stroll, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by DHeyward
A review of Eric's block log clearly shows there was no wheel-warring. That was defined long ago as the 3rd act. He was blocked and unblocked. Whether he violated the GGTF topic ban with a comment on his talk page is beyond my knowledge. However, being taken to AE for a comment on his talk page might be the basis for an IBAN between the filer and Eric. Whether that can be handled through AE DS or needs a case here is up to the committee. Unwatching Eric's talk page might be good for everyone. Perhaps Eric can be the first editor that has full protection on his own space so he can concentrate on content and avoid comments unrelated to articles he works on. --DHeyward (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Lack of Evidence

 * There is an overarching, unanswered, question that makes evidence rather irrelevant. That question needs to be answered by ArbCom if possible.
 * The question is: "What exactly is required by an admin to enforce an ArbCom Discretionary Sanction?" If the answer hinges on an AE request, then the evidence is quite different than if an admin can act unilaterally, immediately and without discussion using their own discretion.  It's the basic question as to whether closing an AE request with no action is a meaningful act or whether it has weight.  If administrators are free to implement sanctions at any time under their own authority, then AE is a formality and tool for finding consensus but not necessarily a requirement for action.  If that is so, then in no way can "No action" be construed as an AE action, let alone an admin action.  We do not have logs of "No action" which gives weight to any closings.  No editor can point to past "No Actions" as an official endorsement of good behavior.  And rightly so.
 * I suspect the answer is that each admin can enact an AE sanction with or without an AE request as this was the original intent and stopped the block/unblock cycle (it made the unblock subject to consensus, rather than wheel-warring to retain a block). The sanction can then be appealed in the normal fashion.  This is exactly what happened here but various parties are alleging weight to the AE closure, the ANI closure/block reversal and GorillaWarfare's block.  I submit each action was within policy.  Closure of AE without action is not binding on action but it may weigh heavily on appeal.  If closure without action were binding, we would not see previously closed behaviors being brought up as evidence for future sanctions yet this happens all the time.
 * I'd also ask the committee to clarify that any party can bring an AE sanction for review, not just the subject. Why it's limited to the subject is not clear in how such limitations benefit the encyclopedia.  Returning editors to a place of normalcy should be open to everyone and be the goal of everyone.  It's not a burden that an individual needs to bear alone.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Lastly, there is a concern about Arbitrators acting as administrators for enforcement. I'd submit that ArbCom members should abstain.  The reason being is that any action that may likely be brought to ArbCom creates an issue for the committee.  All were elected and the abstentions needed for members who are parties takes away from the communities input of who should be judges.  ArbCom members should tread lightly in areas of conflict and defer action to the community.  AE/DS enforcement is by definition "areas of conflict" and great drama is created unnecessarily by grand action. --DHeyward (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Davewild
Since the case request was opened, Adjwilley closed the WP:AN discussion saying that given no consensus they were shortening the block length to 1 week, but crucially did not immediately implement this. After comments on their talk page - User talk:Adjwilley - including from 2 arbitrators Courcelles and Euryalus, they reverted the close after it was pointed out to them that they could not modify an arbitration enforcement sanction without "clear and substantial consensus". Reaper Eternal has now reclosed the discussion and unblocked Eric Corbett saying that as there was no consensus and the default state is to be unblocked they have unblocked.

I think that given the latest developments the committee is going to have to look at the whole run of events both to clarify areas that are unclear and decide if anyone should be sanctioned. This could include the original comment by Eric Corbett (was this a violation of the Topic Ban and should it be sanctioned?), the original closure by Black Kite (was this an acceptable closure?), the subsequent blocking by GorillaWarfare (was this allowed given Black Kite's closure as no action and if not would it have been acceptable for them to reopen the WP:AE thread?) and finally the unblocking by Reaper Eternal (was this ok without "clear and substantial consensus"?) At the very least the committee needs to give clarity for the future to try and reduce the likelihood of similar events happening again. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by TenOfAllTrades
Regarding Reaper Eternal's recent unblocking, it looks like he is unfamiliar with the standards set out for reversing another administrator's Arbitratation Enforcement action. A lack of consensus for the block at AN/I (note, not a clear and substantial consensus to overturn to the block) is insufficient grounds to reverse an AE block.

AE blocks (and other enforcement actions taken under Discretionary Sanctions) are afforded this special status precisely because they are applied in areas where interminable and inconclusive noticeboard discussions have previously been tried and failed repeatedly to resolve problems. Allowing Reaper Eternal to overturn a friend's block based on yet-another-interminable-and-inconclusive-AN/I-thread directly undermines the purpose and function of the entirely DS framework.

I hope that Reaper Eternal was simply unaware of the strictness of the rules that apply to AE/DS blocks – or failed to fully think through the consequences of trying to bend those rules so far, or to appreciate why the standards for an AE/DS appeal are as high as they are – and that he will withdraw or amend his actions accordingly. (Or, if someone else does it first, that he will acknowledge going forward that he made a mistake in overturning another admin's AE/DS action this way.)

Failing that, Reaper Eternal should be barred from acting or participating in the the AE/DS process in any administrative capacity. ArbCom should further consider whether or not he remains fit to retain adminship and other advanced privileges. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, as a procedural matter I think that the bulk of the issues presented can be addressed by motion without requiring a full case. The ArbCom can re-affirm its provisions regarding the application of discretionary sanctions (especially that overturning an enforcement action requires a clear, active, and substantial consensus of uninvolved admins, and that enforcement isn't paralyzed or defeated by a deadlocked noticeboard thread) and remind the admin corps that appeals are to be directed to the ArbCom. Depending on Reaper Eternal's response to these proceedings, his situation can be dealt with by admonishment, restriction, or desysopping, again by motion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by B
You said, "Whether the closure of a discussion at AE constitutes an 'admin action' should certainly be clarified."

No, there is nothing that needs to be clarified. The policy says, "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, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy ... ."

It does not say "admin action" - it says "any action" and, "any action" means "any action", not "any block". Believing that the wrong decision was made does not give you the authority to overturn the close. --B (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by uninvolved Tryptofish
It should be clear from the WP:AN discussion that the community is not of one mind about these issues, and that the issues are highly contentious. Consequently, I think that the Committee should accept something like this case, in some manner, in order to resolve the questions for the community going forward. It seems to me that there are really two very separate groups of issues here, however. The first group of issues concerns the original talk page comment by Eric Corbett. Obviously, ArbCom and the community have been here many, many times before, and potentially could be here in the future many, many times again. We have abundant data proving that the community splits into opposing camps that cannot agree whenever issues about Eric come up. In this particular instance, I don't think what he said was terribly disturbing as these things have gone, but it was obviously a violation of the existing sanctions, and an obvious attempt to test the waters to see whether it would be seen as a sufficiently serious violation to trigger a block. And it wasn't provoked by someone trying to get him in trouble. Would Wikipedia lose more by losing a long-time content builder, or by maintaining a reputation as a place that isn't always welcoming to female editors? The community can't agree on an answer – you should. The second group of issues concerns administrative actions: what is or isn't wheel warring, and what is the role of ArbCom itself in AE? Personally, I think that everyone acted in good faith but with a lack of procedural clarity, and that GorillaWarfare has been beaten up on unfairly, but that's just my opinion and the Committee needs to clarify all of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The block of Eric Corbett was not contrary to policy or ArbCom sanctions.

 * 1) Eric Corbett is currently subject to ArbCom sanctions: link. The scope of the topic ban was made explicit: link. The ban applies in all page spaces, including Eric's user talk, and applies unambiguously to "any process or discussion related to" Gender Gap issues.
 * 2) Eric Corbett made these edits, leading to the current case:, , . These edits were in the form of a new talk section, and thus were not in any way provoked by another editor. The off-Wiki post he quotes, , contains nothing referring to Eric or designed to provoke him. Eric clearly disparages this "process or discussion" and indicates that he is aware that he might be blocked for what he said.
 * 3) Although editors who participated in the discussion at AE concluded that, in their opinions, it would be reasonable not to block Eric for those comments, a plain reading of the topic ban and the edits in question shows that a block by any administrator is not, in itself, contrary to policy or contrary to the ArbCom sanctions.

Evidence presented by Bosstopher
Any chance of Arbcom desysoping the angry acid admin mentioned in reaper eternal's statement by motion? Someone who says such things is clearly not the sort of person who should have any form of community trust put in them. Being angry is no excuse. How are editors meant to feel comfortable contributing to the encyclopaedia knowing that there's an admin who relishes in such thoughts and that this sort of thing is tolerated (to the extent that their identity hasn't been disclosed) on admin IRC channels? Bosstopher (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by uninvolved Mrjulesd
I think the two most important points that needs deciding above everything:

1. Should WP:AE requests be open for a minimum period, to garner sufficient views from enforcing admins?

2. When a WP:AE request is closed with no action, what opportunities are available for appeal of that decision? Is an appeal even necessary, and overturning of that decision is then without consequence?

I feel any investigations of conduct are not necessary, as there does not appear that clear cut misconduct has taken place. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Adjwilley
I've been involved (not WP:Involved) with the EC case for some time now with the agenda of killing drama. When I can I try to stamp out fires before they spread too far, and my primary goal has been to prevent the time-wasting and rancorous discussions at community noticeboards and Arbcom, with the associated blocks, retirements and desysops that so often accompany them.

Regarding my closure of the WP:AN discussion, my interpretation of the rules is that a WP:AN discussion with such broad participation completely overrides Black Kite's closure of the short WP:AE discussion, and absolutely overrides the actions of a single admin (GorillaWarfare). 50 admins collectively saying "no consensus for this block" means "no consensus for this block". Per my reading of the discussion, there was consensus that GorillaWarfare's block was out of process, and I note that Reaper Eternal found the same thing. I didn't find consensus to unblock Eric, but by the same measure I didn't find consensus to leave Eric blocked. Because of this I used some discretion to set the block to a more reasonable time in hopes that it would deescalate the situation. (Closing and leaving the block in place would have been unfair and would have resulted in more drama; closing and unblocking would have rubbed a lot of people wrong and would also result in more drama, so I split the difference.) I intentionally waited before implementing the close, and the ensuing conversation on my talk page convinced me that moving forward with the modified block would not be worth the drama, so I reversed my close. I still believe it would have been a valid close, and I believe that Reaper Eternal's close is just as valid, even if it didn't result in a net decrease in drama.

For this case request, I don't believe that any action needs to be taken other than perhaps making small clarifications in the rules for AE. All the users involved in this case have already gotten all the "punishment" they deserve.
 * Eric Corbett got blocked for the mild but intentional infringement of his topic ban, and the length of the (shortened) block was proportionate to the severity of the offense.
 * Black Kite got some scrutiny and some trouts for their early closing of the AE noticeboard discussion. I don't think they will make that mistake again.
 * GorillaWarefare got scrutiny and some trouts for their out-of-process block of EC. I don't think they will make that mistake again.
 * Reaper Eternal is getting a sufficient amount of blowback from unblocking Eric. Desysopping them would only be shooting Wikipedia in the foot.
 * Wikipedia has punished itself enough...I suspect the man/woman-hours already wasted on this number in the hundreds. If you accept this case, please skip the evidence/workshop phases and just clarify the rules as others have suggested. We don't need a GGTF 2.0 case.    ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented 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)

Evidence presented by SB Johnny
I don't think you'll follow this advice, but you really should. Don't make a case out of this (drama, drama, drama), but rather pass a resolution as follows:

1) For conduct which lacks the good judgement, decorum, and neutrality expected of administrators, all named parties who are administrators are and referred to WP:RFA immediately for reconfirmation, and will lose their administrator status if they fail to pass. 2) The arbitration committee is instructed to avoid creating situations in which a user under scrutiny will almost certainly find themselves brought to WP:AE on a regular basis, and admonished for failing to do this in the recent past.

Evidence presented by Opabinia regalis
For what it's worth, I am about as uninvolved in this situation as it's possible to be. The Malleus account was registered after I had more or less left the project, and the GGTF case was over before I returned earlier this year. I couldn't be more uninvolved if I were posting from DOOP Headquarters.

I have three concerns about the matters related to this case:
 * 1) The Arbitration Enforcement process: This whole creaking edifice was built in my absence, and looking at it with fresh eyes makes its serious deficits abundantly clear. As currently constructed and interpreted, it's effectively a decision ratchet; escalation from a no-action decision is always allowed and de-escalation after action has been taken is always forbidden. Minimally, clarification on the status of a no-action decision is needed here; preferably, the process should be refined to reduce this asymmetry.
 * 2) The effect of this incident on efforts to address the gender gap: This is really outside the scope of this case, but I believe critical to keep in mind as the broader context to all of this internal wikiprocess-wonking. The way Eric's comment has been handled is in my opinion destructive to overall efforts to address the gender gap. It plays directly to the insulting stereotype of "feminists" as hypersensitive drama-mongers ready to pounce on any minor perceived transgression. The topic ban itself, as an empirical matter, manifestly does not reduce disruption and should be refined to a more reasonable scope that doesn't invite this kind of overreaction.
 * 3) Kevin Gorman's reaction to Reaper's unblock: Reaper made a thoughtful closing statement explaining a decision intended to de-escalate a volatile situation. Kevin - who is clearly involved - responded by escalating still further, apparently believing his interpretation of "policy violations" to supersede this already existing request for clarification on the very policy he was invoking. His repeated "Nice admin bit, shame if something happened to it" posts (eg, , ,  though RG isn't an admin , plus his statement here) were in very poor taste and reflect poor judgment about the purpose of process as a means of avoiding rather than perpetuating disruption. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Spartaz
I am deeply offended to be made subject to an arbitration injunction for a case where I have made no comment and given no indication that I plan to use my tools, let alone use them in an injudicious or inappropriate way. This broad brush "damn them all" injunction is the wiki equivalent of being prepared to hand 99 innocent people to ensure that 1 guilty party does not escape.

This is deeply unjust and insulting. You can find someone else to close AFDs and DRVs. Spartaz Humbug! 16:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ihardlythinkso
EC didn't violate the Tban. His comment concerned the patronizing implication of a WMF course that women need "help" from men, and men need to be coached accordingly. His post wasn't about GGTF, nor gender disparity, nor any process relating to either of those. The course description never mentioned those topics. The source linked to was not part of any edit by EC, was independent observation by others outside any edit of EC's. That basis is too tenuous for such an extensive block. There s/b clear violation for such an extensive block. (Try again, GW; everyone has seen how you previously wanted him site-banned.) IHTS (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , you can't see how hypocritical your posts here? (Accusing I harassed Callanecc when I did not. Accusing I bullied him when I did not. Accusing I made personal attack against him when I did not. Accusing I made accusation of bad faith to him when I did not.) Someone should block you for all your false and character-slandering accusations, MR ADMINISTRATOR. I'm not on this website to take your fucking abuse. The fact no clerk has restrained your accusations does not mean I have to take your fucking abuse. IHTS (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , when I asked Callanecc if it was possible his better angel had evolved (or devolved) as a result of his experiences as clerk, it was clear I was comparing his emphasis on the importance of content at his RfA ("at the end of the day that's what Wikipedia is for") versus editing behavior since gaining admin tools involving issuing blocks and policy enforcement. And if memory serves (do you want me to diff it?) he even agreed with me that transition may have occurred. So on what basis to smear me by accusing of personally attacking him, bullying him, or showing him bad faith?? You accuse me of those things on this arb page, pick words out of context in lame attempt to back up your false accusations, and still do not see how hypocritical is your behavior?! What a crock! IHTS (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , "Corbett anticipated a block for his actions, indicating he was aware he was violating his tban". Wrong. EC anticipated that admin Callanecc might block - an assessment by EC of how that admin likely processes things, not an admission by EC if his comment crossed his Tban or not. (This is misinterpretation on your part to color another party guilty through manipulative and underhanded argument. Please stop it.) IHTS (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , "Sjakkalle gives examples of this below, though they note (and I agree) that these are only small samples of the nastiness [...]. Sjakkalle's false accusations and attempt to smear my character are not forms of nastiness?! Where do you get your civility standards?? IHTS (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , let me get this straight: You accuse me of "nastiness" according to Sjakkalle's evidence, then when I challenge the basis of your accuse and its civility, you back it up by agreeing Sjakkalle's evidence wasn't convincing, but he could have selected better evidence. (You didn't provide any evidence yourself, apparently you'd rather just cast aspersions and lean on Sjakkalle to back up your attack on me. Is that some new Wiki argumentation standard?? - making a claim and then saying someone else will provide the evidence for you?! Then using that as rationale to let the claim stand?! Wow.) IHTS (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , you and Skjakalle have been the editors attacking *me* in this arb thread - Sjakalle accusing of making personal attacks, bullying and showing bad faith, you supported that accusation, adding "nastiness" and "incivility", without any evidence. There wasn't any basis for your accuses, I've defended myself in this arb thread where you and Sjakalle have decided to levy them. (So sorry no deal about your Talk, as long as your attacks remain here.) And now you're asserting that my calling uncivil your false accusations in this thread, is itelf uncivil?? And I'm demonstrating interesting "irony" that I don't see that?? (Oh that's rich, Gorilla! Apparently you have given yourself the right to agree with an editor accusing of personal attacks, bullying, and showing bad fath, and call their edits "nastiness" and "uncivil", in an arb thread, all without evidence, and when the target of your attacks objects and defends and challenges the basis of them in the thread, it is just them demonstrating their incivility again, and how ironic they are, and then you find reason you can't respond here further??) IHTS (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , "I rather expect he [EC] is sitting somewhere chuckling.. This kind of bad-faith personal shit is allowed in arbitration proceedings?? Are we allowed then to "expect" you get off by attacking EC in every way and every opportunity, because you have no other life outside trivialities and self-aggrandizement?? IHTS (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Emufarmers
The entire dispute about what constitutes an "admin action" seems to be based on the information box on WP:AE, which is cribbed from a 2010 motion. Unless I'm missing something, this motion was superseded by a 2014 motion, which the actual policy pages all link to. It says "sanction" instead of "action, which makes the intent pretty clear. —Emufarmers(T/C) 06:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sphilbrick
I'll start by offering kudos to Reaper Eternal for the excellent summarization table in: Initial_evidence_and_scenario_table

It takes a couple minutes to review but it's worth it.

That table along with the list of questions: Questions_ArbCom_needs_to_answer

highlights one of the main reasons we are here. We have established some processes for dealing with certain situations but those processes are not fully coherent. One could hardly dream up better evidence than that several highly respected admin's are not in agreement as to how this issue should have been resolved. It is obviously unsurprising to encounter disputes when not all parties share the same set of facts, but I don't think that's the issue here. There are some minor disagreements about some facts, but the main disagreements appear to be how to interpret our formal and informal policies covering this incident.

In addition to the eight items identified by Reaper Eternal, I'll suggest some others. I'll emphasize I am not necessarily looking for Arbcomto rewrite policy or guidelines but mainly to concur that there are issues with the policies and direct the community to address them possibly with some interim guidance.

1. If an AE report is closed, but an admin does not see it and takes action inconsistent with the close what should happen?

2. If an AE report is in progress and actively being discussed, but not yet closed, can an admin takes action anyway?

3. Would the answer to the above question differ depending on whether the action taken was largely consistent with the discussion in progress or largely at variance with the discussion of in progress?

4. If an AE report is closed but an admin feels that it was closed improperly or prematurely can the admin simply ignore it and take action anyway or should the admin reopen and contribute to the AE report?

Evidence presented by isaacl
The following background information on the enforcement of sanctions enacted by the Arbitration Committee or the community is entered into evidence for the purpose of analysis in the workshop.

The Arbitration Committee may enact sanctions that restrict the community's behaviour
In accordance with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration&oldid=664963804#Active_sanctions the "Active sanctions" section of Wikipedia:Arbitration], the arbitration committee can enact sanctions as a remedy for an arbitration case, or as a result for a motion or a request for clarification or amendment. Sanctions can be [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions&oldid=667671712 general] and thus applicable to all editors, or they can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions&oldid=669123261 be limited to individual editors].

One subset of general sanctions is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions&oldid=668969295 an authorization for discretionary sanctions], which allows administrators to exercise their personal judgment in imposing sanctions at their discretion to moderate disruption in targeted areas of contention.

Violations of sanctions enacted by the Arbitration Committee can be [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration&oldid=664963804#Requesting_arbitration reported at the Arbitration enforcement request page].

The community may enact general sanctions and editing restrictions
The [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions&oldid=667671712#Community_sanctions community can enact general sanctions], and editors can report violations at the administrator's noticeboard.

The [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions&oldid=669123261 community can enact editing restrictions] applicable to individual editors. No general statement is contained on the Editing Restrictions page regarding reporting violations; some of the individual restrictions contain instructions on reporting violations.

Discretionary sanctions have specific procedures in place
There is a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions&oldid=668969295 separate page describing the procedures for discretionary sanctions].

Evidence presented by Gobonobo
This matter cannot be understood without looking at the behaviour of Eric Corbett and his supporters.


 * Since January Eric has openly disregarded his gender gap topic ban on multiple occasions.


 * 24 January 2015: “This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in.”
 * 26 February 2015: “Isn't it about time that these militant feminists were dealt with once and for all?”
 * 5 April 2015: “The GGTF is also a travesty, fuelled by comments made by the terminally dim Sue Gardner, and which will cost the WMF lots of money in funding daft projects that will not make the slightest difference to anything.”
 * 26 May 2015: On the GGTF's talk page under the section 'Girl bands' - “It's a strange feeling not being allowed to call absolute bollocks what it is, absolute bollocks.”
 * 25 June 2015: links to a Gender Gap list post by Valerie Aurora about a Wikimania workshop concerned with gender bias, calling it “grossly offensive”.


 * He repeatedly dared administrators to block him while flouting the topic ban.


 * 5 April 2015 - “Now block/ban me, and see if I care.”
 * 26 May 2015 - edit summary for a post on the GGTF talk - “a strange feeling, but certainly one worth another punt at AE”
 * 25 June 2015 - “Callanecc can block me again for as long as he likes.”


 * Policy is not enforced equally with regards to Eric Corbett.

Arbitration remedies, blocks, topic bans and sanctions for Eric are de facto under- and unenforceable. Taking into account his Malleus Fatuorum block log, Eric has racked up some 34 blocks. He has been spared from the full duration of these blocks, with 22 ending in unblocks. Because his blocks are usually overturned and rarely met with lasting or proportionate consequences, there is little incentive for editors to report. Administrators and editors who value their own time understandably do not want to become entangled in dramafests or risk becoming targets of Eric's more vociferous defenders. The vocal group of editors who rise to his defense have been influential in the determination of every AE request and AN/I report involving him. 

The blocks Eric has received have been shorter than those prescribed by section 3.3 of WP:ARBGGTF. Instead of the block schedule there (72 hrs, 72 hrs, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months), the six or so violations of his topic ban since January instead resulted in shorter blocks (48 hrs, 72 hrs, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month ). His 5 April violation did not result in a block despite a report to AE.


 * Black Kite is WP:INVOLVED as a long-time supporter of Eric and should not have closed the AE.

Sandstein's evidence demonstrates this rather conclusively, especially regarding Black Kite's admin actions in Eric's defense. Black Kite's premature closure of the AE was out of process and compromised the efficacy of arbitration enforcement. Eric's supporters regularly close discussions concerning him, without taking action. 

Being targeted for retribution has become sadly familiar for editors working on the gender gap. The "5 Horsemen" of the GamerGate case, Carolmooredc and Lightbreather have all been victims of campaigns against them. Escalating disputes to Arbitration in order to set up editors for falls is not unheard of. There is a real sense here that the Arbitration Committee is either unable or unwilling to to stop ongoing harassment.
 * If you're involved with gender gap issues, and are loud or controversial, you will be harassed.

Evidence presented by Djembayz
Gobonobo above has set things out better than I could:

If you're involved with gender gap issues, and are loud or controversial, you will be harassed.

The problem currently centers on that one editor and his supporters arguing for impunity, but it doesn't stop there. We are seeing a pattern developing showing that any woman who objects to the use of profanity and sexual terminology in the enforcement and administration sections of this site will be asked to leave, just as I was, both online and in real life. GW is just the most recent example, we've had plenty. (GGTF, GamerGate, etc.) It is pretty pointless to complain to the administrators here about sexual harassment when some of these administrators feel that vulgar sexual terminology is acceptable in their interactions. Some of the past year's dialogue at the Editor Retention Project about sexual harassment certainly was not supportive of women who want respect.

Here is a sample of the sort of dialogue that takes place at ANI. 1 I also seem to remember that admin TParis, in the time before his retirement, counted 42 uses of an obscene term on an ANI page, but do not have time available to seek out the exact diff.

Do women have any reasonable expectation of being treated fairly, when the people at in the administration, enforcement, and editor retention sections of the site view sexual vulgarities as an appropriate level of respect and decorum towards volunteers?

As an example of how this website is an unnecessarily hostile environment towards women: I added a redlink to the template of policies as an attempt to suggest that a sexual harassment policy would be a good idea, and I received a template indicating that this edit “did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed.”

Telling women to stop demanding respect and go write more articles about women scientists and romance novels isn't a satisfactory answer. We have civil rights and anti-harassment laws that protect us in real life-- why can't we have those same protections here? (Let me note that plenty of men are telling me in person that it's not just women, that men want the protections of these laws extended to them too, and that this site is not doing well by them either.) And if we can't have these protections because the Arbcom volunteers are overworked, why can't we hire people?

I am appalled that people in the community discussions see fit to lecture others that they have failed to create adequate numbers of featured articles to be considered worthy of respect. It’s just not so that people volunteering at Wikipedia deserve to be disrespected, unless they meet some arbitrary criteria about featured articles, or happen to be your friend. Everyone who volunteers to work on this website deserves to have respect. And everyone who volunteers to work on this website should be required to respect others as well.

Submitted as evidence for consideration:


 * Here’s what it takes to get removed from the public bus in the town where I am staying.
 * "We want to bring back respect between brothers and sisters and between male and female cousins. If a man practices this, he will respect and honor all women. If a woman practices this, she will respect and honor all men."--Albert White Hat, p. 68 of ISBN: 9780874805727

Wikipedia is not an off-color private social club, it is a volunteer effort performing a public service. If we want the general public to be comfortable participating here, we need to maintain the standards of conduct used in public spaces. --Djembayz (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Earlier ARCA
I wrote this (now slightly dated) on the case talk page and would like to enter it here, as the ARCA it links to might be useful as a basis of some principles in this case. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
*****Before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person*****

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.