Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Proposed decision

Statement by B regarding the proposed amended injunction
If your intention is to resolve the problem with the existing injunction, you should spell out exactly what actions are prohibited. If you mean "blocking or imposition of sanctions or editing restrictions", then you should say, "blocking or imposition of sanctions or editing restrictions". At least one problem with this language is that when you ban action "against" the named parties, that means that if one of the named parties !votes keep on an XFD, no admin can delete that article as such a deletion would be "against" that party. That's worst than the current wording, which would only prevent 100 or so admins from closing the XFD - now nobody can. We have 1400 and change administrators and the vast majority of us had never heard of most of these people and have no desire to block any of them. If not for the ridiculous injunction, I would have had no interest whatsoever about this case. I had this single comment about the case regarding a misstatement of policy in the statement of one of the parties. That was it. I didn't care a bit in this world about anything else until you decided to drag me into it by imposing this injunction. Now you're making it worse by applying it to every admin, but not solving the actual problem that you don't clarify what you mean. --B (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This concern is resolved in the updated version. Thank you. --B (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Amnesty
Given the amnesty motion, is there anything left to do in the case if this passes? (In other words, I'm suggesting amending the motion to include that the case is closed.) No action is going to be taken against anyone and there is nothing left to arbitrate. --B (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, people wanted clarification on AE as well. They could probably do that by motion though. -- KTC (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what clarification is needed. It's perfectly clear that closing an AE request as "not blocked" or "no violation" or something similar is a "decision" that can't be reversed arbitrarily for no cause other than disagreeing with it. --B (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's certainly not a non contested point of view. There were a lot of out of process but reasonable actions taken. We at very least need to somehow codify that. It's possible we could close it by motion (and given several past cases, it might be the way to go), but there is a substantial amount to be reviewed. NativeForeigner Talk 17:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * the clarification on AE is by far the more important part of the case, because this is the way to avoid future problems. Though we could do it by motion, I think that the discussion would benefit greatly from the full community participation of a case. There have been  statements on this that I think obvious, obvious enough to simply enact if I were dictator, but some arbs and other editors think quite different positions equally obvious to them.   DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Once the motion is passed, can this please be enforced - on the case pages? I'd go so far as requesting that proposed remedies against specific named parties should be removed from the workshop page and archived as part of the purpose of this exercise is to have a focused discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on amended injunction terms
It doesn't make any sense for permission to be required to open a thread, and then separate permission again to close a thread. If a thread is opened, then it need to be closed at some point unless your plan is for it to die by apathy and archival by ClueBot. Just make sure to give sensible condition on potential closure when the thread is opened, otherwise who's going to bother? Any potential closer will just think "not worth the trouble, ArbCom can close the thread if they want to".

I also understand why you think not serving notice of the amended terms to 100 people will reduce distraction, but one effect is that the 110 people you told are under ArbCom injunction aren't actually told they are no longer under the injunction condition they were told they are under. -- KTC (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What an odd injunction. Can one of the active arbitrators explain the reasoning behind amending it as such, as opposed to just vacating it completely? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've posted a motion rescinding the injunction. Doug Weller (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems a lot more reasonable, though the amnesty portion is interesting. Now that you have narrowed the scope of the case to exclude Eric Corbett as a party, this amnesty is effectively equivalent to the Arbitration Committee stating that Eric Corbett's comment is either not a breach of his topic ban, or is a breach but may not be enforced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea is that whether or not Eric's comment was a breach of his topic ban, anyone taking any action regarding it or any of the actions that followed it would risk setting everything off again, causing more harm than good to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And so if he breaches the topic ban again, should it similarly be ignored for fear of setting everything off? The fallout from any sort of enforcement of this sanction is massive, and although we had hoped that implementing the sanction would decrease the drama that surrounded any action against Eric Corbett when we imposed it in the GGTF case, it is clear now that it is not having that effect. The Arbitration Committee omitting him from this case and supporting allowing him to breach his sanction in the interests of drama-avoidance only further muddies the waters for any future incident. If you are of the opinion that the drama created by enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanction is causing more harm than good to the project, the sanction needs to be vacated or replaced, not simply ignored. (For those who will inevitably turn up worried about my involvement, I've already stated that I will be recusing myself from any future arbitration matters relating to him.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And so if he breaches the topic ban again, should it similarly be ignored for fear of setting everything off? No. The injunction applies only to this one comment and equally to the actions, including yours, that followed it. If Eric makes another comment that is (or some people think is) a breach of his topic ban while this case is progress there will be so many eyes on what everybody does that you (generic) would need to be particularly foolish not to ensure any action you take was supported by consensus. The aim of the case is to clarify and if necessary revise the AE processes/enforcement mechanisms such that we don't see the same backwards and forwards we did this time (or if we do there will be a cut-and-dried desysop for somebody). We are not protecting Eric, and we are not running scared from Eric, we're just making absolutely sure that everybody knows that nobody is to do anything more with this one incident - regardless of what they might want to do or why they might want to do it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if that happens, best of luck to whoever takes any action, if anyone is even willing to do so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf and the rest of the Committee, I think I understand what you are saying here, but I want to be unambiguously clear about it, if for no other reason that it is a near-certainty that the issue will come up later. I get it that there will be many eyes on whatever happens next and that non-consensus actions would be ill-advised. But if there should be ongoing conduct that some editors believe to be similar to "that one comment", ArbCom is not precluding further action – right? Indeed, it seems to me that the rationale for decreasing the number of named parties,, was based on the assumption that the present case is for clarifying how things work, but a subsequent case could potentially be one in which those better-workings will be called into play. No permanent amnesty for future actions, right? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My general take is it ends right now. Any further actions from the passing of the injunction would not be covered. I'm mostly concerned about the AE procedural issues which became extremely apparent when the process ripped itself apart. Ie I'm more concerned about the out of process admin actions than I am about the individual sanction: ideally as Tryptofish alludes to this won't be a problem in the future shoudl we get the AE satisfactorily worked out. NativeForeigner Talk 03:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I too hope we will not have such problems in the future. But I'm still trying to get a clear acknowledgment that any amnesty now does not provide protection from appropriate sanctions in the future. In other words, I think that the "it" that "ends right now" is the amnesty going forward, and that "any further actions" are "not covered" by that amnesty. I know that I'm being picky here, but I anticipate that these words are going to be parsed by other editors and disputed in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the current sanction says it only covers actions up until the opening of the case (June 29). Anything after isn't protected, as I read it. NativeForeigner Talk 17:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's my reading of it too, and I want for there to be no disputing that this is in fact the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding of both the wording and the intent. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points: FWIW, I would support the rescinding and amnesty motion, despite the timing discrepancy. As to why the voting has seemingly stalled, are you just waiting for less active arbs to turn up, or does this reflect a continuing, um, 'discussion' behind the scenes? Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) The motion proposed by AGK (or anything similar) appears unworkable, as it lays down a general restriction about taking action against a specific user and appears to have the intent of notifying anyone who might take such action by leaving notices at the top of that user's talk page. It is quite possible that an admin might see and take action in relation to that user without ever checking the top of that user's talk page (checking the most recent messages on a user's talk page is more likely), or even being aware of this case or reading any of the notices related to it. The underlying presumption seems to be that all admins follow the arbitration pages and admin noticeboards closely, and carefully check what special restrictions are in force before ever sanctioning anyone. I very much doubt this is the case, and I would worry if that was the case (we want some active admins that don't spend their time hanging around such places). The only realistic way to make sure all admins are aware of such a restriction would be to have access to a hypothetical "leave talk page notice to all admins" function (I suppose in theory the mass messaging system could be used for that, but I suspect it would provoke outrage to the extent that enough people would band together to protest strongly about such an action and form consensus that it was a misuse of the messaging system). The other alternative is to use the software to produce a warning sign when someone opens up the block logging screen (similar to page editing notices that tend to get ignored unless made to flash or use dire warning colours). I suspect this is possible, but am not sure how it would be done.
 * (2) The rescinding and amnesty motion has different timing constraints for parts (a) and (b). For part (a) it says 'until the enactment of this current motion'. For part (b) it says 'before this case was opened'. I don't think the two arbs commenting above (NativeForeigner and Thryduulf) have fully picked up on that, as the amnesty for part (a) extends beyond the opening of the case up until the enactment of the motion. NativeForeigner's note on his vote (saying it only applies to actions before the case opened) explicitly contradicts that part of what he is voting for. Maybe there is a reason for that discrepancy, but I can't think of a good reason for it, though I suppose it does leave room to take action on things that have happened during the case, and it does in theory allow the named user to make sanctionable comments before the motion is enacted and then claim amnesty once the motion is enacted (though if that happened, I doubt sanctions would be avoided).
 * True, I was aware of that. Simply didn't matter though, because corbett hasn't done anything sanctionable since (assuming I'm up to date). NativeForeigner Talk 20:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I suppose he could. I was focusing on the admin aspects. NativeForeigner Talk 20:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the voting has unfortunately stalled even though the need for the injunction has long passed. Strangely, there's been no discussion of it off-wiki at all. I'm hoping that those who haven't yet voted - AGK, DeltaQuad, DGG, Seraphimblade and Thryduulf - are able to do so soon.   Roger Davies  talk 04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for the reminder, Roger. I've voted.  DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

On admins and acid (Brustopher's section)
Hey Arbcom. Earlier in the proceedings, it was stated that arbs were looking into the actions of an admin who had ranted about wanting to bathe another editor in acid. What happened with that? Will it be dealt with independently of this case? Has it been decided that no action is necessary? Brustopher (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was discussed independently of this case. From memory the consensus was that as it was not directly related to en.wp and we have no jurisdiction over IRC that all we could do was note it for future reference, I'll double check when I get time and get back to you if this is incorrect. I believe that they were dealt with on IRC by IRC admins, but I can't recall the details. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per what GorillaWarfare said I don't see why arbcom can't do anything in this situation. But if that is the case, how would I go about communicating to this admin my strong desire that they resign? Do they have a recall process I could ask them to invoke? Would they be willing to tell everyone who they are to make this simpler? Brustopher (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Naming the admin concerned was not discussed, and I am not aware they have been asked, and so I wont do so at this time. I've asked other arbs to weigh in here though. I have had a look and they do not have a current recall procedure linked from their userpage and it was apparently not brought up in their RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also I should clarify that while there was a majority of those expressing an opinion that this was not actionable, there was not a consensus of the whole committee either way. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I, for example, regarded this as merely an isolated incident of the use of extravagant language for effect, not to be taken seriously. Others did disagree, some of them sharply.  As a personal opinion, I regard the tendency to say such things without due consideration one of the defects of IRC, which I never use.   DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification DGG and Thryduulf. To check, does this mean the admin in question will not be named? Either way could you communicate to this admin my strong desire that they resign? In my eyes this seems very far beyond the pale of getting angry and calling someone an arsehole or a fuckhead. Brustopher (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

We've had a discussion about whether to name the admin involved or not, and while not every arbitrator commented, there was no consensus to name them among those who have opined. If the comment had been made on a public channel then I suspect that there would have been consensus to release their name, however that it was made on #wikipedia-en-admins which is open only to administrators and has a "no public logging" policy (which I am told is strongly enforced - I'm not an IRC regular by any stretch of the imagination) was significant for at least some arbitrators. Accordingly, the admin will not be named at this time - I stress that because as this is a result of a lack of consensus for, rather than a consensus against, this may change. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for clarifying. I'm afraid I have to agree with the comments about this being an absolute disgrace. Has it been communicated to this admin that I think they're the worst and strongly suggest that they resign? While it's likely they wont place great weight on my opinion, they at least ought to know. After all it is rude to talk about people behind their back, even if you're not fantasizing about their death. Brustopher (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's easy to say when you're not the one it's being proposed to dunk in a bath of acid. Refusing to reveal the name of this administrator is an absolute disgrace. Eric   Corbett  23:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

GoldenRing's section
The second paragraph of FoF 2 gives the impression that GorillaWarfare could have reversed BlackKite's close of the AE report if she had discussed it with him first, no matter what he said in that discussion. But that seems to conflict with principles 6 (or 6.1) and 8. I think what's going on is that under policy as it stood at the time GW could have reversed the close after discussion with BK, but that the proposed principles are modifications to arbitration policy that now disallow such reversals. But I'm not sure I've got that right, and if I'm not sure there will be others also. Could the wording be updated to clarify this? GoldenRing (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cailil's section

 * Re Conduct of the administrators involved

I largely agree with this draft as an objective description of the events but the apparent "everyone was equally wrong" conclusion is not helping anyone, and may in fact deter sysops from making the right calls at WP:AE and in general in relation to arbitration enforcement. To my mind the problems here are: Saying all this I have nothing but respect for the 3 admins involved here and to be frank I think they all acted with good intentions. Perhaps no-one was absolutely right but no-one was acting maliciously. I hope the Committee takes that into account but we, all of us (the Committee, sysops and other editors) need to be clear about what the right action was and how to prevent the right calls being over-turned or foreclosed (even if done in good faith)-- Cailil  talk 13:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) GW had no where to post an explanation that wouldn't become a circus once the thread was closed.
 * 2) It was not all that clear that she had to do this anyway. The wording of the rules on AC/DS allows for unilateralism (I don't like it but it does). BK's action was unilateral and therefore GW was stuck. Now, the optimal thing to do was to re-open the thread and for GW to act & comment there. Guidance on this would be useful (yes relying on common sense is fine, until you realize that it is uncommon - wikipedia is crossing a number of cultural borders and due to that we're not all always "on the same page" re: common sense). My suggestion is that a brief suggested action for dealing with improperly closed AE threads be added to the guidelines at AE, along the lines of "re-open and discuss". (More thought needs to go into this but I hope you can see my point).
 * 3) The fact that any action against Eric is generally over-turned or leads to a circus is the elephant in the room here.
 * That all three admins were acting with good intentions is being taken into account, that's why sanctions were out of the question from the start; however, it can't be denied that all three cocked up and their actions led to this case. And, to avoid a repeat, in my opinion, such a finding of fact is necessary for it provides guidance going forward. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure as an FOF I think this is solid. But as an assessment of teh problem it treats everyone as equally wrong. My point being that even though GW may not have exactly followed best practice here she made the correct call (in an imperfect way) but the other actions were incorrect. I think any guidance re: closed AE threads needs to be crystal clear-- Cailil  talk 17:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since GW is arguably the highest-profile woman on Wikipedia after Lila Tretikov, and has a large photograph of herself along with the words "Hello, I'm Molly White" on her userpage, you might want to stop calling her "he". &#8209; iridescent 17:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Sorry about that & TY Iridescent-- Cailil  talk 18:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Replies
 * @Collect - I agree with almost everything you've said here Collect except re: Reaper's action. 60%-40% is a majority sure but it is not a "substantial consensus". Moreover that's a vote count not a reading of the consensus per se. Reaper need to close the thread with a "go to ARCA" closing, not an unblock. Otherwise I think you've hit the nail on the head - the current rules as written are vague enough for the actions by both GW and BK to be within tolerance-- Cailil  talk 19:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Collect - sorry, I misread you there and I agree in that I wouldn't suggest or support sanction for RE. It just wasn't a good call, in my view it was the worst call of the 3 admin actions, by some distance. But not worthy of ARBCOM sanction-- Cailil  talk 20:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Appropriate participation in Arbitration Enforcement in every forum
 * This is a good principle (I whole heartidly agree with) but it begs the question who'll actually enforce it. Sysops are discouraged from blocking for incivility/flamebaiting by the rest of the community (the events leading to this case is yet another instance of that culture of discouragement - GW's action was overturned despite it being an AE action because it was effectively enforcing "civility"). Unless this principle is backed up with clear regulations (and maybe even a template for AE comments by uninvolved editors) it will unfortunately be unenforceable, but I applaud Salvio for drafting this it is a step in the right direction-- Cailil  talk 14:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Dismissing an enforcement request Principles 6 and 6.1
 * It might make better sense to say Dismissing an enforcement request  or appeal of sanctions at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or the administrators’ noticeboard is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. Specifiying like this removes any ambiguity around the concerns that Sandstein raises re: not acting based upon informal request on individual sysop's talk pages-- Cailil  talk 14:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir's section
Link in 3.1.6 does not lead directly to the section intended. Also please consider 3.1.7 into 3.1.6.1 so the numbering matches. Thank you!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 14:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Same link issue in 3.2.1  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 14:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have fixed a couple of links. If I have missed any, do please let me know. I'm not sure I understand what the issue is with 3.1.7 and 3.1.6.1, though... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The issue with the numbering is that the TOC shows 3.1.7, but the section is labeled "6.1" (as in 3.1.6.1, right?) And the subsequent sections (7 and 8) are shown as 3.1.8 and 3.1.9 in the TOC. I thought (but honestly could be wrong) that the numbering was supposed to match the TOC for navigational and reference ease.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 14:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I understand. Done. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the FoF are well done. All major aspects are addressed, stated neutrally, give background, and show where each admin erred/deviated.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare's section
Regarding Thryduulf's comment that From memory the consensus was that as it was not directly related to en.wp and we have no jurisdiction over IRC that all we could do was note it for future reference: That strikes me as odd, given a fairly recent case that sanctioned someone for IRC comments, and an extremely recent case that considered instances of offwiki conduct in a different venue (that were, as I see it, equally indirectly related to enwp and equally outside of ArbCom's jurisdiction). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Per what GorillaWarfare said I don't see why arbcom can't do anything in this situation: Perhaps I should clarify my opinion here. I have mixed opinions on whether the Arbitration Committee can and should involve itself in dealing with offwiki evidence, such as IRC comments and Wikipediocracy posts. However, I strongly believe that we need to be clear on whether, as a rule, we will consider it. The precedent that we've set in the two cases I mentioned above is that we will consider it, so without a clarification in the WP:ARBPOL or a clear statement from the Committee as a whole, "it was not directly related to en.wp and we have no jurisdiction over IRC" is disingenuous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's section
The principles set forth in the decision make general sense; to the extent the drafters disagree with some suggestions I made on the workshop, I understand why they have done so. For what it may be worth, however, I view the conduct of all three named administrators less harshly than does the proposed decision, and certainly less harshly than some of the arbitrator comments on the PD. Although Salvio states above that "it can't be denied that all three [admins] cocked up...," I don't think that is right. The Committee may decide, as it seems to be about to, that "[t]he conduct of all administrators involved in the dispute was suboptimal" (a sentence if it were last year, everyone would have assumed I wrote). But it certainly can be "denied" that all three of the admins messed up, and in fact it has been denied: As I observed on the workshop, "this entire case was devoted to clarifying a set of procedures previously found ambiguous, and the admins have each provided an articulate and reasonable defense of their actions based on their understanding of the procedures at the time." Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Collect's section
I am glad to see "Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened." which finally settles the classic "first move" question raised at the start of this case.

I am far less certain that Black Kite's action in so acting was a violation of any clear and established rules, policies or guidelines then extant, nor do I see any rule stating that 5 hours is insufficient for an uninvolved admin (I believe BK is acknowledged to be such) to dismiss a request. Indeed, I suggest that many such dismissals have occurred in the past, and that BK should not be faulted on that act.

GW was not prescient about this new ruling that a "dismissal" is an "action" and thus the initial block is not, AFAICT, a violation of the rules extant at the time (although she likely should have initiated a discussion first).

Neither BK nor GW thus viewed the AN discussion as a barred "appeal" of the block - but rather as a discussion among peers initiated as such by BK. Under the vague extant rules, this was not improper AFAICT. That discussion was of a "rapid fire" variety - so where 5+ hours was "too fast", 5 hours of this improper(?) "appeal" (which I demur was such) showed a vast amount of input from many people. (Rough vote was 34 to 23 for an unblock ... the 60% noted.  While a 3 to 2 vote from only 5 participants is not a consensus, a 34 to 23 one from over fifty participants is far more statistically significant - thus I would not fault Reaper for viewing it as such).

In short - NYB is correct - the case shows the unfortunate result of vagueness of a rule about "procedure", and the interpretation thereof is the "fault" exhibited by the admins at issue. ArbCom would be correct in passing the limning of the rule at issue, and stopping. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cailil: I did not state it was a "consensus" but that I would not fault Reaper for viewing it as one, due to the large number of participants, and would not in any way support a sanction for a reasonably defensible act. Collect (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward's section
I echo 's sentiment and proposed it in Workshop. A case can, and has, been made that all three admins acted within the scope of Wikipedia's broad set of rules regarding AE sanctions. The process certainly allowed for those actions and the amount of support and opposition for each specific admin speaks more about the process than about behaviors. Chastising the admins because conflict increased instead of decreased, misses the mark that the process allowed conflict to increase instead of decrease. It's especially hollow when the "proper action" is delegated to a future commission. --DHeyward (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems, as well, that the committee has deemed an AE closure as an AE action but then separates the reopening and ANI bits. Is "reopening" a closed AE request an "appeal" that can only be done by the sanctioned editor (i.e. no one)? Are closures subject to the same appeal restrictions? This decision should either punt the entire framework to the delegation or define it themselves but piecemeal interpretations to support FoF's will only hamstring future solutions. --DHeyward (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, it looks like 6.1 covers it. You could have just cut-and-pasted my Workshop :) (though I proposed all noticeboards, not just ARCA).  One small point to clarify: closes always happen.  Which ones are subject to 6.1?  Dismissed with nothing, dismissed with a warning, dismissed with an IBAN?  Any dismissal that falls short of the requestors' sanction?  There are lots of dismissals and it should clarify which dismissals (or all of them) can be taken to ARCA and by what party.

1.If an administrator had closed the Eric AE request with "Warning to Eric given," could GorillaWarfare appeal the closure to ARCA and seek to reopen it for stiffer punishment or is that running afoul of appealing the sanction?

2. What about if the closing sanction was an IBAN? Would it be possible to reopen that discussion and, would a reopen that ended in a block sanction be in addition to IBAN or instead of the IBAN?

3. Is it intentionally vague so ARCA can rule as needed and all closes can be brought to ARCA? If so, it should probably spell out what's okay to bring to ARCA and what is not and who can bring what. If not, the new "gaming the system" will be to log warnings that can only be appealed by editor that got the warning. --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

87.254.68.146's section
Re the principle on "Role of consensus in arbitration enfocement" where it finishes by saying that "Administrators overruling their colleagues without good cause may be asked to refrain from further participation in arbitration enforcement", in a literal sense that's trivially true just as it would be true to say that arbitrators may be asked to give me a ham sandwich. Asking is easy. Presumably the intent therefore is to imply that administrators may be required to refrain from further participation in arbitration enforcement, but that's useless without saying who can impose such a requirement e.g. a consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, arbom as a case remedy, arbcom on their own initiative without a case request etc. The detailed process can be left to the policy refinement bit but the intent could be a lot clearer here. Arbcom pronouncements tend to veer wildly from the overly passive (like saying asked instead of required and not saying who can do the asking/requiring) to the overly legalistic. Both tendencies get in the way of clear communication. Thanks for your time reading this. 87.254.68.146 (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, we have never had a case where we we felt it necessary to direct an admin to stop doing enforcement and, so, the procedures for that have never been formalised, unfortunately. I'd say that an admin could be asked to stop in two cases: as a result of a successful appeal or as a remedy in a full case. And in both cases a majority of arbs in support would be required for such a restriction to be imposed. Anyway, on the issue of the verb to use, I'll go ahead and change "ask" to "direct". Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein's section
I'm just noting that "Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened." isn't well thought through. That's because no particular form or forum is required for such dismissals.

So if somebody asks an admin at their talk page to take some AE action, and they are told: "no, go to WP:AE", or: "not interested, ask somebody else", or: "maybe that is actionable but would need more evidence" (but none is forthcoming) - are these dismissals and therefore admin actions? And how is another admin, contacted on their own talk page by somebody else, or who may notice the potentially problematic conduct on their own and decide to take action, to know that a dismissal, if any, has occurred?

Unless some form of logging is prescribed for dismissals (as it is for sanctions), I foresee this rule generating a lot of unneeded conflict and wikilawyering.

I'm also disappointed that the Committee did not take into account what is, in my view, quite persuasive evidence that Black Kite acted as an administrator while involved in this case, and that their actions are therefore much more difficult to accept as having been taken in good faith than those of the two other admins. The Committee has again seized the opportunity to make the enforcement of their own decisions even more complicated and drawn-out of a process, rather than as short and decisive as possible. Under these circumstances, I don't think that admin enforcement of decisions in emotionally charged cases, as this one seems to be, is a worthwhile pursuit.  Sandstein  08:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have necessarily made the enforcement of our decision more complicated; in my opinion, we have codified what's already happening at AE. We already have cases where, even though a violation occurred, a block does not ensue because there are reasons justifying a more flexible approach; if anything, we have made it more difficult to simply dismiss a report when a breach of a remedy did occur, requiring a consensus of uninvolved admin to find that such exceptional circumstances are present as to warrant a dismissal (which is the only case where the process has become more complicated). On the issue of what constitutes a dismissal, your examples would not qualify. Only a formal dismissal would. If an admin dismisses an AE or AN(I) thread, then yes; if an admin was simply asked on his talk page and said no, then that's not enough. Regardless of this, admins are always welcome to discuss with their colleagues when they're in doubt and to ask arbcom for clarifications. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that these examples should not be considered dismissals. In controversial cases, such as this one seems to be, however, one can be sure that somebody would argue that they are, and fill angry AN/I threads with arguments to that effect. What's more, this rule encourages gaming and forum-shopping. Instead of making an request at WP:AE and risking a dismissal, a petitioner could simply spam dozens of admin talk pages and forums at once with AE requests, making it more probable that at least one admin will take action without knowing that colleagues have dismissed or ignored the request. Or a supporter of the problematic conduct could canvass a sympathetic admin with a fake "enforcement request", perhaps as poorly composed as possible, which the admin is likely to dismiss, and which could then be used as a shield against other more serious enforcement requests. In other word, this simply does not work well, or at least not unless you decree that all enforcement requests must be made at WP:AE and nowhere else. That, again, makes the whole process even more bureaucratic.  Sandstein   17:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone spamming dozens of admins will probably get "Take it to AE and knock that off" if anything. And someone who suspects that a particular admin is sympathetic is already probably likely to contact them, rather than getting whoever happens to be participating right then at AE. In everything except the most blatant cases, I generally have referred people to AE when they've contacted me directly about such issues. I really don't see this causing a major issue, but there are cases where, for whatever reason, the formal determination at AE is that a violation was minor, or based on misunderstanding rather than malice, or was in a very grey area that's now been clarified, and that no formal action (blocks, bans, etc.), are necessary to resolve the issue. I don't want to see determinations like that overturned unilaterally. On the flip side, of course, anything but the most obviously frivolous requests should be left open to discussion for a reasonable period of time before the decision to dismiss without action is made. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker section
1) I initially thought that the ctte should discuss the facts, even despite the amnesty, but then I was able to craft proposals without getting into the facts in detail - I am now minded to go with the concerns of those who now oppose getting into the facts (history) - at least in detail. Sure, they all more-or-less went wrong: Putting aside the initial comment for which amnesty was granted (that started this chain of going wrong) the two intermediate administrators (BK, GW) were at least in part due to this ctte's unclarity in process - the last act the ctte criticizes was less about the unclarity in process and more about disregarding the clear process but that too was, at the least, a follow-up, in part, to the two prior.

2) Of additional concern is the nature of the community participation over-all (by that I mean all editors, including admins), that occurred here. Thus, the committee should reemphasize in the Principles this quote: Appropriate Participation in Arbitration Enforcement in every forum


 * "Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure [] Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted . . ."

This principle applies to the AE forum itself and to any appeals or requests for review, and guides what is appropriate not just in commenting, but in assessing a true consensus based in policy.

3) I also think a log for dismissals is sorely needed.  Others, here, and throughout this case have said, we need this clarity of a log - so, please give it - a log explicitly provides an accountable history of things Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the appropriate participation principle to the PD. Concerning the log for dismissals, on the other hand, I'm in two minds. On the one hand, I can see its pros; however, on the other, I'm hesitant to keep a list of requests which turned out to be groundless, because I find it unfair to the editor who was "vindicated" and fear that it could be used to harass editors who get involved in difficult areas. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proposing my point 2. With respect to my point 3: first, a log will clarify for everyone that a dismissal has in fact occurred (and thus the appeal or review procedures must be followed). Second, a request dismissed as groundless will be logged as 'dismissed a groundless' - and then a review, in some small cases, can occur on that basis - and more importantly everyone will know the edit in issue was not a breach; whereas a dismissal based on other factors 'consensus of uninvolved admins based on totality of facts a b and c [link to discussion], (or even, for example, 'Because of facts A, B, and C, in exercising discretion this [diff] is dismissed, as a basis for further enforcement, although I did leave an advisement on the users talk page [link]'),  then everyone will know that (and in some small number of cases can review that, if needed, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There are at least 2 forums besides Arbcom where "enforcement cases" are to be discussed, AE noticeboard, itself, and AN, so arb clerks are doing curating in those forums? I am under the impression, they are not (or even cannot). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that makes it 2 too many?  DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC).
 * Perhaps, but changing that would require revision to:, defining the AE and AN boards mandate (as well as instructions to admins in that policy), and to , defining AN forum's role. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an administrative matter concerning the clerks, so I hope making this comment does not require me to recuse (and can instead be counted as a comment "as a clerk"): although the clerks' remit does technically extend to AE (at least in the informal opinion of an arb on clerks-l; I can't remember who or when), in practice, we never intervene at AE, preferring to let the enforcing administrators deal with it. The clerks have absolutely no authority at AN, and we act in our usual role at ARCA. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the explanation. This confirms my view that the entire system is in need of revision or replacement, and I've amended my votes on one of the remedies accordingly.  DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with principle 8, including inconsistency with principle 6 (both versions)
Both principles 6 and 6.1 state that a dismissal may not be reopened if the complaint "has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator". Principle 8 declares, however, that"all enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper until an appeal is successful". So what is to happen if a complaint is dismissed by an involved administrator. Or one who is arguably involved? As Sandstein points out, above, that was an issue (left unaddressed) in this very case.

For that matter, principle 8 goes beyond dismissals. If an involved admin issues a block pursuant to a complaint, may the block not be lifted or modified, no matter what the consensus that it was inappropriate, until a majority of the Arbitration Committee has weighed in? And, given that WP:INVOLVED is a community-generated policy, can the Committee legitimately reserve to itself the authority to determine whether it has been violated. and the gravity of any violation, in these cases? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. Will consider this. NativeForeigner Talk 00:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Bombastic charade
"ArbCom has gotten on with the very important business of investigating ArbCom enforcement, and found that all involved have been very, very naughty. However, ArbCom has self-neutered, due to previously granting amnesty to all, including uninvolved actors who through precedent should be sanctioned, but ArbCom will take the milquetoast route and merely declare that they, too, have been very, very naughty."

There needs to be a WP:SPEEDY for ArbCom clown shows, so these farcical ceremonies can be ended early allowing admins to get back to the Very Important Business of WP:HOUNDING useful content contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.84.2 (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

My section

 * Administrators overruling their colleagues without good cause may be directed to refrain from further participation in arbitration enforcement.

Directed by whom? Under what authority?


 * to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

It's a procedure not a policy. Rule 1 of ArbCom. Arbcom does not set policy.


 * Proposed enforcement

Who is gonna get blocked? The drafters if they fail to clarify the procedure? Delete this section, let it be a case with no sanctions and no enforcement, we should have more of those.

That's all for now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

My thoughts
Is this thing still open? It's been nearly two months now, and for what? Close it down as a bad job and let everyone get on with writing the encyclopedia. What a time waste. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)