Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & Jim Carter (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK (Talk) & Salvio giuliano (Talk)

The Workshop phase for this case is closed.

Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go to the talk page and create an edit request.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motions and requests by the parties

Requests by Gerda Arendt

Where I come from: uninvolved, and sleeping through the initial filing of an AE request that brought us here, I left a statement in the case request (copied to evidence), and Hope on the evidence talk. I am not an admin nor do I want to be one. I am restricted by the arbitration committee and was on the receiving end of AE several times. I tried to educate our founder but only once ;)

I dream of a Wikipedia where AE is not needed and offer small steps in the direction. Imagine you see something I did which you think breaches my restrictions.

You reflect if it really needs correction. You have the option to decide no. If yes:
You talk to me if I am aware of a breach and willing to revert or correct. If no
You look really hard if the situation is a breach. (I could tell you examples where it wasn't but want to be gentle.) If you think yes:
You reflect if a correction via AE is worth the amount of time it takes. Please stay away if no.
Only then you file.

I have seen "peanuts" arrive at AE, and I suggest to make the step "talk to the user in question before you file" mandatory.
Once filed, I think that a time for comments of 24 hours is not asking too much in cases where Wikipedia is not at stake. The key question should be: will pursuing the request will help Wikipedia? Dispute resolution might offer a better approach.
I suggest that admins who are known to be close to the filer or the other editor stay away from closing.
I suggest to seriously think about a different sanction than blocks. I was close several times and always thought that a block wouldn't be my loss but Wikipedia's, One day blocked may equal to one article not expanded to GA, or several stubs not created, several incidents of vandalism not managed. I hope you don't expect me to change my mind because of a block ;)

I read today "If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith, we could dispense with some of the drama ..." For the record: I recently mentioned the waste of time for arbitration-related edits on my talk, - back to expanding an article for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added: key question and dispute resolution --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Gerda Arendt and Kevin Gorman: To answer in part, there's a requirement in the parallel discretionary sanctions procedure that Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction. Conversely, editors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly. Now the DS procedure doesn't apply here but, depending on your point of view, the spirit of that provision has, or hasn't, been observed here. Should something similar about proportionality apply to AE actions? Roger Davies ^talk 06:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think Gerda does have a point here. Many of the responses were essentially de minimis non curat lex with regards to the fact that Eric's violation was a violation; arbcom should clarify whether the full force of a sanction should apply in de minimis cases. I do think there is likely a point regarding enforcing even de minimis sanctions in cases where there is a pattern of boundary pushing I also thinks she (sorry for assuming a gender) has a point that penalties other than blocks are beneficial a lot of the time, and try to use them when I can, though I don't often do AE. Also agree that 24 hours should be minimum time for a close that isn't ABSOLUTELY immediately clear (like someone with an Israel-Palestina t-ban posting a rant at ANI about evil zionists, and that the closer and filer should not be close. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: - I tend to think that the idea of de minimis should apply to arbcom violations, but with the recognition of a long-running pattern of evading sanctions isn't necessarily de minimis in the same way that me accidentally doing something vaguely sanctionable under arb sanctions would be (I dunno, 2 reverts instead of 1 on an Israel-Palestine page that I had forgotten was covered by restrictions.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The passage Roger Davies quotes should certainly be applied to AE sanctions. I'm surprised it's not already. Do you need someone to propose adding that to AE here on the workshop, because I'd be happy to do so. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

AE Motion modified

Note: Moved from below by User:Penwhale

Item #2 of the "AE" motion is modified to apply only to users who are named parties in this case. Arbcom apologizes for its momentary lapse in judgment in coming up with this ridiculously vague and broad motion, which forces well-meaning users who have nothing whatsoever to do with the dispute to walk around on eggshells in order to make sure that nothing they do indirectly affects a named party.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Submitted per suggestion of Roger Davies. This is actually my choice #2. My choice #1 would involve every arbiter who voted for the motion resigning. --B (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This wording is never going to fly, but the core of this is apt: the restriction was overly-wide and tied the hands of a number of uninvolved people in a number of ways that had nothing to do with the case. If the intention is get people to stop messing with Eric Corbett's block status, pass an injunction barring admin action from being taken with regard to him and leave all the other named parties (and everyone else) out of it. If the intention is to stop the named parties from beating up on each other, pass an injunction barring them from adminning on each other. If you have evidence that anyone not a named party has taken or intends to take a poor administrative action with regard to the set of named parties, add them to the case and make them a named party. Don't just shrug and pass a sanction that assumes 110 of our most active editors will be taking sanctionable actions unless arbcom forcibly stops them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fluffernutter: Perhaps arbcom should stop seeing themselves as dictators and then this wording would fly. When you're a dictator, you never have to apologize. When you're a volunteer on an online encyclopedia, sometimes you do. --B (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest

Item #2 of the "AE" motion is modified to apply only to users who are named parties in this case. Arbcom and specifically Roger Davies apologizse for the abrasive and draconian [1] motion, which forces well-meaning users who have nothing whatsoever to do with the dispute to walk around on eggshells in order to make sure that nothing they do indirectly affects a named party.

Pedro : Chat 21:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case Motion Modified

Proposed by Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC):[reply]

The Arbitration Committee vacates paragraphs (2) and (3) of the injunction which was enacted when this case was opened, and enacts the following in its place:

2. For the duration of the case, each named party to the case may not be blocked, unblocked, topic-banned, or subject to any other editing restriction or sanction without the prior express permission of the Committee. Any administrator who breaches this injunction will become a named party to this case, and may be desysopped.

3. Any user who seeks to initiate, lift, modify, or request sanctions (including blocks, unblocks, topic bans, or any other type of editing restriction) in relation to a named party to the case, or who seeks to close a discussion in relation to the same:

a) Must seek approval from the Arbitration Committee, by email via its main contact page; and

b) May not commence the proposed discussion on Wikipedia without the prior express permission of the Committee.

4. Each of the above injunctions are implemented to prevent any further disputes arising, and are not a reflection of any wrong-doing on the part of any named-party in this case.

5. Reports of alleged breaches of the above injunctions are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

6. Notice of these motions will be posted at the top of each named party's user talk page for the duration of the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Possibly, although a formal motion each time we approve any action or discussion seems like bureaucratic overkill. Simply requiring our explicit prior permission seems more workable for all concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: Thanks. I'm certainly willing to consider changes to the motion to make it clearer, etc. but (a) I'm not the entire committee, and (b) I think it would be best to take the time to get an amendment right first time rather than make repeated changes. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this amendment. But I also agree with Thryduulf that this time it's more important to do it right rather than doing it quickly.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 16:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might support some form of this if we can be sure we've got it right. I'm concerned with the fact that we've already mass messaged 110 people and if we accept this will be messaging them again. Even a 2nd message might be seen as some as spam, a 3rd - I don't even want to think about that. I think we need to continue discussing this for another 24 hours or so to see what other comments/reactions we get from people. I agree with Ncmvocalist that it would have been unfair to ban the named parties from all other pages. I don't share Resolute's pessimism, I think that we will handle any good faith actions with common sense and without sanctions. Off to bed now. Doug Weller (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

So basically I could do whatever I wanted, violate the hell out of 3rr, insult BLPs, etc, right now, and if the sanctioning admin failed to email arbcom first they would be desysopped and I'd receive a slap on the wrist? Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with this motion. The fact that several have called for sanctions in retaliation for bringing this to the Committee's attention concerns me, not that any admins ever act out of animus. GregJackP Boomer! 23:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me draw forth a theoretical example, based on things that have definitely happened in the past. Very-well respected admins have received 3rr blocks for either accidentally getting too heated, or whatever reason. If I was to violate 3rr in such a fashion 45 days from now (when the case, will sadly, likely still be open,) and someone who had commented on the talk page tangentially, they'd be up for a desysopping and I'd be up for a 24 hour block (although it at least likes someone changed 'will be desysopped' to 'may be desysopped.' Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There are a number of other users who can (or have the propensity to) take admin actions under the previous injunction who did not participate in the recent discussion, enforcement requests, or case requests. There is no benefit in singling out a small number of users (110 is not small but it is small compared to the number of users who can be accused of or who actually are INVOLVED). Rather than appearing to gag users who commented now, it would be better to just make it a more general order and it has a much more greater likelihood of being effective - and without eroding the community's trust. Comments are welcome as this was rough and which I prepared with very little time, so tweaks might be needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Noted, and have modified accordingly in this edit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I agree more time is warranted to have it right; this is by no means a finished product (for instance, there might be a bit of confusion between the reference to commencing discussion and closing it) so having comments from others might prove helpful. I don't have much more time to spend on it at this point so proposed what I could do in the limited time I had. But although I agree more time is warranted to get it right on the first go, as with the nature of injunctions, this is sought as a priority for reasons I've stated (and not stated) which I think all of you would already understand. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a lot more sense than the extant motion, especially with regard to what actions Arbcom doesn't want people taking (this excludes, for instance, closing an AfD in which one of the involved parties commented, which the previous motion didn't). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The broadening of the scope from editors already involved in this dispute (by way of commenting at AN or the RFAR) to any editor has potential to be problematic. There are certainly going to be many people who are not aware of this case at all, and if a situation arises where a named party merits a block for a reason completely independent of this case, such an editor could violate this proposed ban without being aware of it. Otherwise, the clarification is very good and should help defuse concern. Reso lute 16:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Resolute: I anticipated that possibility, and felt it was far more unlikely to be an issue given the stated intention of the original motion; and if for whatever reason it did arise, it could be managed by the arbs. There was the alternative of just banning the named-parties from all pages except the case pages - which is the most straightforward as it does not affect hundreds of uninvolved users (who should not be affected) and involved users - but the outstanding question in that instance is whether or not that's fair to the parties and the project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be frank, we're proposing these modifications because it is largely assumed that Arbcom cannot be trusted to act with common sense about the intent of its motion. It stands to reason then that we shouldn't trust Arbcom to act with common sense as it relates to an utterly unaware editor for a good faith action completely unrelated to this case. Perhaps a middle ground: Any party currently involved in this case risks being named/sanctioned, but an unaware editor acting in good faith would simply be made aware of the case, and arbcom informed, without their necessarily becoming named parties. Reso lute 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though, Spartaz (and others) make a great point about broad-brush tarring by this motion essentially naming specific users. There is probably more to be said for phrasing it your way. Reso lute 16:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding (3), rather than holding users who are blissfully unaware of this motion responsible, how about asking that no admins take action on such requests without approval from the Arbitration Committee? Admins can then curtail any escalating discussion on these topics where not useful. Ensuring that all admins are aware of the motion is simpler than trying to make all users aware. isaacl (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with #6, which sounds like a scarlet letter. I disagree with the prior restraint of 3b - I would be fine with requiring notification of the arbitration committee, but not with requiring the arbitration committee's permission to begin a discussion. If, for example, one of the users who is party to the case violates 3RR, it seems counter-productive to require emailing the arbitration committee to ask permission to report the issue to AN3. --B (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Monty845

Proposed principles

Arbitration Enforcement authority

1) The purpose of Arbitration Enforcement authority is two fold. First, to provide "a fast-track procedure to tackle misconduct within defined topic areas and/or to prevent disputes from within the defined topic area overflowing freely into other areas of the encyclopedia". (Taken from the old discretionary sanctions language, but dropped DS to apply it to all enforcement authority) Second, it allows action to be taken in certain highly contentious areas designated by the committee, where the community is unable to come to consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think the key here is that AE/DS is set up to avoid deadlocking (which is the bane of the community boards for highly contentious topics). In other words, it creates an environment where a decision can be made. Roger Davies ^talk 16:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. We have lost the language about why certain procedures exist. The purpose is important it helping guide users in implementing the procedures. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Consensus

2) Arbitration Enforcement Authority allows action in the absence of consensus, but is not designed to permit action contrary to consensus where consensus has been found.

Comment by Arbitrators:

At the moment, it's not really set up on a consensus model. If it changed to be one, it will need rules to prevent premature closing etc. Roger Davies ^talk 16:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like all admin actions whatsoever, it operates on a basis of presumed consensus, and if this is not clear, it needs to be specified. By "presumed consensus" I mean that an admin in taking action does so on the basis that they think in good faith and with reasonable judgment that the action would be endorsed by the community. An admin taking action that they think will be reversed is misusing the authority. An admin taking action that they know will be questioned or think might possibly be reversed should proceed very cautiously. The special limitation on reversal of admin action in enforcement are justified to prevent immediate reversal and instability, but not if they are used to undertake questionable actions. If an admin deliberately engages in actions that they know or think will be against consensus in the hope that the appeal process will be so difficult as to deter the party sanctioned, this amounts to bullying. If policy is not clear on these points, it needs to be clarified. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If ArbCom had to intervene and sanction someone or authorise the imposition of discretionary sanctions, it's because the consensus model failed to solve whatever the issue was. If the community could have come to a consensus, then there would have been no need for us to interfere. That's why we require a positive consensus to vacate a sanction and explicitly state that the lack thereof means that the status quo prevails, because otherwise we would be back to square one: one side of the dispute could force a no-consensus close again and again and our intervention would be necessary again.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a special case of consensus, where there is a restriction to permit consensus to be properly determined. But ultimately it depends upon consensus, as does everything at WP. Even every thing we at arb com do implies that we think the community would support us--otherwise we'd be making policy. Even everything done by the foundation assumes the community would support, & in a few cases they & the Board have changed their interpretations when they found out otherwise. Even everything confidential assumes the community would support if it knew the facts. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

AE doesn't operate on consensus and that was a hyper fast close giving no opportunity for counter opinions. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was no faster than the previous AE action against Eric, but that one was closed by a block. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive; yet the current structure seems to be designed to get to a block in the fastest way possible. Capeo's suggestion below would be a good way to approach it. GregJackP Boomer! 23:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus based on what exactly? In the AE that lead to this case, no comments were about the actual alleged violation. Any consensus was built on feelings about the editor, filer, tban, or "severity" of the alleged violation. To me, if consensus and discretion come into play, it should be on the alleged violation itself, nothing more. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to make it based on admin only consensus. Thus a minimum of three. Editors still comment and perhaps inform the admin consensus but the final decision is by a consensus of admins. This should solve closes being too fast. Also it gets around the first mover issue and helps mitigate the burden of an unpopular action that would otherwise be shouldered by a single admin. Capeo (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds reasonable. Though I'd "uninvolved admins". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "three admins" idea was embodied in some early remedies, pre-AE I think. It was probably dropped because very few admins seem to have the stomach for this unpopular but necessary enforcement task.

It's my understanding that to this day we've managed very well with the notion that a remedy is an extension of administrator discretion. In other words an administrator doesn't need to consult before enforcing a remedy, but like all administrator actions they may be reviewed or appealed.

In certain cases the arbitrators might prefer to explicitly require consultation and consensus before certain specific enforcement actions in certain specific cases. It's probably better to write that into the remedies than to universally limit administrator discretion, because we're really short of active admins willing to do this job as it is. --TS 19:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no distinction between urgent (if appealable) decisions, and those which can be allowed 72 hours for a full discussion. Nor indeed between the types of decision which are simple on their face, and those which require a little technical knowledge. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Appeal is the way to get more eyes. Not this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC) To expand, Global Consensus is found in Policy, and a binding decision by Arbcom made on application of Policy, with respect to particilar types of conduct has already been made, local consensus cannot stand against that, although there is some flexibility in the direct response at the time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with problematic findings of consensus

3) It is ~~rarely~~not appropriate to act contrary to a close of a discussion that ~~purports to~~ finds consensus while the close stands. If the close is wrong, the proper course of action is to contact the closer and request the close be withdrawn, and failing that, to seek review of the close by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could you simply the language of the first sentence please? Roger Davies ^talk 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In the case of obviously bad or incredibly obviously premature closures, I see no reason to resrict ay admin from undoing a close. To restrict admins from reverting AE closes is likely to increase the number of bad AE closes that stand unchallenged. Also.. seek consensus where? in another AE thread? On, lol, ANI? Kevin Gorman (talk)

The first sentence as it stands now isn't a good principle. I couldn't take action against a BLP violation or other similarly 'big thing' that hadn't been spotted during the course of the thread before consensus was declared if taking that action would require me to act contrary to the close? Rarely was better than a broad and total prohibition. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I'm trusted enough to literally have the abilty to block Roger Davies if felt like it, certainly some admin discretion here would work? Maybe state that if you reopen a thread you can't reclose it yourself, even later? Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping the same admin from taking an action on a thread they unclosed was exactly what I was suggesting Monty. Otherwise I suspect we'll either see a lot of desysops, AE totally ineffective, or no one willing to work AE. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Kevin suggests is good. GregJackP Boomer! 23:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a similarly, but imo better worded version below. While we don't want admins reverting closes to arbitrarily block, sometimes we do want admins reverting even good faith closes.

Comment by others:

Proposed. In some cases, unilateral reversion of a close may be reasonable, but probably not that of an Admin closing an AE discussion. If an Admin closes an AE discussion in a way that is so wrong as to justify unilateral revision, that in and of itself deserves discussion at a noticeboard. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: I've simplified the language, I can imagine some rare cases, such as a really bad close about a BLP violation, which is what I wanted to leave a little wiggle room for, but its not at all an issue here. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Gorman: What we need to avoid is having a thread re-opened, and then in the absence of a close to the contrary, the same admin taking an action that the close was blocking them from taking previously. We could just preclude the re-opener from further action... As an aside, if the close really was so bad as to justify a revert without discussion, and the closer (presumably and admin) wont self-revert after that is pointed out, we should be more worried about the Admin than the underlying AE matter. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is overbroad with its absolutes - as I have said elsewhere logging is the way to go "closing" is too ambiguous. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only Administrators may close discussions at Arbitration Enforcement

4) Discussions at Arbitration Enforcement are unusual in that they weigh the opinions of uninvolved Admins more heavily than non-admins, which is contrary to practice in all other discussions. Allowing non-admins to close a discussion decided by the opinions of admins would be unreasonable, and admin only closes has long been the practice at AE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe this should codified, and probably altered to allow only uninvolved admins to close. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. GregJackP Boomer! 23:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. This could be combined with the "consensus" part above if there's agreement that consensus must be between uninvolved admins. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. While non-admins would be well advised to steer clear of closing AE I am reluctant to see yet another divisive rule.

Moreover I would definitely not codify that Admin contributions weigh more heavily than non-admin. Discussions should be on merit, and even having the "Admin-only" discussion box is going further than would be ideal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm curious what codification even means in this context? It seems to fly in the face of WP:BURO and WP:POLICY (from the lead): "Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices." However, the presumption that we are working with a 'legal code' might shed some light onto the attitudes of some of the editors on this page. Regards, Crazynas^t 02:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things only Admins can do are Admin Actions

5) Because only an Admins can close a discussion at Arbitration Enforcement, the close of an AE discussion is an admin action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suppose it is in fact an admin action but it's certainly not the type of 'enforcement action' mentioned in arb policy that comes at pain of desysopping Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what caused the problem that brought us here. I concur with Jehochman, once it is closed, further enforcement action is precluded absent an appeal and consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 02:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. The close of other discussions by an admin in a way that rejects action, where the close could have been made by a non-admin, is probably not an admin action. WP:WHEEL favors the return to the status quo, and nothing here should upend that. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this is true, I don't think that wheel warring is at all applicable to anything that anyone did in this case because the repeat of the original admin action (changing the AE action from a block back to no block) was pursuant to an AN discussion. Certainly it could be argued whether or not there was consensus at that discussion ... and I'm sure it will be argued ad nauseam for the next week ... but this was nothing remotely like the behavior that WP:WHEEL is seeking to prevent. The idea behind prohibiting wheel warring is to prevent administrators from unilaterally re-imposing their desired admin action, not to make the reversion of an admin action unrevertable, even after discussion. --B (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An AE filing is a request for action. Any single admin can come along, review the matter and decide. It would make a farce of AE if another admin could then come along and change the result. AE is not a discussion and does not require a consensus. An appeal of an AE decision is a discussion and does require a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 09:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a good one and I agree with Kevin's interpretation. But if the consensus part is changed, then closure by uninvolved admin consensus could be seen as enforcement action. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is common sense, and I thought, general knowledge. If I threaten to block you, then technically my comment is an "admin action" because only an admin could make that threat in earnest. This makes it worthy of losing my admin bit if I do it wrongly or abusively enough times. Admin action = actions done with the use of the tools or the exclusive authority granted with the admin bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is "close" is nowhere in policy for AE, and "close" itself is used in so many contexts having nothing to do with admins that with no explicit specialized definition, we wind up here. DHeyward below has a better answer to this problem (logging). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion can in unusual circumstances be "unclosed". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see any evidence of a policy saying that admins, and only admins, may close these discussions. Regardless, wheel-warring refers to technically privileged actions - any editor who thinks an AE close is inappropriate can re-open it and initiate debate on its appropriateness, but deletion and other admin actions require privileges within the software. I do not see this as a valid principle. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declining a Request for Enforcement is an Enforcement Action

6) When an Admin rejects a request to enforce under AE/DS, that rejection is itself an enforcement action, and may not be overturned without consensus. (Inaction, refusing to take action oneself, or referring a matter elsewhere are all different from a rejection of the request)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with this principle and I anticipate I'll be proposing something along these lines in the PD; however, to prevent it from being gamed, I'd also like to add the caveat that admins closing AE threads should be particularly mindful not to give the impression they are second-guessing ArbCom or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, both with the principle and the need for a caveat. Doug Weller (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, as amplified by Salvio. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strongly agreed, as per my sections on the evidence page relating to admin supervoting and discussion closure. Without this, the discussions are purely one-sided. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad idea and will lead to extra drama and desysops. How often does this problem come up and result in, y'know, an actual problem? Whereas we have no clear process to appeal the reopening of threads currently, and lots of admins will make occasional good faith closes that may be incorrect where a lot less time will be spent with a simple reversion of their closure vs a potential accidental reversal of an enforcement action and a lot of following drama about desysopping. Kevin Gorman (talk)

Capeo: yeah, I think that a single admin should be able to question a closing enough to at least reopen the thread. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per Reaper. Otherwise it is just a meaningless exercise until a filer can find someone to block. GregJackP Boomer! 23:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or until an adequate discussion can be held. AE isn't consensus based, but no one is going to close an expanded thread with an arbitrary decision Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. To be binding a rejection should be unambiguous. In general, someone seeking enforcement should have one crack at it, further attempts should flow into the appeal process. I'm not sure how this would work if the second admin acts without knowledge of the rejection, particularly if the rejection doesn't happen at AE, such that there wouldn't even be an obvious place to look for it. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with this. If this is not the case, then AE is simply a place to wait for a block. Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me this is a no-brainer. I know judicial analogies are frowned upon but if you go before a judge for an incident and that judge dismisses your case with no penalty it's over. Of course said incident is logged and can be brought up in future cases as indicative of a pattern but you don't walk out of the courthouse after a case is dismissed only to be retried and thrown in jail the next day by a different judge. Capeo (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Gorman: who decides when a closing is in bad faith? A single admin? Isn't that the type of unilateral action without discussion that led to this case? I noted above that I think AE should revolve around a consensus of only admins mainly because it is unilateral actions that cause drama. It's that ensuing drama shouldered only by the admin taking the action that makes admins not want anything to do with AE. And you keep talking about desysops like they are automatic in the case that an admin screws up. The wording I see says "up to" a desysop. There is discretion involved as there should be. Capeo (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. This should be common sense. Why should we even have AE if closures made there can be unilaterally overturned at will? --Biblioworm 23:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad idea. It allows friendly admins to neuter ArbCom remedies by quickly closing down any request for enforcement. That is the very issue we have in this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That can be solved with a requirement that good faith requests stay open for not less than a certain period of time (say 24 hours) unless withdrawn. The alternative is that a single admin with an ax to grind can punish anyone under a sanction, despite any discussion to the contrary. --B (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here I disagree. There needs to be something else in place to avoid premature closures or closures by involved admins. The idea of 3 admins minimum consensus will solve both the concerns about ax grinders and could more easily be seen as enforcement action. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean (at least) three admins opining on the issue or three-admin teams deciding on the closes? (The latter is pointless bureaucracy, so I'm assuming and addressing the former.) I'm not sure how much this bright line is really going to help - in any of the controversial issues, you could easily get three opinionated admins to opine, but not have any sense whatsoever of what the broader community opinion is. A problem (I don't know and haven't looked to see if it is the case here) is "cherry picking" ... and I think that's basically what everyone is trying to prevent here. Example: there was an admin some time ago who only ever showed up at WP:AN3 if one of his friends was reported or was the reporter. He was (usually) not directly involved in the conflict, but he certainly had the backs of a few people. If you are not typically in the business of closing discussions at a particular noticeboard and then you show up to do so for a controversial one, that should at least have a heightened scrutiny. With both the decision not to block and the decision to unblock, were I an arbiter, I would view these much more favorably if (and I have not looked at contributions to see whether or not this is the case) the admin who closed the AE discussion regularly closes AE discussions and the admin who closed the AN discussion regularly handles requests at AN. --B (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am mellowing somewhat to this idea, provided that the close of "no action" happens after a thorough review, and where irrelevant arguments not related to the remedy in question are dismissed. I am also heartened that Salvio recognizes the need to prevent ArbCom decisions and intent from being obstructed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need more instruction creep.
ArbCom should not fob off hard decisions on the admins. If you don't trust admins to enforce discretionary sanctions, don't pass them as remedies.
If you do hand something off to arbitration enforcement, don't undermine those working the board by requiring tons of bureaucracy. AE is not a discussion. Its a report followed by a decision. If the decision isn't correct, it can be appealed and that's a discussion requiring consensus.
If a lone admin is frustrating enforcement by jumping on reports and repeatedly making wrong decisions, desysop them. Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to favor "No Action" over "Action" which was the opposite of why AE/DS was created. If the goal is to create a race over closing with or without sanction with each admin having the discretion of closing or enacting a sanction, this will do it. This will have the opposite effect of why AE/DS provisions are in place. Namely, we used to have Admins blocking an editor, followed by an unblock, followed by either a wheel-war or lengthy no-consensus discussion. This would put us back on that square. Closing AE requests will become like the old unblock followed by discussion. That problem is why AE/DS is in place. This proposal obviously recreates it with an insidious side effect that there will now be a race to enact AE/DS or close it. Let's not pretend these processes aren't along conflict lines of battle as they have already been before ArbCom. The lines drawn on this particular case are the same lines that have existed for a long time and future cases are unlikely to be different. --DHeyward (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin who is not neutral in the matter at hand is closing AE requests, then that is in and of itself a problem to be resolved. The assumption is that AE requests are being handled by neutral admins and so there is nobody who cares to "race" to do anything. --B (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "neutral" admin policy. There are involved and uninvolved. Only involved admins are prohibited from taking action. This proposal creates an incentive to race where there is none if closing isn't an administrative action. --DHeyward (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: do you mean "Only involved admins"? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC) @EvergreenFir: Doh. Thx. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dheyward. What we need is clear process for logging and somehow accountability of users who violate and admins who give "free pass" - whatever they do admins should not obstruct the binding remedy, nor suggest what they do is in any sense a free pass (logged advice, warning or clearance notation, maybe). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is either necessary or desirable. We set up AE as a way to encourage administrators to enforce arbitration remedies. If it's fallen short of the purpose, it needs to be reformed. We certainly should not be encouraging the current trend towards interminable talk and watered down enforcement. If some administrators make mistakes or some remedies have undesirable effects, deal with those issues without discouraging admins from using their discretion in enforcing remedies. --TS 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Not within the scope of the case.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) Anyone who has paid even a little attention to the inner workings of Wikipedia over the last seven or eight years knows that Eric Corbett/Malleus has become the most contentious individual on this entire project. He is an issue unto himself and there are strong feelings from both his allies and detractors regarding his overall value to the project. This has led, time and again, to explosions of infighting, incivility, blocking, unblocking, reblocking, ANI threads, multiple arbcom cases, and ragequits. Somehow, what to make of this one user appears to be the most intractible problem on Wikipedia, more so even than the ethnic, religious, and political feuds that spur most arbcom cases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't know why, but there it is. Tell me I'm wrong. Seriously. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) Anytime there is an arbitration enforcement thread, ANI discussion, block, or other such discussion or action related to Eric Corbett, special rules shall apply for a period of 96 hours afterward, in a sort of "free-fire zone"

WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are suspended on all involved discussions for the duration, excepting only hate speech.
Any admin action taken, no matter how ill-considered or premature, is to be considered acceptable, provided it does not clearly violate WP:WHEEL.
At the end of the 96 hour period, a truce is declared, all discussions related to it are archived to subpages, and it is never spoken of again.
Arbcom cases related to Eric may not be filed during the free-fire period, or as a result of actions taken during it.
If Eric is still under a block at the end of the free-fire period, the block stands. If he is not blocked, he remains unblocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The community can't deal with this issue. Neither can the admin corps. Neither can Arbcom, despite repeatedly having the chance to do so in the past. This seems the only solution at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this is "out of scope" since this is essentially what you just did by motion? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Kevin Gorman

Proposed principles

Reverting an AE close where no further action was takenis not a violation of an 'enforcement action,' though any admin to do so may not take admin action based on the results of the same section

1) Reverting an AE close where no further action was takenis not a violation of an 'enforcement action,' though any admin to do so may not take admin action based on the results of the same section

Comment by Arbitrators:

Oppose as stated. There needs to be a distinction between a deliberate statement that no action is appropriate from a mere failure to act. Aclose without action taken would normally be a deliberate statement, but it would clarify things if admins doing so would specify unambiguously. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support as proposer Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. That's what brought us here. GregJackP Boomer! 02:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DGG. GregJackP Boomer! 01:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per DGG, although if it is closed without action, that alone removes the ambiguity that it was closed as a "don't block". Still, clarity is preferred. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

It was unclear as to whether or not altering a 'no action' close was considered an alteration of an 'enforcement action' before the resolution of this case

1) Until this case occurred and is resolved, there was no consensus or obvious answer as to whether a 'no action' close at AE was considered an 'enforcement action' in terms of arb policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It was clearto me; it may not have been clear to everyone. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support as proposer. Kevin Gorman (talk)

Concur. That's the crux of the issue, and although it seemed clear to me initially that it was an admin action, the statements and evidence presented show that there are way to many editors and admins on both sides of the issue to claim that it was clear at the time. Oppose, per Reaper & B, below. GregJackP Boomer! 04:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It's fairly clear that "no action" closes are admin actions and subject to arbitration enforcement rules if made as a WP:AE report. See my comments on discussion closure. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose - it was not unclear at all. 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 ... ." "Any action" means "any action". It doesn't mean "any action that results in a block or other sanction". --B (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - if this line of thinking is followed through, it means an arbitration enforcement request can only ever be considered properly closed if the user(s) reported are blocked. Where a request is closed as requiring no action, it will remain technically open for an administrator to impose a block. A closure where no action is taken against the user(s) being reported has to be equivalent in standing to a closure where the user(s) is/are blocked, and given the same protection against being overturned. There has to be an acceptance by Kevin that not all arbitration enforcement requests do, in fact, require the user(s) reported to be blocked, that malicious reports are made, and that in the interests of fairness, sometimes some users will escape sanctions when reported for enforcement. Nick (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't even make any sense. A "no action" AE ruling is still an AE ruling, and is therefore subject to the same restrictions as any other. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is unclear, if it wasn't we wouldn't be here. And some of the above comments clearly do not match the evidence. That's not to say this is the proper formulation. The problem is nowhere is "close" at AE mentioned in policy, and "close" is much too widely used in other contexts that it's use here by anyone, without specific definition is inherently ambiguous. Dheyward below has a better answer to this (logging). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Despite the comments above, it is very obvious from the nature of the ANI up to the fact that we are here there was no agreement that a no action close was an arbitration enforcement action. That we are now thinking about what the text means and how to interpret it is good - and what this case needs to flesh out - but it is frankly impossible to oppose the reality of the moment when looking through a lens of hindsight. Reso lute 22:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Reaper and B. AE has always been a different animal anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time Reaper Eternal reversed it, GorillaWarfare's action was clearly an AE action, subsequent to rules about requiring strict consensus to overturn.

3) At the time Reaper Eternal reversed it, GorillaWarfare's action was clearly an AE action, subsequent to rules about requiring strict consensus to overturn.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support as proposer Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that in the worst case they both acted improperly. Reaper Eternals's unblock was out of process,then likely so was GW's. But that's independent fromthis FoF. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Reaper Eternal was acting in good faith based on a consensus of editors at AN. The default position is that an editor is unblocked, and Reaper evaluated the consensus to support a decision to unblock. GregJackP Boomer! 17:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg: that's not the default position with AE blocks. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's the default position with any block. AE blocks just require more to undo than another admin's unilateral action. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This also presupposes that the block is a valid AE block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except it can't be a valid AE block because she did not follow the process to overturn a previous AE admin action. GregJackP Boomer! 20:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Seems to be a thinly disguised effort to finger point on an issue that has amnesty. Procedurally speaking, his actions were valid. You can debate whether or not you agree with his conclusions, but his procedure was clearly within policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It goes both ways. If Reaper Eternal's unblock was out of process (and I would argue that it was not) because it overturned an AE ruling, then so was GorillaWarfare's. She blocked after Black Kite ruled that no action be taken. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtis is right, but looking at Reaper Eternal's action independently, support. Reso lute 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When Reaper Eternal reversed Gorillwarfare's AE action, there was clearly insufficient consensus to justify overturning an AE block

4) When Reaper Eternal reversed Gorillwarfare's AE action, there was clearly insufficient consensus to justify overturning an AE block

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support as proposer. Almost all opposers pre-suppose that a non-arbitrator can judge the validity of an AE action, soethin that would break moret thanit would fix. Kevin Gorman (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, there was clear consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 17:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, here is Reaper's own comment about how he read consensus, taken from his close "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." This is what WP:AE, quoting an arbcom decision, has to say about what is necessary to overturn an AE decision : "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page" Even by Reaper's own standards, he did not meet the requirement to overturn GW's AE block (which would've clearly been an ae block, no matter how questionable some may view it.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A normal block only needs consensus to overturn. GW did not follow the proper procedure to overturn BK's AE admin action, so her block cannot be considered a valid AE block. If it is not a valid AE block, it is just another block. GregJackP Boomer! 20:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a rather interesting view of AE that doesn't agree with current policy, but more significantly, closing it as anything but 'no consensus' at that point in time is highly questionable. You want to review the Wikipedia pages about consensus - != is literally 'not a vote.' There's pretty much no where on Wikipedia where 60% would normally count as a proxy for consensus (RFA normally requires 80%,) and my reading of the textual consensus also indicates it was no consensus at best. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to show that it was a valid AE block? Where did she obtain strong consensus to overturn BK's AE admin action? I haven't seen anything approaching GW following AE policy in overturning his AE action. GregJackP Boomer! 06:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This presupposes that the block is a valid AE block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that other admins get to judge the validity of actions taken under AE authority? do you realize the problemsthat would cause? 03:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

With ArbCom having granted a motion granting amnesty to all involved, they should dismiss the whole case. What remains to be done here is policy-making, and arbcom is not a policy making body as a general rule. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this has never been about sanctioning people, it has been primarily about clarifying what the process is to avoid problems in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is something that should and can be handled by community processes. Arbcom's goal should be to break the back of intractable disputes, not to clarify policy. With the amnesty, there are no intractable disputes here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, read the Arbitration policies and procedures, and who's responsible for their clarity - it's arbcom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, arbcom should set their policies internally, soliciting feedback from the community where necessary. A full arb case is a horrible mechanism to effect policy change. 03:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed principles

Behavioral standards

1) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is a fairly standard formulation, used before (most recently in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2). While the intricities of what technically counts as an admin action, what counts as an overturn, and what circumstances makes such actions justified is important. But this part is highly significant background which explains why people are so up in arms. The treatment of people who have tried enforcing the ArbCom topic ban falls far below normal behavioral standards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Eric's conduct not in scope. (Clerk Action) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Conduct surrounding enforcement of GGTF topic ban

1) At the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF arbitration case, Eric Corbett was "indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic". Its scope is described in a motion of 7 February 2015. Eric Corbett has been blocked for violating the topic ban five times, the latest of which is the locus of dispute in this case. In all the previous blocks, the enforcing administrator has been subjected to intense criticism, in several cases escalating to personal attacks and accusations of bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Pretty objectively true, and Eric's violations aren't really in dispute Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have entered evidence for the last statement on the evidence page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedy

General reminder

1) Enforcing ArbCom decisions is already a hard task. All users are reminded that although disagreements may arise, resorting to personal attacks, or making allegations of bad faith (such as having a personal agenda) are unacceptable and serve only to exacerbate the situation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

ABsolutely support. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Many people whose conduct I documented in the evidence section are otherwise constructive and decent editors, and I see no need to pursue sanctions. However a reminder is in my view fully appropriate if we are to move forward here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can't help but see irony, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but as Dennis suggests, all users means all users. For instance, I didn't think out-of-context partially quoting a good faith message of mine intended to calm a dispute was particularly nice. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by EvergreenFir

Proposed principles

Only Administrators may close discussions at Arbitration Enforcement

1) Discussions at Arbitration Enforcement are unusual in that they weigh the opinions of uninvolved Admins more heavily than non-admins, which is contrary to practice in all other discussions. Allowing non-admins to close a discussion decided by the opinions of admins would be unreasonable, and admin only closes has long been the practice at AE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

All credit for this goes to Monty845. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality toward parties

2) Admins reviewing enforcement requests must strive for neutrality regarding all parties. When reviewing enforcement requests, admin discretion should be exercised in evaluating the alleged violations only.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: The first sentence is obviously a good principle. What do you mean by the second sentence? --B (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to say that the actions should be evaluated, not the individuals. There shouldn't be admin discretion used because, say, the violator is a "content creator" or "has done X, Y, and Z too" or "they're in the middle of finishing up FOOBAR project". Not sure if that makes sense. But I can strike the second sentence if need be. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a great idea in this context, at least in its present form. Parties subject to arbitration enforcement have already been warned, at a minimum, of the possibility of sanctions. Their past activities should be considered in deciding on the effectiveness of any sanction. Perhaps there is a core of truth here that could be expressed better than this current proposal. --TS 19:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement decisions should weight patterns of behavior

3) When evaluating enforcement requests, parties' past conduct and sanctions should be considered alongside the current alleged violations. Any enforcement decisions should address patterns of behavior in addition to individual alleged violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is already in policy, but wouldn't hurt to reaffirm Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, EF, it is. Escalating blocks are in fact explicitly already called for. It still wouldn't hurt to reaffirm wit stronger language

Comment by others:

Proposed, but not terrible sure about the wording. I added this because in this case there was an issue regarding the severity of the alleged violation and the length of the block did not seem warranted when considering that single violation. However, it is a pattern of behavior that led to the sanctions and a pattern that resulted in any past enforcement. When considering enforcement requests, the current behavior cannot be divorced from this pattern. I added "parties" in the beginning because bad-faith behaviors of the filer should be considered as well. We know some complains are frivolous and vexatious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Gorman: It is? Honestly surprised. Yes, I think it needs reaffirmation then. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I think this is a good general principle. --TS 19:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, this is true with any potential sanction by admin, even edit warring or disruptive behavior, on or off formal board, so not sure what this gains us. Doesn't hurt, just not sure where it helps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

Three admins or 48 hours before close

1) Enforcement requests with merit should only be closed if (1) there is consensus between at least three uninvolved admins or (2) the case has been open for at least 48 hours. Closure of the case, with or without sanctions, would considered arbitration enforcement. Closures outside of (1) and (2) (e.g., when emergency action is considered warranted) would be considered admin action and can be reversed by any uninvolved admin. Upon such a reversal, (1) and (2) must be adhered to.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is making "policy" and not within the remit of Arbcom. Well, this is entirely within our remit. Arbitration enforcement is a process set up by ArbCom, pursuant to the terms of the Arbitration Policy, and resting upon the delegation of part of our authority to the admin corps; for that, we retain the right (and responsibility) to amend, or even vacate, the relevant policy.

Now, on the merits, I disagree, because this change would, in my opinion, limit the flexibility of the process and its ability to react quickly to disruption in contentious areas, which are two of the reasons we needed such a process in the first place. Personally, I'd prefer to rely on the common sense and reasonableness of our admins, by telling them to feel free to act, but to also be careful not to give the impression they are trying to obstruct the enforcement of our decisions. After all, let's remember that AE has been active for years now and there only have been a couple of problematic cases so far. I'd say that relying on their common sense has been the right approach... $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Salvio--this is setting the procedures for enforcement, and within the remit of arbcom unless the community wishes to over-ride us. With respect to the merits, I think it a thoroughly bad proposal--much too inflexible, and lacking in the necessary speed of action that is often essential in these matters. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for the community to be able to amend our procedures, they'd first have to amend the arbitration policy.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would probably be the formal step. They would amend the policy to take full or partial authority over enforcement. I urge them to do just that. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would take away flexibility to deal with both entirely frivolous requests and unambiguous and ongoing violations. It would also essentially change every DS we've ever set, where sanctions can be set by "any uninvolved administrator". If an action is thought to be unreasonable, there's an appeals process in place for a reason. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Although I agree with most of this, I think that both it'll be hard to find three uninvolved admins to draft closures at AE (hell, it is anywhere,) and that clear severe violations should be acted on potentially very quickly. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably a decent idea, although even then I can see exceptions. But we can always just call them IAR as long as we dont have the 'enforcement action' verbiage that tends to result in desysopping. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finding three uninvolved admins for anything is hard, let alone AE. Though I see the way you've written it it's either 3 admins or 48 hours, but it'd take longer than 48 hours to find the three admins. I might suggest leaving the emergency exception open, and otherwise requiring 72 hours before one admin can close. A 72 hour time limit with an emergency exception with the emerg exception not countin as an enforcement action, I'd support Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Gorman: Hm... How about if I limit it to review of tban and iban violations? Those are rarely severe enough to need immediate action from what I've seen. Any that are can be dealt with in the short term using non-arb means (like NPA, HARASS, etc. for ibans or vandalism/disruption for tbans) and then the block can be amended as enforcement action? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Gorman: I've added the following text: Closures outside of (1) and (2) (e.g., when emergency action is considered warranted) would be considered admin action and can be reversed by any uninvolved admin. Upon such a reversal, (1) and (2) must be adhered to. I think this would address your concerns.

@Kevin Gorman: My concern is that the "emergency" except can be abused, but if it's specified as non-enforcement action, then the reversal part is not necessary. Do you not like the reversal language? Trying to figure out a decent way of wording this that isn't overly complicated. Ideally, if someone disagrees with an emergency action, I'd like it to default back to the 3 admins/48 (or 72) hours. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too much instruction creep and makes non-controversial issues require way too much process. --B (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@B: I originally was gonna propose this idea re: Corbett, but he's not party to the case anymore. I understand your concern on instruction creep, but it's clear that AE falls apart when it comes to controversial issues and imho something needs to be done to address that. Perhaps this can be implemented for specific individuals who are controversial? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This is making "policy" and not within the remit of Arbcom. — Ched : ? 21:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to think of this. Ched is absolutely correct, but at the moment, with the unchangeable nature of an arbitration enforcement block, there's a first mover advantage and an ability to game the system, both need to be addressed. It shouldn't be possible for one person to contact an administrator first, make the report at arbitration enforcement, let the administrator know the report is now live, and then for action to be taken and the report to be closed within a short period of time. It's also possible to monitor changes to pages through watchlist notifications, through various bots and the like, so someone with an interest can arrive and deal with an arbitration enforcement request quickly, either shutting it down quickly, when it ought not to be shut down, or again can take action when they maybe shouldn't. Nick (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched and Nick: So then where would the be appropriate forum for this? VP? Can arb com make a position statement perhaps? I agree with Nick that the current system is broken, especially so for "controversial" issues. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The issue that EvergreenFir brought to AE was a snowball close as it had no support. If we have plenty of opposers to a frivolous complaint or vice versa, there is no reason to protract the issue if a reasonable good faith judgement can be reached.--MONGO 22:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, that's incorrect. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: common sense and reasonableness are what got us in this mess. This could be limited to "controversial" issues perhaps, or even just Corbett. I find myself agreeing with Sandstein's comments on the evidence page about this. How can we prevent a recurrence of this? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be, as I said above, a clear distinction between urgent and non-urgent cases. It's fairly obvious where someone is posing a an ongoing threat of disruption to the encyclopaedia, and in these cases any admin is within their rights to issue a preventative block, AE or no. In other cases a mature deliberation can be made before any decision is reached and any corresponding action taken. Even where a speedy block is applied there is no reason why a discussion cannot take place, and if the block was a 48 hour, clearly labelled "interim preventative block" then no very great harm would occur if it was overturned. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

What would you suggest instead DGG? We cannot pretend that the status quo will suffice anymore, unless you want to set up a special place for "controversial" cases like Corbett. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those proposals that looks good on paper, but I can see being problematic in practice, to the point of being gamed. We need structure at AE, but if make the rules too tight, only the politicians know how to work them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: It's all very well to rely on the common sense and reasonableness of our admins, (and for the record I think that's the right attitude to take), but that will only work if there are consequences for those who get it wrong. Otherwise, AE will just descend into the same farce that AN and ANI all-too-regularly resemble. That means sanctions for Black Kite, for hastily closing a discussion claiming 'consensus' where there was, realistically, none; GorillaWarfare, for unilaterally overturning an AE action outside the proper process; and, probably Reaper Eternal, for likewise overriding an AE action without the requisite consensus. I think RE is the least to blame, here; there is at least a reasonable argument to be made that a wide-ranging discussion was had at AN and consensus reached, though whether it reaches the level of a clear, substantial and active consensus is rather more dubious. Exactly what sanctions could have been levied against a sitting arbitrator is beyond my knowledge, but sanctions were necessary if any good was to come of this.

But the committee, in its infinite wisdom, has effectively precluded itself from doing anything about this situation by granting an amnesty to all involved. You have painted yourself into the corner where the only possible action you can take is to blame the process and to tinker with it, having made all of the actual parties to the case immune to it. That was a dire mis-step, in my view, as should have been obvious; in what sort of arbitration process do you begin by saying that none of the parties can be affected by the outcome??? So now your only options are to close the whole thing with no action, or to try to 'fix' the process so it doesn't happen again. You'd better have some good ideas on how the process can be improved! GoldenRing (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now formulated some of this thinking into proposals below; I'm aware that the sanctions envisaged are almost certainly precluded by the amnesty. GoldenRing (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Would people be able to appeal a closure of no action then? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate to 48 hours/3 admins - Mechanism for closure reviews

2) AE requests may be closed by any uninvolved admin after weighing the merits of the request the comments by others. If another uninvolved admin strongly objects to the closure, they may reopen the AE request for further discussion. A reopened AE request discussion should only be closed if (1) the original closing admin agrees with the objecting admin, (2) no clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE has been reached after 48 hours from reopening, (3) there is clear and substantial consensus of at least two additional uninvolved administrators, or (4) the reopening admin withdraws their objection to the original closure. The actions of the original closing admin will remain in effect during the review and cannot be changed without (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator or (2) the clear and substantial consensus between the objecting admin and the additional two admins. The status quo is maintained if (1) there is a lack of clear and substantial consensus after 48 hours, (2) the clear and substantial consensus between the original closing admin and the additional two admins, or (3) the objecting admin withdraws their object.

Comment by Arbitrators:

i think this degree of detail is inapprpriate. Good judgment and common sense in individual cases is what's required, not formal rules. One particular phrase in the above paragraph has proven very unfortunate: "clear and substantial" -- this is ato high a standard , and favors the initiation admin much too greatly. The necessary term is just "consensus" . DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggesting an update to the "Important: Appeals and administrator modifications of sanctions > Modifications by administrators" found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header. I'm no wordsmith, but the general idea is to provide an explicit mechanism for questionable AE closures to be discussed on AE itself (in addition AN). Just an idea... and I'm sure it's not perfect, but thought it worth a shot. Perhaps the drafting arbs can cannibalize it (or just ignore it). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was for this at first, but once the first admin closes, it really should go to review instead, as closing is already an admin action. All actions are reviewable, but I think AE is one of those places you don't want to see a lot of reverts at. They are ugly enough at ANI/AN/AN3/AFD. I remain open, but very skeptical that this could be done without lots of dramah. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG. We're not going to make arbitration enforcement better by introducing more bureaucracy. I'd go further, and say this is time to remind the community that arbitration remedies are applied specifically and solely when community processes break down, and that enforcement relies on the initiative of administrators as empowered to act by the committee through motions and case rulings.

I'll add such an item to my proposed principles if I can find a reasonably current case that had such a principle. If I cannot, I'll precis something from the arbitration policy documents.

I do understand that some arbitrators have indicated that they feel themselves pulled towards tightening the bureaucracy around enforcement. I ask them to consider that the cost of such bureaucracy is likely to be further deterrence against the few administrators who combine the experience and wisdom needed to enforce arbitration remedies with the determination to do it anyway knowing that it's at best an ugly necessity for which they will receive little recognition. --TS 16:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apply ACDS admin expectation wording to AE

3) Apply the wording Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction. Conversely, editors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly. (from ACDS) to AE as well.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this. Admin shouldn't feel they have to jump from 2 weeks to 4 weeks, and at AE, it seems they do. Discretion in blocking may actually result in more blocks, but shorter blocks. ie: They didn't block EditorBob for a month because that was too long, so they didn't block at all. Instead 3 days might have been better for a small infraction. More use of proportional and less use of escalating. I'm not an AE expert, but I don't think this principle is really being used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot in this principle that applies always in administrative actions. However at AE the admin is always dealing with someone who has either been named specifically in a arbitration remedy or been made aware that a remedy applies to their edits in a topic area (no other editor can normally be sanctioned at AE, with the possible exception of those who being cases to AE but are otherwise not covered by any remedy--the boomerang exception for vexatious complaints).

So I think it's a bad idea to act as if every first time enforcement considered at AE is a "first offence", and where it applies to editors specifically named in arbitration sanctions it's especially inappropriate to apply a " first offence" consideration. The remedies are specific instances of broadened administrator discretion, and arbcom is quite capable of drafting remedies tailored to have a desired effect. --TS 17:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:B

Proposed principles

No cherry picking

1) If an administrator does not regularly process requests on a particular noticeboard, and then processes a particularly controversial request as his or her first foray into that process, that close should be viewed with heightened scrutiny.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If somebody drinks and drives, you should punish them severely; you should not ban red cars from the road. AGK [•] 19:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what 'heightened scrutiny' would mean in practice, and I don't see this as desirable or workable. Doug Weller (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is just the opposite: like most WP processes, it could use broader participation DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I've long felt that this should be a rule - cherry picking a controversial issue necessarily makes it suspect whether or not you are able to neutrally handle it. (I have not looked at the three actions in question in this arbitration to see to which ones (if any) this principle may be relevant.) I offer this principle because I think it's what some of the other suggestions are really trying to achieve. Waiting x number of hours isn't the problem. The real problem is if you're getting a biased result because someone is cherry picking. --B (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: That analogy is not remotely relevant and I hesitate to respond because to respond is to acknowledge that meaningful communication has taken place. The problems with your analogy include, but are not limited to:

Motivation is not an issue with the crime of drinking and driving, but is an issue in determining the appropriateness of a close
Drinking and driving is NEVER appropriate, whereas closing a discussion is at least sometimes appropriate.
The color of the car has no bearing on the appropriateness of your drinking and driving, whereas your decision to "cherry pick" a case to close does potentially have some bearing on the appropriateness of your close.

It is "gaming the system" to cherrypick discussions that pertain to people that you do or do not like or that pertain to issues where you have a bias, even if you aren't actually considered to be "involved" with that particular person. I would think that this would be fairly obvious. --B (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am now reluctant to respond further because there would appear to be better ways to use our time. I won't be supporting this principle or anything resembling it. AGK [•] 05:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those ideas that's fine in theory, but putting it into practice, on a volunteer project, where administrators dip in and out of doing things becomes impossible. That said, there are interaction tools on Tool Labs which could be more prominently linked to, allowing administrators and editors to see if they're perhaps too involved to be getting involved in arbitration enforcement, and some clearer rules from the arbitration committee on what they consider 'involved' would be useful. Nick (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the existing principle that involved administrators should not enforce arbitration remedies is enough. We've found it hard enough to get the remedies enforced at all, without imposing rules like this. --TS 20:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Then every action becomes a debate about what is cherry picking, ie: did AdminBob participate enough previously for his close to be valid? More importantly, you encourage a small group of admin to create a walled garden around AE, via All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a volunteer community every action is 'cherry picked' because everyone chooses what discussions, articles and debates to participate in. I think what you're getting at (with less creep) is there in WP:GAME. Crazynas^t 02:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Reaper Eternal

Proposed principles

Supervoting is inappropriate

1) Administrators should not attempt to enforce their desired outcome by ~~"supervoting"~~ unilaterally overturning a consensus-based close or unilaterally taking their desired administrative action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support - As proposer, per my section on supervotes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. GregJackP Boomer! 20:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it wasn't a supervote, and GW didn't to overturn a reasonable consensus based close. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She unilaterally overturned a close. That was the fundamental problem. Such closes are appealable. This was akin to an administrator strolling in after an AfD "Keep" and deleting an article... Not every close is a good close; arguably bad closes should be appealed, not supervoted away. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Your description of a supervote and the essay on supervotes sound like two completely different things. The essay is talking about when you come to a discussion with 10 keep !votes and 4 delete !votes and you close it as a delete, apparently exercising a "supervote". Your description seems to be talking about reopening closed discussions in hopes of a more favorable close. While these may both be bad behaviors, they aren't the same thing. --B (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's debatable whether GorillaWarfare's action constituted a supervote, but it's absolutely right that supervotes are discussed here whilst we attempt to work out how to make Arbitration Enforcement a better system. Nick (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would usefully be analysed in the context of "local consensus" and "global consensus." Global consensus is based on policy and arbitration is based in a binding decision on policy. So, no to this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it sounds too much like asking administrators not to do their job. We can and should expect them to exercise their powers impartially in discretionary sanctions, and if they don't the arbitration committee can tell them off in a variety of ways. No extra rules like this are needed, and bringing in such rules would only scare away more admins. As will this case, sadly, but that can't be helped now. --TS 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in context. Arbcom exists to solve problems the community can not. Inevitably, the community fails to solve a problem when an issue divides it completely. AE simply can't function if it is a process dependent on community consensus. In this case, we had an editor with a bunch of supporters show up to support him without seriously addressing the merits of the complaint. But in other cases, it would be reasonable to believe that an AE discussion could bog down into the same bickering and lack of consensus that precipitated the original Arbcom case. As such, it is necessary for unilateral decisions to be made at times. The ultimate question was always whether Black Kite's close was the AE action that should have ended this particular report. Reso lute 22:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:AFD? Yes. On WP:DRV? Yes. On WP:RM? Yes. All these are consensus based processes. But not Arbitration Enforcement. AE is a mechanism to bring breaches of ArbCom sanctions to the attention of administrators so that the binding ArbCom remedies can be enforced. A local consensus on an AE discussion cannot simply decide that they don't like the remedy and thereby prevent enforcement of the remedy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A local consensus cannot say 'we don't want this remedy so we will not allow enforcement', but a local consensus can equally not say 'we want this remedy to be a site ban even though it's not so we will ensure that a constructive site ban occurs through our enforcement'. In the same way that a single administrator should not be preventing the proper enforcement of a remedy which a consensus of administrators would deem actually requires enforcement in the circumstances, it should not be a single administrator who should be aggressively enforcing a remedy which a consensus of administrators would deem warrants a milder response in the circumstances. And the fact that a matter has resulted in an arb case earlier does not automatically mean that uninvolved administrators are now incapable of arriving at a consensus on the appropriate response to the reported alleged breach.
- What the proposed principle is essentially saying (or trying to say in context) I think is that administrators should not be intent on "enforcing" mindlessly to their preferred version if they disagree or anticipate disagreement - as that is not the sort of "discretion" which is intended at AE. Rather, it is the care and the judgment exercised by an admin (together with clear communication) which is valued, both prior to and at the time of taking the enforcement action. Regard must be given to the purpose - which is to assist in resolving the dispute instead of adding or creating more problems. That is why AE necessarily evolved into more than what it was initially.
- Overall, this particular proposal needs to be adjusted to more clearly articulate the underlying concepts I've mentioned above (as it would be inappropriate for us to duck our heads in the sand again). Clarification needs to be given in this case for sure, but the clarification needs to act in a way which simplifies what to do and how to do it when things get a bit complicated. There should be no hesitation in reminding admins to think things through properly, instead of unnecessarily acting in the heat of the moment when there is no emergency; it is much better than pretending there is/was no problem out of fear that 'admins will be scared away'. Incidentally, that fear campaign has never actually helped, and I've not seen users who advocate that taking genuine steps towards encouraging more input at AE from the wider community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins may participate at arbitration enforcement

2) Non-admins may participate at arbitration enforcement, and their comments carry weight equal to that which his comment or vote would carry if they were an administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not really the issue being examined in this case. AGK [•] 19:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support - I shouldn't be needing to say this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Why are we having this discussion? Unless editors are second-class citizens. GregJackP Boomer! 20:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strong oppose - The community's inability to deal with issues is what leads to arb sanctions in the first place. Expecting them to be able to weigh in on such issues is counter to the very existence of arb com. We've seen !votes can be gamed in the Gamergate stuff. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would usefully be analysed in the context of "local consensus" and "global consensus." Global consensus is based on policy and arbitration is based in a binding decision on policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - of course it is true that different editors opinions do carry different weight, but that should always be by virtue of the cogency of their arguments, not what bits they hold. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Support - It should go without saying. Admin are selected to do the will of the community, not because they are smarter or better, but because they are willing, trusted and experienced enough to understand what that will would be in most circumstances, so they can act unilaterally most of the time, closing AFDS, etc. When part of a larger discussion, however, the bit should convey no extra weight. Not sure that is within scope in this case, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would usefully be analysed in the context of "local consensus" and "global consensus." Global consensus is based on policy and arbitration is based in a binding decision on policy. So, no to this status thing. All commentators should avoid the personalized comments we saw in this AE, it does nothing to reach actual consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, the opinions of non administrators count for nothing because enforcement of arbitration remedies isn't subject to a vote. Evidence, on the other hand, is welcome. --TS 20:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as stated, oppose as implied. You can't allow an absurdity where a non-admin could bring a complaint to AE, but other non-admins could not respond to it. Anyone willing to present an argument or evidence should be welcome to do so. However, AE can't function well as a consensus-based process, which ultimately means that under ideal conditions, anyone who is not the uninvolved closing admin will have less influence on the outcome than at most other process pages. Reso lute 22:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - this would basically kill off AE as an effective tool for dealing with contentious topic areas and turn it into a duplicate of the AN/I free-for-all. If this was implemented, political factions would be lining up to veto sanctions of their fellow travellers just as they do at other venues. AE was created to circumvent such deadlocks and for all its flaws, it is an important tool for dealing with conflicts that have otherwise proven intractable. Gatoclass (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Moot. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

} ==== Admins have acted in good faith ==== 1) The three administrators, Black Kite (talk · contribs), GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs), and Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) have all acted in good faith. All of them have attempted to improve Wikipedia through their administrative actions, and no foul motive was in play.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not sure that we need this although I'm not opposing it now. The purpose of this case is to clarify the relevant policy. Doug Weller (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support - I believe my colleagues and I have all acted in the best of faith to try to improve Wikipedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- I agree with B that mind reading is dubious, and none of the actions are clear enough to divine faith fro. From a personal perspective: although there are clear mechanisms for challenging what is believed to be an invalid AE action, simply overturning an AE action isn't one of them. I believe a good faith action on Reaper's part would've been to go to ARCA or another appropriate notice board challenging specifically the validity of GW's action as an AE action, not just overturning an AE action because he believed it to be a bad one. If people get to overturn AE actions based n the fact that on some ground they believe the AE action is not valid, AE as a whole is diminished. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm not thrilled with findings that require use of the mind-reading software. And "good faith" has multiple aspects to consider. (1) Did the admin in question believe that his or her action would help improve Wikipedia and (2) did the admin in question believe that he or she had the authority to take the action based on policy? #1 I'm sure is obviously the case. #2 is less obvious. --B (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Tryptofish

Proposed principles

Arbitration Enforcement decision-making

1) Arbitration Enforcement is intended to lead to an expeditious decision, without a risk of deadlock. It differs in this way from other administrative noticeboards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Please see also the similar #Proposals by User:Monty845. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would usefully be analysed in the context of "local consensus" and "global consensus." Global consensus is based on policy and arbitration is based in a binding decision on policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally you wouldn't need WP:AE at all. It's certainly not supposed to be the talking shop it has often become. --TS 20:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement and consensus

2) Arbitration Enforcement is not intended to determine community consensus, but instead it should reflect existing decisions made by the Arbitration Committee. A local consensus that emerges in an Arbitration Enforcement discussion does not override the previous decision of the Committee. (Editors who believe that an existing decision needs to be revised should instead raise their concerns at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Of course it should not contradict the arb com decision, but it can and should interpret it.Many instances will not be obvious, and the intention of this is to be Discretionary. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Obvious, should probably be reinforced though Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Nick said, below. GregJackP Boomer! 14:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir, consensus is consensus. Editors are not second class citizens. While at AE the weight may be less than that of an admin (which is a separate issue), they still have input into the process. You mention that some have a following, which is true I suppose, but if you are going to discount those commenting in support of an editor, you must also then discount those who filed the case and are calling for the editor's head on a platter. Those comments are also clearly not neutral. That's why you take all comments and allow uninvolved admins to determine consensus and close. GregJackP Boomer! 19:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arbitration enforcement shouldn't be delayed waiting for discussion and a consensus to emerge, but if a clear consensus emerges at arbitration enforcement during any discussion, it shouldn't be ignored without very good reason.

If consensus is strongly against blocking at the arbitration enforcement discussion, it's reasonable to believe that the block stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal, so probably shouldn't be made in the first place. There's really no need to be creating additional workload for other administrators and the wider community blocking someone you know is likely to be unblocked shortly afterwards.

If there is a recurring issue of arbitration enforcement requests being properly filed but consensus is then almost always against enforcing the decision of the arbitration committee (either at arbitration enforcement or on appeal) this needs to be referred back to the committee to review, with the presumption that the user(s) involved remain unblocked whilst this happens. Nick (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, consensus in what manner? If we're talking about non-admin consensus, we fall back into the same trap that lead to the sanctions in the first place. Moreover, as was demonstrated in this case, certain folks have followings. Would their comments be considered part of consensus when they're clearly not neutral? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP: I suppose the issue then is to make sure the admins are uninvolved and able to act neutrally, despite any personal feelings they might have on the topic. This is also why I mentioned that only the actions should be considered (or at least giving far more weight to) and that the opinions about the individual should be ignored. Hypothetically, if Jimbo was brought before AE, his actions are what should be weighed, not how wonderful everyone thinks he is. This is why I also like the idea of a wait period or a minimum number of admins. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read with interest the comments by parties and the comments by others here. I think that these comments illustrate how different members of the community see the process in different ways, and consequently, I think that the Arbs would do well to look carefully at these differing perceptions and try to use the case decision to clarify them.

But, that said, I think a lot of the comments are not about the same thing that I was saying, so I want to clarify that. If a clear consensus emerges during an AE discussion, is it the case that it shouldn't be ignored without very good reason? Well, maybe. It depends on how "good" the consensus is, and how "good" the reason for, not ignoring it, but rejecting it, may be. There's a big difference between a consensus amongst a group of uninvolved users, including uninvolved administrators – and a consensus amongst a group of editors who showed up quickly because they watch the talk page of the editor subject to enforcement. What we had here was the latter. And there's a big difference between rejecting that consensus because one personally disagrees with it, and rejecting it because it substituted the opinions of a few editors for the decision made by ArbCom after reviewing a case.

My proposals are intended to suggest to ArbCom that you need to clarify that AE is not a place to decide that an ArbCom decision was wrong, but that there is a process for raising that question thoughtfully via Clarification/Amendment. Conversely, if AE can decide that ArbCom got it wrong, then we are going to continue to have potential free-for-alls. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. As I said above, this is usefully analysed in the context of "local consensus" and "global consensus." Global consensus is based on policy and arbitration is based in a binding decision on policy. Otherwise, we have people just attacking one another, or pleading for a User, based on who they are not their conduct, which is another over-personalization problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration, and particularly discretionary sanctions, is what happens when the normal community processes break down. The risks involved in mistaking WP:AE for just one more community process are all too visible. Too often WP:AE is dominated by the opinions of the very same editors whose conduct has led to the problem. We need to encourage administrators to adopt a "no nonsense" approach. So this proposed principle really captures the point, basically. --TS 20:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative actions by Arbitrators

3) Members of the Arbitration Committee may carry out administrative actions, acting as individual administrators, or the Committee may issue administrative actions on behalf of the Committee as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes this is true and should remain so. There is no restriction on us being normal admins on matters unrelated to arbcom business (e.g. XfD closing, SPIs, AIV, etc) - if something does become arbcom business then we can recuse if necessary. There are a few occasions when we do act individually on behalf of the committee, but almost always on arbcom pages or for ban appeals, and this gets discussed with the rest of committee afterwards (unless it is something completely uncontroversial like my hatting of off-topic discussion on the PD-talk last night). We always do our best to make it clear which hat we are wearing if it isn't clear. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support in general. Although I suppose it brings up the question - if they wanted to, would an individual arbitrator have the authorityy to isse a decision on behalf of the committee as a whole? I can think of couple situations where such a thing might be desirable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What I'm attempting to point out here is the distinction between an "ArbCom block or ban" and a community block or ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea for arbitrators to involve themselves. Instead they can have the Committee vote and send a clerk to do the action on behalf of the Committee. This avoids all sorts of ambiguities and avoids the arbitrators individually become part of a dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 12:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the comments of both Thryduulf and Jehochman, please see what I suggest in #Role of Arbitrators in Arbitration Enforcement, below. What I try to say here, in Principles, is current practice, as noted by Thryduulf – but what I suggest below, in Remedies, is something that I think needs to be done going forward, for the same reasons just cited by Jehochman. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. There is not a quasi-admin called "the Arbitration Committee". I think the intent of this is sound, but the wording is wrong.

What happens is that the Committee issues permission to the admin body to take certain admin actions with the imprimatur of the Committee. Such actions if taken have, in general, a special status, that requires special circumstances to overturn.

Separately, of course, Arbitrators are likely to also be Administrators. They can take administrative actions under their own cognizance. They generally do not perform administrative actions with the imprimatur of the Committee, and are well advised not to.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I've thought about what you said here, and I hope that I'm not implying that there is such a "quasi-admin". I agree with you regarding admins who are not on the Committee carrying out permissions given by the Committee. As for what you describe as "well advised not to", that's what my proposal is trying to address: when you get to my proposed remedies, below, you will see that I am proposing making it more formal that it is ill-advised for Arbs to act as individuals in the way that you describe – but I am also proposing that the Committee as a whole can have a consensus that any individual member could then carry out on behalf of the Committee. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supervision of Arbitration Enforcement

4) When a decision made at Arbitration Enforcement is determined by the Arbitration Committee to be inconsistent with the Committee case decision that was to be enforced, the decision of the Committee supersedes that of the Arbitration Enforcement administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this obvious. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. Probably even support for something like doable by just an en banc panel of maybe three arbs, or one arb reflexed to arb review Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Agree with Tryptofish. GregJackP Boomer! 03:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In my opinion, the AE discussion that led to this case centered on the consensus of the editors who participated in it, whereas GorillaWarfare's block reflected the actual intent of the sanctions that are in effect. I think that everyone was acting reasonably, based on their individual opinions, but that ArbCom now needs to make procedures clearer. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re what Kevin Gorman said, my view of it is that it should really be the consensus of the Committee as a whole. As soon as you start letting individual Arbs or small subgroups of Arbs do it, you will become vulnerable to exactly the kinds of complaints that led to this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUE - Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If what you mean by that is that it really ought to be self-evident, then I agree with you. But if what you mean is that, for that reason, it would be a mistake to say it explicitly, then I disagree, because the facts of this case demonstrate that, nonetheless, it wasn't obvious to editors who participated in the AE discussion. Ideally, principles should always be obviously true, but that's not a reason to leave them out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

No findings of administrative wrongdoing

1) All of the named parties in this case appear to have acted in good faith, but under unclear procedures. In particular, there is no need for sanctions against administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'd prefer no finding to a null finding, unless it's imperative to establish a null in this case. Estsblished Arbcom practice favors the former, I believe. --TS 20:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although this (as opposed to a null finding) points out... as a finding of fact... that the procedures were unclear (which seems to be the central issue of this case) Crazynas^t 04:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Role of Arbitrators in Arbitration Enforcement

1) The Arbitration Committee may act, as a whole, to override the outcome of any discussion at Arbitration Enforcement. However, individual Arbitrators, acting as individual administrators, should avoid taking actions that reverse the outcome of an Enforcement discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While there's no question that Gorilla's block would've been less controversial if carried out by the comitttee as a whole, I would think that tbere would be some situations where arbitrators reverted closes more frequently than other admins (is reverting a 'no action' close reverting an enforcment action now? Thos whole thing is getting a bit odd..." The particular situation I'm thinking of is a drafting arbitrator explaining in a previously closed discussion that the arb remedy didn't mean what the admin closing the AE section thought it meant. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

My thinking here is that GorillaWarfare's block of Eric Corbett would not have been as subject to objections if it had been made on behalf of the Committee as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is uneeded - what's needed is a plain way to have the whole world know the "action" was taken and done (logging seems to be a good way to do that). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Hard cases make bad law" applies here. I tend to see all admin actions as falling within administrative discretion unless egregiously bad, and I see no reason to except any actions in this case. --TS 20:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, whatever else, my intention here is specifically that GorillaWarfare's, or any other Arb's, action will be less controversial and significantly less prone to causing uproar if it is preceded by a consensus of the whole Committee. Alan and Tony, you both agreed with me, above, about my proposed principle concerning AE and consensus. It seems to me that the "remedy" (really more like a procedural clarification) that I propose here serves to address just the problem that you agreed with me as existing. In other words, what happens when an AE discussion fails to conform with ArbCom's applicable decision? That's what happened here! What happens when a single Committee member acts individually to fix what AE got wrong? That's what happened here too. So, I'm proposing a possible solution, and recommending that it be announced clearly going forward, so we don't have confusion about it in the future. Logging is a good thing, as far as it goes, but it does not accomplish what I am talking about here. I don't see this as being bad law, but rather as making procedures clearer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support-ish - The wording is kind of tricky. I think the general principle that Arbs should avoid acting as admin at AE in regards to cases they have participated in as Arb (the issue we have here before us, in evidence) is a better principle and more to the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some of that. The issue of avoiding acting at AE if previously "involved" at ArbCom misunderstands the meaning of WP:INVOLVED, because INVOLVED does not apply to previous purely administrative actions, and what ArbCom does is more about administration than content (at least in theory). (An Arb who was actually involved prior to a case will normally recuse.) I agree with you that Arbs should avoid acting as individual admins at AE, but I'm trying to communicate the idea that the Committee, as a whole, is a different matter entirely, and so a member can act on behalf of an explicit Committee consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable procedures to be clarified

2) Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures will be revised to reflect the issues raised in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I see no case for revised arbitration procedures from this case. --TS 20:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may depend on what one thinks about my first proposed remedy, just above. But I was wondering about that myself: a lot of this case concerns AE, and I really couldn't find a page that spells out AE procedures and policies. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a clarification will emerge from this case. A motion would have achieved the same end with less fuss. --TS 20:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy clarification

3) A section specifically about Arbitration Enforcement should be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It seems that we do not have this anywhere, and it really ought to be put in writing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Worm That Turned

Proposed remedies

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

General Amnesty

1) There is a general amnesty for the named parties with respect to Arbitration Enforcement, liberally defined; this amnesty is combined with the expectation that all future actions will conform with Wikipedia policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The amnesties that I've seen being talked about relate specifically to the actions that led to this case, rather than a general exemption from AE going forward. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would happily support an amnesty which was specifically time limited; eg. a general amnesty for the involved parties regarding related actions taken in the period between Eric's initial comment and the acceptance of this case. I don't, however, like the idea that the named parties should be subject to special conditions in the future; one would hope that after this case is concluded the function and process of AE will be more explicitly defined and the standard AE process will be applicable for any user. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very briefly, what I'd support is something along the lines of the amnesty provisions in this, Roger Davies ^talk 14:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get this on the road as a motion ... Would someone like to propose text, incorporating rescinding the injunction? Roger Davies ^talk 12:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly support such a remedy.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 14:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that or something similar. I'd been thinking of something a bit simpler, but we'll discuss that later. Doug Weller (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the PD page now. Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would prefer to see a amnesty only if combined with a statement that any future cases involving Eric will involve a sledgehammer. Kevin Gorman (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith that you mean this figuratively, we will not be prejudging the merits or outcomes of any future cases. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly meant it in the sense of ban-hammer, not Thor's hammer :) but it seems to me to be within Arbcom's theoretical ability to comment that future cases involving the same set of extremely divisive community issues will be dealt with more harshly than average arbcom cases. Kevin Gorman (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to, in my opinion, have a rather unhealthy obsession with sanctioning Eric Corbett and, by extension, any admins who might dare to take any action that "supports" him. I don't like what I'm seeing here. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to engage in political battles or war games. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that way to me too, and I find it depressing. (Though Kevin is not alone; I've observed it with others as well). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if the community doesn't want to ban-hammer Eric, there may be a reason. As Nick noted above, if there is repeated instances of not banning Eric and not wanting to block him, then perhaps the Committee needs to reevaluate the sanctions placed on him. GregJackP Boomer! 14:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As repeatedly noted, we will not be re-examining Eric's conduct or Eric's sanctions as part of this case. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: - sorry, I wasn't clear. I did not mean his conduct should be re-examined as a part of this case, but as a potential future clarification or case if the situation came up again. @Nick:, I understood your comment as being broad, but was applying it in response to a repeated call to "ban-hammer" Eric. I agree with what you stated, that if the community repeatedly nulifies an ArbCom decision, then perhaps ArbCom should revisit the issue. GregJackP Boomer! 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP: The Committee retains the power to reinvestigate an issue, and reviews of previous cases are certainly possible (c.f. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review for example) so it can be done. A case would need to be made that Committee action is required (I guess at WP:ARCA but I haven't checked that) and we would need to be convinced that there was some good we could do, but I'm not ruling it out. Please nobody get the idea that making such a request while this case is open would be a good idea, it really wouldn't! Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think that this is not the right time to reopen the matter, it would be like rubbing salt in a wound. I think that y'all should fix the process and only worry about re-examining a decision if it came up somewhere down the line. GregJackP Boomer! 02:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Taken from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus. At least 3 arbitrators have mentioned an amnesty as their preferred option the talk pages of this case. The subject matter here is divisive and evocative. It is no surprise that Wikipedians feel strongly about it and the entire community is geared up (thanks to IAR) to take action to improve things. We should recognise those factors. As far as I can see, there are only a few outcomes to this case - vindication of some and decimation others, general all round wrist slapping or acceptance that these things happen and that we can move on with the understanding that Arbcom will come down heavily on any future issues.
Now, I'm sure this has been discussed within the committee, and I'd really like to hear some of the arguments against. I've an awful feeling that the strongest argument will be "but it means X will get off scott free, and this is our chance to get him/her". Worm^TT(talk) 13:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been great at formulation of remedies, so I'm not worried about the specific wording. The important thing, in my opinion, is that a general amnesty matches the scope of the case and is pragmatic about what happened. Since the actions over the past week are not part of a long term intractable dispute, the most important thing that needs to happen is that the dispute ends. The amnesty accomplishes that. I'd like to hear from arbitrators who disagree about why that's not the best way forward. If not, I'd even go so far as to recommend the case is dismissed by an amnesty motion. Worm^TT(talk) 14:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only sensible remedy proposed so far, although it would be helpful if the committee issued clear sanctions not those based on actions that are "broadly construed" - one of the real reasons for all this mess. J3Mrs (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J3Mrs: whatever the rights and wrongs of "broadly construed" wordings (which are intended to prevent wikilawyering), they are not the cause of this case. Eric may not "mak[e] any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force...", which he did however narrowly you wish to construe it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf:That's your opinion, not mine. As far as I can see he did not make an edit about the GGTF he made one about a grant, hence the wikilawyering. J3Mrs (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's about time Kevin Gorman is prohibited from discussing Eric Corbett. His behaviour in relation to Eric is wholly inappropriate and arguably has been from the time Kevin was strongly admonished for blocking Eric and failing to accept that he had erred. His comments in relation to Eric add nothing of value to this case and only serve to further antagonise the situation. If or when Eric is reported to arbitration enforcement in future, the report should be judged entirely on its own merits, as any other report involving any other editor would be. Nick (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP: I was speaking more broadly than just the Eric Corbett case. My thinking is that cases tend to come to arbitration because two parties or groups of editors can't reach an agreement, but in the time following an arbitration case, agreements can be reached, new consensus can form and so on, resulting in sanctions, which can be laid down many months or even years previously, no longer being partially or wholly appropriate. It may very well be the case that if consensus is fairly consistently against enforcing a decision of the arbitration committee, wherever it is discussed, the committee needs to revisit the sanctions and modify or lift them entirely. Nick (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Go present it in the evidence or ask for a clerk to review his comments then. Again, though, Eric is not party to this case anymore. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: a couple of things: 1. Kevin Gorman remains listed as a party to this case, so his behaviour can be discussed, and 2. Kevin Gorman made the comment relating to Eric Corbett after it was made clear by the Arbitration Committee that Eric wasn't being discussed, so perhaps you should inform him that Eric is not party to this case anymore... Nick (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend not doing this. It sets the stage for poor behavior during proceedings. It also has the ring of privilege as an arbitrator is a participant and if the first motion is to preclude sanctions doesn't have a "justice is blind" feel. I've already stated that I don't believe that sanctions are warranted but that's quite different than saying sanctions won't be weighed against evidence. Other Stuff exists so it may have happened in the past but it's very easy to grant amnesty without having a motion a priori. Simply don't have a remedy that includes sanctions. ArbCom is always in control of remedies regardless of the timeline. Rather than an amnesty, I'd propose limiting the scope of the case to procedure if that is the true intention. --DHeyward (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:DHeyward

Proposed Principles

AE Noticeboard is a tool used by editors and administrators

1) The AE Noticeboard is a place where editors and administrators bring attention to and discuss Arbitration Enforcement and Discretionary sanction request. The result on the board is not an end unto itself, rather it is an aid to determine whether a sanction is imposed and logged. The Enforcement Action is what is logged. Closing an AE request is not an enforcement action, rather logging actions is the enforcement action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now this makes sense "closing" and hatting" are done everywhere but are sometimes provisional and often subject to dispute - we need explicit process, so people can actually make recognized process claims. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is how we've always done it. I think it works very well that way. --TS 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think what you've said is consistent with reality, Sidaway. Looking at some of the methods you seem to have been propounding or adopting over the years with respect to admin enforcement actions and civility, the issues are not as non-existent as you seem to suggest; if anything, they are (and always were) elephants in the room. I expect this case will assist in addressing that fundamental problem, and this time quite fortunately, there is no added pressure that any party should be sanctioned or stripped of their position. I'm certainly glad things have changed over the last 10 years or so, and hope people continue to learn from their mistakes rather than encouraging others to repeat them. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify your meaning? What part of DHeyward's description here is inaccurate? The personal remarks seem as irrelevant as they are unwelcome. --TS 20:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions and Enforcement is discretionary at an uninvolved administrators sole discretion

2) Uninvolved Administrators are free to act at any time, with or without discussion, when they observe or have knowledge of a breech of ArbCom AE or DS and that are within remedies provided. They may use tools such as AE Discussion board for input and this is obviously encouraged. Administrator actions that deviate from established norms are made at the administrators peril.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks for saving me the bother of recording that this is what we've always done (or assumed everybody agreed that this was what we were doing). -TS 20:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion that has occurred at AE may be grounds for determining whether an Admin action is proper

3) As with any other action, Administrators may face scrutiny if they act against consensus and particularly with AE action, if they implement out-of-proportion sanctions. Discussion at AE may be used as an aid in determining whether an AE sanction is out-of-proportion or whether there is outright consensus to overturn it. It may also be used by ArbCom in regards to sanctioning an admin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

::Assuming you're referring to GW's action, it wasn't out of proportion. It was in line with what was called for in standard AE escalating blocks, and the same length as even a first civility block for Eric should've been. Noteworthy that if this has been an Eric civility block, then no amount of consensus at AE could declare the block length inappropriate, since it was explicitly called for in the arb sanctionKevin Gorman (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad DH - I misinterpreted it ````

Support, if an admin ignores another administrative action such as the closing of an AE discussion with no action, that AE discussion should be used to determine if the admin had acted against consensus or in an out-of-proportion manner. GregJackP Boomer! 16:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Gorman: Actually I was thinking more of the ANI request that overturned GW's action, not her action. I was addressing the input that the ANI reviewing admin could use in determining consensus or proportion. The ANI review presupposes that the AE action by GW was proportional and in process. The closing admin at ANI should take all the previous discussion, including the AE discussion, into account as well as any provisions from the Arbcom ruling. --DHeyward (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators enforcing arbitration remedies, particularly in discretionary sanctions which form a sizable proportion of cases at AE, necessarily act without reference to community consensus. Arbitration exists only insofar as community processes have failed. To mistake AE for a community process is a serious error, and may well be part of the reason why even quite clear and unambiguous discretionary sanctions so often seem to go unenforced. --TS 12:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any Editor or Administrator may make an appeal request a review of process for AE or DS decisions on behalf of any user

4) Editors are the Encyclopedia's best asset (arguably its only asset with future value) and returning editors to a contributing status is an overarching goal of the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It is not proper to reject good faith ~~appeals~~process reviews based solely on who has brought the ~~appeal~~request, rather they should be measured on their merits. These ~~appeals~~ apply only to review whether an AE or DS sanction was warranted per process and is not ~~to limits of~~ an appeal ~~included in~~ of the sanction normally reserved only for the editor being sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with NYB. Barring exceptional cases, only the sanctioned user should be able to request a review of the decision to sanction him. Generally speaking, as far as I'm concerned, if an editor can't be bothered to ask for a review, then he accepts that the sanction was warranted.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And isaacl also makes a good point in saying that the sanctioned editor needs to be in control of the appeal process and that a poorly made or poorly timed request by someone else might be detrimental to the sanctioned editor. Doug Weller (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support for obvious and selfishly biased reasons, in addition to the fact that it is good policy. The process was obviously in need of clarification, and requiring a sanctioned editor to appeal just to review the process is nit-picking bureaucracy. GregJackP Boomer! 02:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to go against the longstanding practice that only a sanctioned user can appeal her or his sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: I think I limited it to a review of process that led to sanction, not the sanction itself. Say an admin impose a AE for an indef topic ban with 6 month appeal; the process the admin used to arrive at that decision can be challenged by anyone. If it stands up (i.e. no consensus to overturn), then the 6 month appeal is up to the user. It's the process that can be scrutinized by anyone. If the process led to a disproportionate sanction, the community shouldn't be prohibited from fixing the process that leads to improper sanctions. It probably needs to be fleshed out more but bad decisions shouldn't be hostage to bureaucracy. It's difficult to separate the process from punishment in most cases but this case revolves around process almost exclusively. --DHeyward (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I think that it's not clear from the heading: "an appeal... on behalf of any user." You maybe don't really mean an appeal, but a review of a process. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. --DHeyward (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with the revised version. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. If there is an AE/DS process claim - it obviously should go to the drafters of the AE/DS process because everyone else has no idea (that would in my understanding be Arbcom). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I support this idea as an editor retention issue, and think we should accept good faith amicus curiae reviews of process. We are reviewing the process, after all, and we all have an interest in good process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the form of the "mess" we saw at AN in this case, it actually helped no editors, and certainly not the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty was granted and we are hammering out the process problems here in a civil fashion, so I would disagree. This example is proving to be very beneficial to the community. The real problem wasn't the filing, it was the ambiguity in policy around it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not help the community to be sniping at each other over unclear policy, as we saw at the AN -- much more beneficial to the community is to take the issue to the body responsible for the AE policy, which also happens to be the only body who can get sniping administrators under control. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule ought to remain that AE (or the Committee) doesn't review a sanction against a specific editor unless that editor requests a review. After all, sometimes an editor accepts the sanction (because he or she understands that it's justified, or just decides to leave a difficult topic-area), and other times they are plainly correct. And we certainly wouldn't allow a situation in which an editor who is opposed to the DS in a given topic-area (or their application to a particular side in a dispute) burdens AE by challenging every instance of their application. On the other hand, one can imagine circumstances in which a review legitimately can be sought by someone other than the sanctioned user (by way of analogy, I participated last week with some other admins in an unblock review, outside the AE context, even though the blocked user had not filed an unblock request, because talkpage access had been revoked and thus he would have had to use more cumbersome methods to request an unblock). A more nuanced (but not overcomplicated) rule here is warranted, indicating that a review request on behalf of another user requires some sort of special circumstances to justify it, though I haven't been able to come up with a wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A key problem with allowing others to request a review is that it takes the decision out of the hands of the affected editors. As the ones who have to live with the consequences, it is desirable to give them control of when and how a request is presented. A badly-worded request by an overly-eager objector, for example, can torpedo its chance at success, and typically there's only one immediate opportunity to get it right. I don't believe it is fair to the sanctioned editors to let someone else preempt any plans they may have to make a request, or to deliberately not make a request. isaacl (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general, Arbcom members should not engage in Discretionary Sanction or Arbitration Enforcement

5) In general, ArbCom members should reserve their judgement for cases that are before ArbCom and avoid contentious disputes. By definition, areas that are under DS or AE are contentious. ArbCom members should leave it to the community to enact their "will" and wield "power" rather than assuming that duty for themselves as they have already made their "judgement". ArbCom, as elected members, are expected to be able to participate in ArbCom proceedings and if they become involved a priori, they cannot fulfill that duty and fall short of the communities expectations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Traditionally, arbitrators have voluntarily abstained from enforcing their own decisions and I agree that this should continue to be the case; arbs should be discouraged but not prevented from acting, if they think it's appropriate.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support if modified per Tryptofish's comments, below. GregJackP Boomer! 02:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per my proposals, I agree with respect to Arbs acting individually, but I would treat it differently when there is a consensus of the Committee as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think there are admins that can act "For the committee..." when there are committee actions to be made. 'crats for example desysop at request and it's usually not an issue. ArbCom isn't strictly judicial but adhering to judicial tenets is generally not harmful and that is why enforcement should be minimal. --DHeyward (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I hope they use discretion and judgement but removing arbs from active responses is too far. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Active responses to AE/DS or in general? I think if an item is at AE/DS it should be good discretion and good judgement to let those go as they are already areas that are in high conflict. It's not quite the same as ordinary admin 3RR blocking or BLP violations that ArbCom members do routinely. I don't propose this as a set rule but rather as a guide to deference. If ArbCom members had not acted, I'm not quite sure where we would be (maybe still here) but we'd have full participation. We probably wouldn't have "amnesty" proposals which give rise to doubt about the process. And, as I said, I don't think anyone should be sanctioned as I think it was all "in process" but I can see that enforcement participation can create an appearance of tainting the arbitration process. --DHeyward (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Active responses to AE/DS; I would rather not exclude them from AE areas as individual admins. Perhaps something along the lines that individual arbitrators may act normally as administrators in and around AE but should clearly label any Arbcom official action as such, to avoid misunderstandings. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Obviously there may be an emergency or WP:IAR case from time to time, but generally speaking, Arbs should avoid because it makes them more involved in a situation, and could force them to recuse in the future. This is why Arbs shouldn't patrol ANI/AN3 either, as they might have to hear the case later on. You would think they have enough with being an Arb and writing content anyway. There are enough admin to work the boards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. First: We have allot of arbs because we know up-front they cannot be sitting in every case. Second, we will likely get better remedies, if the Arb as admin practices enforcement of them. Third, the individual Arb admin is, like every other admin, enforcing the binding decision of the committee, not any individual decision. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators are also editors and are also administrators; a rule that they may never take actions in a given area would be overbroad. However, when I was an arbitrator, I was always mindful that if I got involved in an ANI thread or the like, I might be creating a recusal situation if that dispute wound up at arbitration, and I think that other arbitrators did and do think along the same lines. (For what it's worth, a situation perhaps not contemplated by this proposal is one in which an a sitting arbitrator is already recused from arbitrating on a given issue because he or she has already participated as an administrator in that area; in that situation, are the arguments against taking additional administrator actions in that area weaker or stronger or the same?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The second point lost me in the mix, sorry. The first point is the crux, that Arb have traditionally avoided acting in many areas (excepting emergency) due to involved concerns, so no rule was needed. GW broke convention here. Akin to FDR breaking the two terms informal tradition, forcing a Constitutional Amendment to insure it didn't happen again. It was an unspoken agreement. I don't like hard policy, and prefer it simply be considered "best practice" but I think you understand the bigger problem here. Arbs should take reasonable measures to insure they don't have to recuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I think I would treat your second example as a specific case, not the general case. It's tricky because an arbitrator that is "involved" because of admin action, is different than "involved" as an administrator. GorillaWarfare is "involved" in the ArbCom case but not involved in a way that precluded AE action. It might be problematic for an Arbitrator to decide they are "involved" as an arbitrator so it's okay if they take AE action as an uninvolved admin. Sticky problem. Ultimately it comes down to self-restraint and good judgement. Going forward, only GorillaWarfare will be able to determine if she is too involved for admin action or too involved for arbitration action and how future any action would be perceived (same for the other admins that are involved in this case). --DHeyward (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. There's no real reason why Arbitrators should not use their buttons, as admins, in enforcing rulings. --TS 20:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the discussion here rests on determining whether or not one is WP:INVOLVED. But, per what I think is the general understanding of "involved", prior action as an administrator does not usually constitute involvement. That's a problem with applying it here: what ArbCom decides is analogous to administrative action in this case, so is a member of the Committee who has taken part in a decision really "involved"? I think not. In my own proposals, I suggest that we distinguish between what Arbs do as individuals, and what the Committee decides by consensus of the whole Committee. I would argue that the disagreements between editors just above in this discussion reflect the lack of clarity in procedures that got us to this case, and that it's a good reason for Arbs to be very careful indeed about acting without the explicit support of the whole Committee. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Finding of Fact

Closing of the AE request was not an AE action, blocking was an AE action

1) There was nothing to log and any admin reviewing the behavior, regardless if they were aware of the AE request, is free to implement and log a sanction. The block was an AE action and was logged. "Involved" is not discussed here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose for reasons already stated. If an AE close with no action is not a close, anyone could do it; and AE becomes just another stop on an inevitable block. GregJackP Boomer! 02:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. and strongly at that. It's fairly frequent for me to make blocks of one nature or another for something that another admin had declined to do. This would either desysop me in that situation if it wre an ae action, or require me to check AE and potentially the AE archives first, and discourage me fromm ever taking ae actionKevin Gorman (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert: Quick reminder, Wikipedia arbitration is not a community discussion, even the workshop phases. "Support" and "oppose" are meaningless here on their own. Of course, you are welcome to add rationales and arguments, and link to evidence presented at the evidence page. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying not to add a hundred words of "I would write this same proposed thing in my section if DHeyward had not here" to all of them. Actually, thinking about it I have preferred language I am going to suggest below. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. That isn't what the evidence is, and it side steps the issues before us in this case. Here, GW clearly knew the AE had been closed and acting in spite of it, not due to any ignorance of it. This is out of step with the facts in this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's this kind of sterile debate that threw everybody into a tizzy. There's nothing wrong with taking administrative action against a participant in a discretionary sanction. All such actions are subject to appeal. Perhaps the problem is people formally closing notices at WP:AE. Why not wait until a sanction is made or the archiver removes it? Otherwise you risk preempting somebody else's action. This is why they are called discretionary sanctions. --TS 20:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing the Block at ANI was in process

2) The discussion and close at AE combined with the discussion at ANI and determining consensus was in process as it is with any other appeal process. The close with no action and arguments presented at AE have weight in determining consensus of appeals. "Involved" is not discussed here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Even clearly silly AE blocks need strong consensus to undo. You read a 60-40 consensus, lots of us read no consensus. Your reading may have barely been sufficient to undo a normal block, but not to undo an AE action even if you thought it contradicted another AE action. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process blocks are not AE blocks (despite how they may be labelled by the blocking admin) and only need normal consensus to overturn. GregJackP Boomer! 16:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me a policy cite on that claimm Greg, especially when it's an arb making the block? If I blocked Drmies because we liked different types of cheese, it would certainly still be a block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that GW was acting on behalf of the committee? She was pretty clear that she acted as an admin, not for the committee. GregJackP Boomer! 06:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Gorman: I didn't evaluate consensus, only the process. The process was that an uninvolved administrator determined the consensus necessary to overturn the block (these are relatively meaningless now that there is amnesty). The next step in that process will always be Arbitration for administrator misconduct if the determination of consensus is challenged. I am not sure how we can address that with policy. Even request for adminship has a zone. AfD and RfA have a minimum timetable but the !vote is much more open for interpretation based on policy and weighted according to the admins/crats interpretation (less so for crats). The issue here might be just a numbers issue of 50/50 with very strong opinions on each side. That will always leave a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouth. It will never be satisfying to have a process with 50/50 that defaults to one side or the other. And even if we did have a clear numbers requirement, we'd still have an "involved" discussion. This onion continues to peel because fundamentally, large polarized groups don't come to consensus and the project runs on consensus. "no consensus" becomes a fight for the default condition. I am uninvolved and seek a process solution but in the end, the process solution just changes what is argued about. A solution that limits the effect of that "bottom line fight" on the encyclopedia is what is necessary. Evan all the rules we have in place for AE, existing cases and sanctions, etc, was not enough to avoid AE, ANI and arbitration. Argue the rules, argue the facts or slam the table; it still ends at ArbCom and I see no tractable way to avoid that on polarizing issues. --DHeyward (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impractical and contrary to good order. The comments at AE make the user "invovled", so they cannot get to review the sanction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "in process" should not be used on Wikipedia. We don't decide whether an action is valid on the basis of whether or not it's "in process". --TS 21:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we do. In the case of AE, the process is part of the sanction in many cases. It's why AE sanctions are treated differently than an ANI block. Taking AE action is a different process than other action. Overturning an AE disruption block is a different process than turning over an ANI disruption block. Standards are different, rules are different. --DHeyward (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference is that ANI is more prone to gaming. Arbitrators don't like their rulings ignored. --TS 20:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To use a Hockey fight analogy, ANI is a "third skater in" while AE is a "second skater in" fight. The bottom line is ANI was intractable with "block/unblock/argue since next re-block is WP:WHEEL admin misconduct". AE used to be "block/argue since unblock is AE admin misconduct". Allowing a pre-emptive unblock at AE such that process becomes "close without block/argue" in addition to the "block/argue" puts us back to the gaming we had at ANI with no sanctions (or a race between the pro-block/anti-block factions). I would despise a ruling that says the "first admin to close or block wins the AE action request." AE was supposed to solve that but it won't if a "close" is equivalent to the "unblock" at ANI. We're violently agreeing I think. --DHeyward (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a proper understanding of the origins and purpose of ANI as a way for non-admins to alert admins would be helpful in dispelling this "fight" nonsense. Editors say stuff, admins take action if it's necessary.

Even in 2006 when AE was created the brokenness of ANI was well understood. I fear we may be in danger of breaking AE too if we forget that it is, just like ANI was intended to be, just a noticeboard. The key operating principle in most arbitration enforcement is not some notion of community consensus, because arbitration only starts when community processes fail.

The key principle is actually right there in the name of most active sanctions: Discretionary Sanctions. These are so named because they constitute an expansion of administrative discretion, through a limited delegation of the Arbitration Committee's dispute resolution powers.

You need a minimal protocol to ensure that administrators don't tread on one another's toes (though they're so timid and so few nowadays I wonder whether this could even be possible). You don't need referee-like in or out calls. That would just give the people who cause the trouble leading to discretionary sanctions yet another stick to scare away the few remaining active admins prepared to take on this unpopular task. --TS 00:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Georgewilliamherbert

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

AC members acting individually in AE areas

1) Arbitration committee members acting as individual administrators in Arbitration Enforcement may do so normally as any administrator may. Any official AC actions in such settings need to be labeled clearly as such as appeal procedures are different, and any action not so labeled may be treated as individual action by other administrators (taken to AE or other noticeboards for consensus reversal, etc).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If one contrasts my own proposals about this, it is my view that, although what it says here reflects what has been common practice, it's also a part of what led to the conflicts in this case. Consequently, I recommend a narrowing of what individual ArbCom members should do, along with a clarification of how the Committee as a whole should not be undermined at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Tryptofish, I didn't propose prohibiting individual action, but argued they should generally defer action on contentious issues only because they end up at ArbCom with greater drama than is perhaps necessary. AE actions are contentious by nature as they have already exhausted all dispute resolution prior to the ArbCom decision. Arbitrators who choose to do so must choose wisely since it doesn't serve their office to abstain and it doesn't serve the committee by creating cases. This should be guidance of "look what happened here." It's more than a question of whether they were right as admins as it arguably is always wrong as arbiters if that action is followed so closely by arbitration. --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree strong. Arb have to act as judges of sorts (like the example or not), and to have them also act as police in the same cases they acted as judges, well it looks bad and ham-fisted. Arbs first duty is to Arbitrate, they were elected to do so. Acting as an admin by blocking those they have voted restrictions on interferes with that duty, and can cause them to have to recuse themselves in future cases, meaning they can't do what we elected them to do. As I've said before, it is why Arbs shouldn't patrol ANI/AN3...you might have to hear that case one day, and now you are involved. I'm not saying Arbs should be barred, but it should be strongly discouraged, except in unusual circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: When someone is on probation or parole, they typically go before the sentencing judge if they break the terms of their probation/parole. What is AE if not basically that? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw here is that there is a difference between making a finding and enforcing it. GW first made a finding (at Arb), then enforced it (at AE). Judges don't enforce directly, they make findings and issue them. Police enforce and arrest and detain. There is still a separation, and that is key, we need a separation between the two. That is the entire crux of WP:INVOLVED, after all, saying there has to be a layer of separation between an admin and someone sanctioned. This is a different kind of layer. It isn't like we have a shortage of admin willing to block Eric, after all. It is unnecessary for an Arb to get involved knowing the case was already closed, assumably knowing it was out of process and a review as the next step instead of unilateral action, and if I may, it is the very reason we are doing this little exercise. It causes drama. At the end of the day, there is no justice, only solutions, and the best solution is to maintain the level of separation that most Arbs have historically kept until now. Again, this case and the time, energy and drama around it proves it is a very bad idea for Arbs to patrol boards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. First of all there is already a separation. The admin (even an arbitrator) is in every case enforcing the Committee's binding decision, which is binding on us all. Next, it is common for the same judge that finds guilt to also pass sentence, order restitution, rehabilitation, etc. Finally, in each every case (regardless if they are also an Arb) the admin determines breach and determines remedy. I will add that, we will likely get better practical remedies, if they Arb, acting as Admin, has and practices this experience. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several have used this judge analogy, but I can only guess they don't understand how the judicial system works behind the scenes, which is forgivable, but obvious. Judicial branch makes decisions (judges), Executive brand executes the decisions (police). The comparison is invalid. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your simplistic judicial/executive is just that simplistic. As I have said elsewhere, it's an imperfect analogy but in actual courtrooms judges do sentence the people they found guilty. Your analogy to judges and cops is an even worse analogy that appears to only honor bureaucracy. As for my and others understanding of the judicial system "behind the scenes", you would be best served not to make improvident claims about that, which you do not know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not like the police analogy as used. What I think is the more accurate analogy for AE is also a police analogy.: the way we work it, a panel of judges pronounces guilt, and leaves it up to any individual policeman to enforce whatever punishment that particular individual feels appropriate . That in practice tends to mean whoever feels the most strongly and is most eager to penalize the individual. I think the arbs need to have more control of the process. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's already there: the party appeals to the ctte. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that remedy is after the fact. If the person is blocked for two weeks and it takes Arb two weeks to review, what is the point? That still favors the block happy admin. I think DGG means Arb needs to be more involved up front, in deciding the proper sanction, as a committee (full or in part, say, a panel). I have no idea how that would work, but it is an interesting concept. The current system is weighted too heavily towards any single admin that wants to block, not towards a level playing field. This isn't even about Eric, this is systemic. As he said, right now, the most eager to take action is the one who is currently taking action, and that is problematic, no matter who the editor in question is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not favor the block happy admin - how many admin want to have their actions scrutinized by Arbcom? Arbcom who has the power to summarily reverse them and all kinds of other things the committee can do to the Admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about how many want to have their actions scrutinised; it's about what can (and does) happen in actual practice, and Dennis Brown has described why this is problematic quite clearly, and very accurately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there might not be a case for resolving the fact that "appeals processes are different" by making them the same. --TS 00:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AE as a hybrid noticeboard

2) The Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard is a hybrid noticeboard. It is not subject to normal editor closes of discussions. Only uninvolved administrators may comment in that section of the discussion, close discussions, or reopen the same discussion again. Other participation by normal editors and involved administrators is as with any noticeboard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed principles

Admin Action

1) An "admin action" is defined as any action that requires the admin tools, or any action that can only be completed by virtue of having the admin bit. This includes threats to use the tools as well as any other action that policy grants exclusive domain to admin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I disagree in part. In my opinion, an admin action is any action which requires admin status to carry out; therefore, closing an AE discussion with no action can certainly count as one. I disagree that warning someone he may be blocked counts as an admin action if the editor doing the warning is an admin.

I can see a case where saying "I will block you if..." can be construed as a form of intimidation, which may, depending on the circumstances, lead to sanctions as an abuse of admin status (even though it is not technically an abuse of admin tools) and yes we could probably quibble on the difference between a warning and a threat, but I'd rather not adopt so sweeping a principle, especially in a case where there was no warning/threat on the part of any admin (at least as far as I can see). $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of the specific circumstances. "I will block you if" can often be seen as a proper warning, and is sometimes very effective. The more difficult situation is a non-admin saying "you will be blocked" which can be taken as a claim to admin power the person does not have--but this too is often simply a very accurate warning. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Twinkle-uw4. Non-admins are capable of thratening to block, and in fact do so all the time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A twinkle warning is not a "threat" but a warning, as the editor does not have the ability to follow through on it if they lack the bit. GregJackP Boomer! 17:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, that was my intent, that if I tell you directly that "I will block you if you do $x" or threaten any other sanction directly, that this is an admin action. I actually think we agree on this, I just didn't word it quite as well as I thought. And you may be right that it is hard to clearly define what is and isn't when we are talking about a warning ("I know it when I see it"). I do think we need a good general principle that doesn't just mention AE (which could change in the future, who knows) but says that any action that requires admin status is an admin action. Technically, this might include what happens below the bottom line at SPI, even if it is just discussion. Part of admin accountability is broadening what we call "admin actions" to a reasonable degree, one that covers those things we actually do as admin, without overreaching. We might not can do all of that in this case, but working in that direction would be helpful, on or off AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gorman, as someone else pointed out, warning and threat are two different things. From my perspective, if I threaten to block you (directly threaten, not just a warning), this is an admin action because non-admin don't have the ability to follow through. As Salvio points out, it might be hard to draw the line. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement by an Arb

2) When an Arbitrator plays a role in placing Arbitration restrictions on an editor, that Arbitrator should refrain from enforcing the terms of that restriction, except in unusual circumstances, for as long as they serve as Arbitrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. If an Arb plays a role in issuing a sanction, they shouldn't be the one to unilaterally decide if a block is due. A degree of separation is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. First of all there is already a separation. The admin (even an arbitrator) is in every case enforcing the Committee's binding decision, which is binding on us all. Next, it is common for the same judge that finds guilt to also pass sentence, order restitution, rehabilitation, etc. Finally, in each every case (regardless if they are also an ARB) the admin determines breach and determines remedy. So - no this is not needed, at all. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if you understand the legal system, that is not the case. Judges pass decisions, the Executive enforces them. Having the same person pass a "judgement" then be the executioner who actually throws the switch is not a good idea here or in the real world. That they switch theoretical hats for each process isn't a separation, and sounds more like wikilawyering than actual arms length enforcement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, your analogy is quite poor. We are not talking about an executioner. A much better but still imperfect analogy is the judge who finds guilt, also sentences the guilty. That's what happens in the real world. As for your claim of wikilawyering, that seems a bizarre claim to make, given that your proposal wishes to erect bureaucratic rules. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until now, Arbs generally followed this rule anyway. This just codifies what has always been considered good practice. And if blocking is a bad analogy to "executioner", then we just aren't go to agree on anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it seems a mighty loss of perspective and a flair for dramatization. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

View it as you please, but the hyperbole "banhammer" isn't something I invented. Admin are the ones that pull the rope, drop the hammer, whatever, but actually enforce the sanction via actually using the tools. There is a different, both in law and here, between declaring a result and implementing a result. Even when I block an editor at ANI due to a discussion that I played no role in, the community acted as judge, by closing and blocking, I'm using the tools to enforce. I have no stake in the outcome, and no authority to unblock them unilaterally as it was the community that played judge, not me. Surely you've been around to have seen that comparison used hundreds of times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with this proposal. Checks and balances thing.--MONGO 04:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be careful with this. If I, an admin, say, "Stop edit warring or you could be blocked," that's a clean statement of fact. Even if I am involved, it's not a threat to act while involved. I could go to a noticeboard and report the editor. The principle should focus on actual actions rather than on talk about future actions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion of separation of powers above is misunderstanding the situation. IRL (in this case in the United States), the separate powers both separately derive their power from a single source, the will of the people as embodied in the constitution. In arbitration matters on the English Wikipedia, the committee and the admin corps do not have separate powers regarding arbitration; rather, the committee derives its power as the final arbiter and, yes, the power to implement its decisions, from the 'will of the people' - the consensus that established the arbitration process. The admin corps does not have a separate power to implement the committee's decisions but rather the committee delegates its own power to implement those decisions to the admin corps. Since this is a delegated power, there is no problem with the committee delegating that power to whomever it likes, including its own members. You might argue that the committee shouldn't delegate that power to its own members, but why not? It is a power the community has accorded to the committee, not directly to the admin corps. Why shouldn't they exercise it? Certainly as things stand, there is no separation of powers as such. GoldenRing (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:GoodDay

Proposed principles

Uninvolved AE reporters

1) Reporting sanctioned editors to AE, should be an act limited to uninvolved editors. This would cut down any animosity, which tends to occur when involved editors do the reporting. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose, per Dennis Brown. It would just change the nature of the argument, er, discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 02:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - just a bad idea. You're suggesting that, for instance, someone being harrassed by another editor in violation of an arb iban could not report it themselves, and would have to either canvass another party to report, or just go to ANI.Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. It may be a "best practice" because of animosity, but some editors can make neutral comments about <redacted> editors. I don't think I could in regard Eric, but the complaint in this case was reasonably neutral. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that every discussion of a controversial editor will turn into a debate over who is and isn't "involved". Unenforceable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suspect that most uninvolved editors won't want to report violations as this would attract negative attention from those who disagree with the editing restriction or general sanction in question, and potentially result in the editor subsequently being considered to be involved. isaacl (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is impractical. A person who reports a violation, is reporting a violation as a witness, so they are always involved to that extent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is based on the possibility of editors keeping sanctioned editors on their watchlists. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

Wikipedia and Arbitration

1) Dispute resolution is a tool that exists solely towards the end of creating the encyclopaedia. The arbitration committee wields its ultimate dispute resolution power solely for that purpose.

a) Arbitration is imperfect and evolving.

b) Solutions that worked once may decline in utility or become a liability in the future.

c) Mechanisms devised in good faith and implemented by editors and administrators in good faith may sometimes exacerbate tensions and lead to a poorer editing climate

d) The Arbitration Committee is not bound by precedent, but rather learns from experience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm sure there are principles of this sort in other cases but I can't find them. --TS 15:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The theory of arbitration enforcement

2) The arbitration committee is an elected body that possesses the ultimate power to settle conduct disputes on English Wikipedia. As part of this task it delegates its enforcement powers to administrators, enhancing their individual discretion which is normally restricted to acting in clear and egregious breaches of policy. Administrators remain fully accountable for their actions in enforcing arbitration remedies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Needs work. Basically explaining why and in exactly what circumstances administrators are supposed to throw their weight around sometimes, even though this can be intensely unpopular work. --TS 17:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed minimalist solution. If the underlying problem is actually administrators making calls that lie outside administrator discretion, then this clarification will enable us to find out and craft remedies appropriate to those particular administrators . --TS 00:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is useful to compare and contrast this minimalist proposal with my less minimalist ones. I guess the Committee can think about whether it is better to be minimalist now, with further specification to come later, or to spell more details out now, so that there will not be misunderstandings about it in the near future. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. I make the proposal, really, as a way of establishing the bare minimum of clarification that would be useful. Its power, from my point of view, comes because it emphasises the role of administrator discretion.

I think that rows us back from recent trends towards treating more process as a panacea, and it certainly does go against the tide of several other process-oriented proposals. It gets us back to the basic idea that arbitrators have ultimate dispute-resolving power when things break down, and that the remedies devolve that power to uninvolved administrators acting on their individual cognisance.

While that may sound a bit radical to some, that's just a bare description of how arbitration works. The process stuff is just window dressing and in no way intended to bind uninvolved administrators and reduce their discretionary powers. I think your proposals also go a long way towards that clarity. --TS 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a good attempt to answer the fundamental issues at hand in this case.Crazynas^t 07:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good focused draft at least of the fundamental question this all posed. Thanks, Tony. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parole

2) Parole is a formal relaxation of administrator enforcement of a remedy, granted as a relief from undue hardship caused by an editor's prominence in the community, and for other reasons.

a) An editor under parole on a remedy is monitored and expected to comply fully with all Wikipedia policies and additionally with the remedy.

b) However administrators are, for the duration of the parole period, explicitly forbidden from taking administrative action on the remedy against the named editor without leave from the arbitration committee.

c) Remedies not covered by the parole are to be handled by administrators.

d) This enforcement restriction applies to all administrators, including arbitrators and other functionaries acting without appropriate authorisation.

e) The arbitration committee or anyone acting with its direct authorisation may take enforcement action.

f) The arbitration committee may delegate enforcement to a subcommittee or to any other suitable body of administrators in the interests of efficient enforcement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I hope that the intent is evident here. In some cases arbitration enforcement in general, and WP:AE in particular, causes more problems than it solves. Parole permits the Committee to monitor popular editors directly, and takes enforcement away from fragile community processes and vulnerable administrators.

It is anticipated that parole will be an exceptionally rare event, granted in the interests of community stability and on the strict understanding that the editor in question can be trusted to play ball. It would probably lead to significant demands on scarce arbitrator time, and that consideration alone should weigh heavily in parole applications. --TS 14:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a parole of sorts... if being banned is "jail", then most arb com decision have a minimum sentence before "parole" (unbanning) can be applied for. Rarely is a site ban passed without other restrictions, so if the user returns, they're effective on parole. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term I propose here expresses the rehabilitative intent, and the sense that the parole takes the editor out of a hostile situation that isn't helping. The precise name is less important than the principle, though. --TS 19:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just adding unnecessary complication in my view. Users under sanction are already effectively on "parole" and if they keep a clean slate long enough can at least hope to have sanctions rescinded. Users sanctioned under WP:AE can already appeal at AE or AN. And what problem is this proposal addressing? I'm not aware of large numbers of editors of "prominence" being discriminated against under the existing rules, and giving them extra privileges might itself be viewed as discriminatory. Apart from all that, I suspect this proposal would run counter to its intended purpose, as Arbcom in my experience generally takes a harder line against breaches of remedy than AE itself. Gatoclass (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the intended purpose is probably not what you think. It's intended to address perceived unfairness which leads to ugly behaviour on the wiki and a rather difficult environment for everybody. I'm well aware that the arbitration committee can and often do make harsher judgements than the admins. Editors applying for parole should take that into account.

So the true intention is that parole should be a tool for the arbitration committee to defuse tensions caused by community involvement in enforcement of the committee's own remedies. --TS 16:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revocation of parole

3) Paroled editors will be held to the highest standards of conduct. The usual community monitoring processes apply. If the arbitration committee becomes convinced that the user under parole is not living up to these requirements, parole may be revoked.

a) Any editor not banned from doing so may apply for a parole to be revoked on the grounds of misconduct.

b) Revocation will be by motion of the arbitration committee.

c) After revocation, enforcement of the remedy passes back into the hands of the administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The parole is of little value if it cannot be taken away. --TS 14:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Application for parole

4) Any editor named in an active arbitration remedy may apply directly to the arbitration committee for relief.

a) The Committee will formally consider whether to grant parole by motion.

b) Parole applies to the remedies named in the motion, and does not normally apply to topic bans, site bans, or restrictions in posting from multiple accounts.

c) Parole may also be considered as an alternative if the editor appeals for the remedy to be lifted entirely but the arbitration committee is not satisfied that this would be appropriate.

d) Parole will not be granted lightly. Be prepared to show that controversy over arbitration enforcement has caused you undue hardship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is a formal announcement of the availability of parole. --TS 14:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted enforcement of remedies

5) The arbitration committee has in the distant past sometimes issued remedies requiring a decision by more than one administrator (typically three) before a block is authorised, but this practice soon fell out of use. The committee reserves the power to restrict enforcement in this way, but emphasises that consensus to block or to not block is not otherwise a feature of arbitration enforcement. Conversely, active consensus of uninvolved admins is required to reverse a block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as a reminder that the arbitration committee has the power to restrict enforcement but has seldom done so. --TS 16:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) Proposal

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) Proposal

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by isaacl

Proposed principles

To effectively allow a consensus community view to be determined, patience is required

1) Wikipedia comprises a global community, where discussions can take place over extended periods of time, due to the time-delay effects of online communication and the different time zones of the participants. Large-scale consensus-based decision-making is difficult under best circumstances; with unmoderated online discussions, repetition, digressions, and overly-verbose responses exacerbate the problem. Most situations do not need a rapid reaction to stop imminent damage, and so there is no need to close discussions or take actions too quickly. In order for comments to be considered judiciously and to accommodate contributors from around the world, patience is required to allow for consensus to develop.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@GoldenRing:, that is the issue that brought us here. It is my view that the close of the AE discussion with no action was an admin action and any subsequent admin action to overturn that would require clear and substantial consensus. So no, an individual admin would not be empowered to act in the face of a prior, no action close by another admin. It is not the consensus at AE that is at issue, it is the admin close at AE. GregJackP Boomer! 14:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not sure it would be adopted, but there is a lot of WP:COMMONSENSE in this observation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there were a number of precipitous actions taken during this situation that failed to allow for consensus to be built. I believe it may be helpful to reinforce the need for patience in order to allow for adequate input and to properly evaluate the presented points of view so the best course of action can be determined. isaacl (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the idea of arbitration enforcement is that it can happen on the basis of an existing, general consensus, not on the basis of a new, specific consensus that has to form after the fact, because there are certain sets of circumstances where the community has proved unable to form that specific consensus no matter how much it is needed for the good of the project. Any uninvolved administrator is empowered to act immediately on any breach of an arbitration remedy, whether it's reported to the AE noticeboard or not; the question that is causing so much angst is, when a consensus has formed (typically at AE), is an individual administrator still empowered to act unilaterally in spite of that consensus? And, in this specific case, had such a consensus actually formed? GoldenRing (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is a general one, to be applied for any discussion where a consensus amongst some group of persons is being determined. In this case, the administrator closing the discussion at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard specified the closure was based on consensus, and so this principle applies to that determination. Whether or not a consensus is required to impose sanctions for violations of an editing restriction enacted in an arbitration case (and if so, amongst what group) is a separate question, which I raised in my analysis of enforcement mechanisms. isaacl (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like this as a general principle; it works well at AfD, for instance, where it's not unusual to relist an item if there isn't much discussion.

I'd rather adopt a much more radical approach on AE, which really isn't supposed to be a talking shop like AfD. What if the arbitration committee just said "please don't close AE items that aren't clearly and obviously bogus until the automatic archiver deals with them?" I encourage all to consider that the problem here is not an administrator using their discretion after a closure, but a rather odd and not fully explained rapid closure of an AE item without any discussion at all in the uninvolved admins section. Unless I'm seriously misled by the archive at Archive 176, this item was closed before any discussion by uninvolved administrators had taken place. It also seems to have been closed with indecent haste. Use of bureaucratic action that has the effect of preempting a sanction and then laying the blame on an uninvolved administrator who acts well within the enhanced discretion routinely afforded in arbcom remedies doesn't seem to me the direction we should be encouraging.

I'm sure there are valid exceptions to the "don't close" idea; we don't want AE filling up with nonsense. This was, though, apparently a good faith item, albeit one that was seen as unpopular by those who commented (for reasons I honestly don't care about; the subject can petition arbcom for relief if the terms of the sanction are too onerous).

Closing that discussion so precipitately was a clear mistake, because at least one admin found the action sanctionable in good faith. Borderline case? Well it's a fact that sanctions have fuzzy borders unless drafted with razor precision. --TS 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed principle is precisely targeted at avoiding undue haste in closing discussions. As I said above, whether or not consensus is required at the Arbitration Enforcement request noticeboard is a separate issue. However, since in this situation someone felt the discussion should be closed on the basis of consensus, it would have been advisable to wait for more input to be received and for relevant points of view to be given judicious consideration. isaacl (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by GoldenRing

Proposed principles

Arbitration eenforcement

1) Arbitration enforcement consists of the delegation, by the arbitration committee, of part of its authority to the admin corps for the purposes of expeditiously enforcing the decisions of the committee. This authority is based in the community's consensus to make the arbitration committee the final arbiter of disputes between editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement process

2) Arbitration decisions are enforceable by any uninvolved administrator without first needing to seek consensus. The action is justified by the pre-existing consensus of the community that the arbitration committee has the power to make such decisions and to so delegate its authority for enforcement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That is my understanding of the current rule. However, the question here is whether an uninvolved administrator is entitled to take action that is contrary to consensus already reached by several other uninvolved administrators not to take action. Currently, the rules state that an AE sanction may not be modified without consultation with other admins at AE, but they fail to state if a decision not to impose a sanction made at AE can be modified by imposing a sanction without consultation. I would say, for the sake of consistency and common sense, that admins should not be permitted to unilaterally overturn a decision taken at AE in either case. They might perhaps be entitled to reopen a recently closed case for further discussion if they think the discussion insufficient, but unilateral disregard of consensus should not I think be permitted. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local consensus regarding enforcement

3) As the enforcement of arbitration decisions is grounded in the existence of a consensus of the community to abide by the decisions of the arbitration committee, any community consensus established in regard to a particular situation or enforcement action binds the admin corps from the type of unilateral action authorised in the absence of such consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The enforcement noticeboard

3) The arbitration enforcement noticeboard provides a central place for editors to bring alleged breaches of arbitration decisions to the attention of the admin corps. As such, it is the natural place for consensus regarding specific circumstances or actions to form, and an existing consensus formed there must not be unilaterally overruled by an administrator. Rather, an administrator who disputes the consensus should seek to change it through the usual consensus-building process. Where there is dispute about the existence of consensus, further discussion to establish consensus is required.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong support. GregJackP Boomer! 02:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This should all be horribly obvious, especially to a sitting arbitrator. GoldenRing (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, both the statement and the obviously not so obvious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't see any role for consensus in this. They're called discretionary sanctions, presumably, because they give administrators discretion to act. The decision has been made by the Arbitration Committee and they're delegating it to each and every administrator, unless I'm missing something essential that nobody else has raised. Where did this idea of administrators sitting around and seeking consensus come from? --TS 16:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although it does not affect the essence of your argument, note this proposed principle presumably applies to all remedies, and not just those which authorize discretionary sanctions. isaacl (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite correct. For instance a 1RR breach under an arbitration remedy requires the admin to adopt expanded discretion to block the editor named in the remedy. --TS 18:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by expanded discretion; perhaps you can explain a bit further? An arbitration case remedy with a specific restriction has already made a judgment regarding what behaviour is undesirable, as opposed to discretionary sanctions, where administrators have been given latitude to conceive of and impose new sanctions as they best see fit to limit disruption in a given area. I agree there has been an expansion in what actions are pre-authorized to enforce a remedy. isaacl (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're both on the same page. I would observe that normally administrators cannot address this kind of problem without the arbitration committee clearly identifying the locus with some precision and defining the scope of action available. Expanded discretion here simply refers to what decisions are left to the administrator after the arbitration committee moves in to the next topic. My 1RR example is significant because an administrator would not normally block somebody who reverts somebody else's edit more than once. A 1RR restriction changes that.

The administrators are empowered to draw inferences and take actions, subject to accountability, that they would not normally take. It's delegation of power. --TS 01:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Black Kite

1) Black Kite improperly closed a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, claiming consensus where insufficient time had been given for consensus to possibly form.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I agree with GorillaWarfare that the claimed consensus didn't really exist. GoldenRing (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could live with this. It was a shockingly swift close, and if the archive is correct it purports to speak for a consensus of uninvolved admins, where absolutely no discussion is present on the page where uninvolved administrators are supposed to comment. So all administrators should be bound by this precipitate action of a single unwise admin? I hope not. Had an uninvolved admin witnessed the questionable edits in question, they could have acted on their own discretion as the party involved was under sanction. That should be the baseline. If the admin messed up, review or appeal will catch that.

But you can't immunise a sanctioned editor by playing silly buggers under the nose of the arbitrators. If you think they messed up in drafting a remedy, tell them so and they can consider changing or revoking it. --TS 22:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of wish I'd thought of including the playing silly buggers under the nose of the arbitrators in the language of the proposal. I think it sums up what went on nicely. GoldenRing (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare

2) GorillaWarfare improperly unilaterally overturned a claimed consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I disagree with GorillaWarfare that the appropriate reaction to a false consensus was to unilaterally ignore it. --unsigned, presumably GoldenRing

Again this notion of consensus fits poorly with the notion of discretionary sanctions. Are they discretionary, or has AE turned into a carbon copy of ANI? If the former, an admin can act on their own cognisance and the arbitration committee would do well to encourage them to do so. Arbitration remedies aren't really enforced that well and that severely weakens the remedial powers of the arbitration committee. --TS 16:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal

3) Reaper Eternal improperly overturned an arbitration enforcement action where the required clear, substantial and active consensus of editors at AN did not exist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this is the least blame-worthy of the admin actions; the consensus at AN was, IMO, certainly active, fairly clear but not entirely substantial. GoldenRing (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'd rather this kind of thing were handled by some subcommittee. Popular editors who have lots of supporters become irremediable, and this brings Wikipedia into disrepute. See my proposed remedies on parole for an alternative way to tackle controversial remedies. Essentially, the arbitration committee needs to take ownership of them. --TS 16:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Out of scope.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 11:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Black Kite and GorillaWarfare

1) Black Kite and GorillaWarfare are (admonished|warned|desysopped).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There clearly needs to be some consequences for these two. Both committed what are, in my view, gross manipulations of the AE process. I leave the appropriate sanction to the committee. Frankly, I think a one-month desysopping is the appropriate way to get the message through: AE is not to be messed with. It complicates things that that might amount to the rest of the committee temporarily unseating a sitting arbitrator. GoldenRing (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had been paying attention to the actual case, you would know that amnesty was granted. This remedy is not available, nor is any sanction now an option. All of your contribs here seem to be without the knowledge or understanding of the ramifications of amnesty, which is irrevocable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am well aware of the amnesty, which I view as a colossal mis-step. I think that most of my contribs here, such as this one and this one fairly clearly demonstrate that understanding. Nonetheless, I think this is what the outcome of the case should be (or should have been). Some do, perhaps, demonstrate that I don't know the difference between editing a page and editing a template on that page - my bad GoldenRing (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, even if the proposed remedies are not realistic because of the amnesty, I think the proposed FsoF and, particularly, the proposed principles, are nonetheless where this case should go. GoldenRing (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then if you are aware of the amnesty, and your section is a protest of sorts, it violates WP:POINT, and as such, an Arb Clerk should simply hat it. Arb is a formal board, not the place to jump on a soap box and clog up the process with useless gesture that can't possibly be put into action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that the clerks can handle it if they think my suggestions are out of order. They're not intended as a protest. GoldenRing (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal

2) Reaper Eternal is (admonished|warned|desysopped).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As stated elsewhere, I think RE's sins are of the more minor sort, and that his actions were a reasonable way of trying to sort out the mess at AN created by the actions of the other two. On the other hand, I think the absolutely correct action would have been to ask the committee to step in and resolve the dispute by motion; the enforcement actions of administrators are, after all, authorised by the delegation of the direct authority of the committee, and the committee is still empowered to act itself. I again leave the appropriate sanction to the committee; personally, I think a warning is sufficient. GoldenRing (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Alanscottwalker

Comment by others:

Definitions related to Arbitration Enforcement

AE ("arbitration enforcement noticeboard”) is the venue for requesting, applying, discussing and appealing most enforcement requests.
An appeal includes any request for the reconsideration, reduction, or removal of a sanction.
An editor is anyone and everyone who may edit and has edited the encyclopedia.
The enforcing administrator is the administrator who places sanctions authorised in this procedure.
A sanction includes any sanction, restriction, or other remedy placed under this procedure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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 . . ."[4]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitration enforcement bans and appeals of attendant sanctions

"The following are the applicable parts from the standard provision for appeals of arbitration enforcement bans:

Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;

request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and

submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org).

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.

These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
— Arbitration Committee, Standard provision for appeals and modifications

(Wikipedia:Banning policy#Arbitration enforcement bans and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking)

Amendments and clarifications

1, 2, 3) [Carry into Arb procedures the four adopted remedies]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft PD

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonable to assume that for a remedy, the Arbitration Committee has a responsibility to establish clear criteria for enforcement which at least in part supersedes the thresholds applied under usual circumstances? Yes, with the caveat that it's impossible to foresee all possible circumstances. The point is that the default should be for admins to enforce our decisions, and to enforce them they should use their best judgement, for instance to determine the severity of the sanction to impose. However, there may be cases where imposing a sanction may not be the best course of action; for example, to avoid biting a very new user who has fallen foul of the behavioural expectations in areas covered by DS, it may be more expedient to simply issue a warning...

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Regarding Tony Sidaway's comment on administrators being given extended discretion: when acting as a delegate of the Arbitration Committee, how much discretion is being given to administrators to exercise common sense as described in principle 5 below by adding additional thresholds for action, versus assuming that the Arbitration Committee intended a plain reading of the remedy, with all necessary thresholds already described in the remedy? isaacl (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio giuliano, my question is specifically regarding the application of additional thresholds for action, based on common-sense guidelines that are generally used when determining appropriate courses of action for situations other than arbitration case remedies. Is it reasonable to assume that for a remedy, the Arbitration Committee has a responsibility to establish clear criteria for enforcement, which at least in part supersedes the thresholds applied under usual circumstances? Otherwise, I feel it is too difficult to judge if an action is second-guessing or obstructing enforcement of a decision. If the committee wishes to allow flexibility that falls within the usual scope of administrator judgment, it can state this explicitly in the remedy. As always, there can be exceptional situations where a deviation from the specified enforcement actions can be most suitable. isaacl (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'd prefer "be ready to explain their reasons on request" to be "must explain their reasons on request" but I'm not sure I'm in a majority on this. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this doesn't really make a difference, except to make the principle more emphatic, but I have made the change.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: I agree with Thryduulf's clarification that this applies only to an emerging consensus and this may be problematic; however, that's how things have always worked. There have been a few cases where an admin has unilaterally overruled his colleagues and his actions were upheld by ArbCom (see here, for example). So, this principle is simply restating policy as it is; I'm certainly willing to consider amending it, so that admins may no longer overrule their colleagues, but, since this would be a modification of policy, I'd rather do it only if I have the consensus of the majority of ArbCom.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: I agree with Thryduulf, admins should be expected to read (a) any relevant sections on the user's talk page, and (b) any relevant discussions notified on that page (All of AN, AN/I and AE require notifications to be left on the user's talk page).

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added that admins are encouraged to seek input from their colleagues.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a problem with that in that to me it suggests that even in clearcut cases (that have not been taken to AE) they shouldn't act without consultation - or perhaps that they should take the case themselves to AE. If this is meant to apply only to cases that have been brought to AE it needs to state that explicitly. For non-AE cases we should be able to trust their decisions. Doug Weller (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're reading too much into it. It's a simple encouragement and we clearly state that admins may always act unilaterally. However, if you can think of a better wording, please feel free to amend the principle.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac1, are you really saying that Admins shouldn't be able to enforce discretionary sanctions without going to AE? Doug Weller (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: Thanks for the clarification. Doug Weller (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something of a personal bugbear, here, but it struck me that during the AE case which prompted this whole affair, one of the main problems was that the consensus which was developing at AE was not over whether the sanctions had been breached, but over whether Eric should have been blocked for it. I would like to see something in the eventual PD that addresses the specific function of consensus at AE; that is to say, does AE consensus exist to decide whether a sanction was breached, or whether a user should be blocked? Whilst these are (generally speaking) the same thing, it's clear that this is not always going to be the case - the impression I got at the AE discussion in question was that no-one challenged the claim that Eric broke his topic ban, but that there was a feeling that blocking him for this infringement was inappropriate. Is that a decision to be made at AE, or should AE discussions be focussed on whether an infringement actually took place (with the decision over whether or not to block left to the closing administrator, in line with existing ArbCom sanctions)? Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a role for the discussion to determine the level of seriousness of the transgression, taking into account relevant factors (e.g. impact of the transgression, baiting, acknowledgement of wrongdoing, how appologetic someone was, whether the violation was intentional, etc) and what remedies would be appropriate and effective, and I'd be seriously uncomfortable with the closing administrator having the sole say on the punishment (not in every case is it a binary block/don't block). The closing admin should determine the consensus of the discussion, including what weight to give to various opinions, but if there was a need for a discussion rather than unilateral action then the discussion should be allowed to consider all aspects. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you open up there, though, is the possibility that the community can theoretically overturn or ignore an ArbCom decision. Hypothetically: User:Alice is subject to an ArbCom-imposed topic-ban on Article X. She edits Article X. User:Bob takes her to AE. The contributors at AE disagree with the topic ban, and form a consensus (confirmed and closed by an uninvolved admin assessing the discussion) that Alice shouldn't be blocked. This happens every time she edits Article X. Is the ArbCom topic ban (supposedly a "binding decision") still in force?

Like I said, hypothetical but certainly possible if consensus at AE is to decide what action should be taken. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said somewhere on this page, the default should be that AE enforces our remedies; however, there may be exceptional cases where a block may be inappropriate and, as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly fine for AE admins not to enforce our decisions in those limited cases. For a concrete example of this, you can check this old discussion...

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 12:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree with Thryduulf, if an admin is going to overturn a decision of another admin, they should be required to explain their reasoning. GregJackP Boomer! 21:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

See my comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop#Conflict in principles. isaacl (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the notion that administrators should be permitted to "overrule" an emerging consensus, regardless of whatever "good cause" they may provide. It sounds like a licence for disruption to me. When a group of administrators may have already spent considerable time examining the evidence and/or discussing possible actions, it would be just plain disrespectful to have another admin come along and decided for himself what needs to be done without consultation. I see no reason why consensus of uninvolved admins should not be respected at all times. If no clear consensus is emerging, then I think the appropriate thing to do for an admin who has decided on a given course of action is to announce his intention to take that action and allow the others adequate time, say 24 hours, to object before closing the discussion with that action. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think some clarification on the expectations for administrators would be helpful: prior to taking an action based on their own initiative, are they expected to check specific venues, such as the Arbitration Enforcement request noticeboard, the incidents noticeboard, and the Administrators' noticeboard, for any emerging consensus on the infraction in question? isaacl (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant a consensus at AE only. AE is an arm of Arbcom and its decisions are binding in the same way, except that somebody in their wisdom decided to make AE decisions appealable to AN which I think was a mistake. Gatoclass (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the misleading indentation; my question was directed toward the drafters of the proposed principle. isaacl (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is about actions taken when there is an ongoing discussion that has not yet reached a consensus (although one may be emerging), so it's not quite as damaging as overruling an established consensus, but your point is non-the-less valid. If it is unclear whether there is consensus or not, then perhaps we should be instructing admins to act as though one has? Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by that Thryduulf. If consensus isn't clear, why not simply ask what it is before taking action? Gatoclass (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I think the point is that consensus isn't a requirement in this kind of situation, though it should be taken into account. Remember this isn't a case of an administrator arbitrarily using their buttons. The administrator has expressly been given extended discretion to deal with breaches of a remedy that was imposed by the Arbitration Committee, in every case because the community consensus mechanism had already failed to resolve disputes. It's a quite different situation from normal administrator actions, where discretion is often (though not completely) limited by community consensus. It's actually quite important to realise that Wikipedia exists as an encyclopaedia project, not an experiment in governance. --TS 15:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Speaking personally, I would expect an administrator considering taking action to at the very least read (a) any relevant sections on the user's talk page, and (b) any relevant discussions notified on that page (All of AN, AN/I and AE require notifications to be left on the user's talk page). Again speaking personally, I would be happy to presume an admin's awareness of any discussion on or notified to the user's talk page before* the admin took any unilateral action unless there was evidence to the contrary (*excluding approximately simultaneous actions of course). Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Sidaway: The point here is that although consensus is not required, if one exists (or is forming) an admin acting contrary to that consensus should (I'd prefer must) explain why they have done so. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we are in any substantial disagreement here TS. Administrators always have the authority to act unilaterally to enforce an AE sanction and I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the notion that a lone administrator may act unilaterally to overrule an emerging consensus between two or more other administrators - that just sounds like a recipe for disruption and ill feeling to me. Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, I'm wary of setting up a process that encourages hasty action versus considered thought. If enforcement via a request at the arbitration enforcement request noticeboard is treated differently, then there is an incentive to rush to file requests in order to trigger this different treatment, and with the current proposed decision there is an incentive for a quick response. isaacl (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, no, as you may recall in my analysis of the enforcement of sanctions, I explicitly stated that English Wikipedia's tradition of avoiding unnecessary overhead argues against requiring all enforcement to occur through a posting on a specific page. I'm saying that an action taken by an administrator on their own initiative should be treated similarly to one taken based on an arbitration enforcement request, so there is no incentive for someone to rush to file a request. If the judgment of an individual administrator is deemed sufficient to allow for unilateral action when a request has not been filed, then it should be deemed sufficient as well when a request has been filed. (It would be desirable to have a separate location where administrators can initiate a discussion on the enforcement of a remedy violation, so any administrator can start a discussion there in order to request that a consensus be established for more ambiguous situations.) To put it another way, how an administrator came to be aware of a violation should not affect how any resulting judgment is treated. isaacl (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about the "without good cause" clause in this. I'll try not to make this about specific editors, but it's easy to see that someone will eventually overrule an emerging consensus at AE with the reason, "Ignoring the chorus of fans of editor XYZ who say otherwise - this is a clear violation," or something similar. Is that "good cause"? GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what, if anything, should be done about this, but there is an anomaly in that this emphasizes a norm of consultation before action on AE requests, although an admin who spots (e.g.) a DS violation can address it unilaterally without such consultation. Perhaps wording such as "except in clear-cut cases" or similar would help here, but I'm not sure. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I read it, I think that Yunshui, at his comment of 11:29, 7 August 2015, raises a very important point. Where Salvio refers in his reply to exceptional circumstances, that seems to me to be exactly the kind of thing that is likely to be Wikilawyered in the future. Editors will argue in a future AE discussion that the sanction shouldn't apply because the extraordinary content contributions of the editor make it an exceptional circumstance, and an ArbCom sanction goes out the window for an editor who has defenders (and not for someone else, who does not have defenders). I seems to me that the draft language implies that the consensus has to be amongst uninvolved administrators, as opposed to amongst whoever happened to show up quickly at AE (and that certainly seems to be the assumption behind the findings of fact), but this distinction should probably be made more explicit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My proposals addressed this issue above with "AE discussions are focused solely on evidence and policy.[5] There are two issues to address at AE concerning a report of a breach of a binding topic ban: 1) was there a breach; and 2) what must the remedy for the breach be." My proposals also made it clear that at the least some kind of warning or advice should be issued, in cases of breach. I also proposed that where there was no breach, there be a notice of no breach - again to inform the user and others of limits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense in enforcement

5) In enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators are expected to use their common sense. Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions to be imposed for violations of a final decision, the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question.

Administrators may also close a report with no action when no actual violation occurred or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate; in these cases, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.

Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request are reminded that they should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions. Administrators are also reminded they are still expected to comply with the expectations set out in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Expectations of administrators. Violating these expectations may lead to sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Newyorkbrad: yes, in my mind, that's certainly covered under the "all circumstances of the case at hand"; I don't think we need to mention everything...

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker

In the case that brought us here, there was no finding of a breach or of no breach, but of "no issue to pursue" or in other words that the "violation is so minor that, under the circumstances, no sanction is warranted". Doug Weller (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased this principle, adding the possibility of issuing warnings or giving advise and changing the part about the violation being minor. I have also made it clear that to dismiss a request because exceptional circumstances are present, a consensus of uninvolved administrators is required. This should assuage the fears of those who are afraid that giving AE admins this power may end up making our decisions useless.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 15:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::::Alanscottwalker Just to clarify, you are saying that there should be no findings of "no issue to pursue", but would you be happy with " violation is so minor that, under the circumstances, no sanction is warranted"? That seems to satisfy your points - a breach was found but it was considered to be so minor that no remedy was required. Doug Weller (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio giuliano

, can we change " the hypothetical recividism of the editor in question, if present." to something like "the possible recidivism of the editor in question"? I'll have to think about the word "exceptional", not sure if it might cause problems or not. Doug Weller (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the thing about recidivism; regarding the other thing, if there is a better way to express it than "exceptional circumstances", then I'm open to rephrasing the principle further, but I think we need to make allowances for cases where a violation was present, but it was concluded that a sanction would be a bad idea, for instance the case of a newbie who didn't know that what he was doing was not permitted...

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 15:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Whether the editor whose conduct is under review acted in the good-faith belief that his or her conduct was acceptable is also highly relevant. For example, if the applicability of an arbitration remedy to particular circumstances is unclear or ambiguous, and the editor reasonably believed an edit was allowable, that may weigh in favor of a "no action" closure even if the AE administrators conclude that the edit was not allowable. However, the editor should, thereafter, abide by the interpretation of the remedy that is reached. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that it would be a more useful informative process, if a finding of breach or no breach is explicitly made regardless of remedy. I spell out such an approach in my proposals, above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller: That makes for explicit ignoring of policy (and the binding nature of the remedy). see: "A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia." That is of no benefit, to the binding settlement of conduct disputes (let alone ignoring of consensus founded in policy) - it should explicitly be a two step process 1) beach inquiry 2) remedy inquiry - that will make everyone more educated on the limits of the ban, and the guiding nature of various possible remedies - and more likely increase fairness to all (treating like cases, like). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, Not quite. I think it should be finding the predicate for the remedy, and then the remedy. My view is that an advisement, or warning, or admonishment, can occasionally be a useful other remedies or sanctions, but there should always be a remedy, otherwise the ban is rendered null. When a user is doing something they should not do (eg. breaching a ban), they should, at the least, be told to 'stop, don't repeat' (all the more so, after months or years of working out in every process known to wikipedia - such that the user actually had to be bound). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing an enforcement request

6) 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, except in compliance with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators.

In these cases, the initial petitioner may appeal the decision, but care should be taken that this only be done when appropriate. Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return for wasting the community's time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It might be worth firmly establishing the pathway by which the initial petitioner can appeal (noticeboard? direct to closing admin? re-filing the request?). Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was that the standard appeal provisions apply (ask the closing admin, go to AN or AE and, finally, file an amendment request)...

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 13:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking of allowing administrators to appeal, but, yes, on second thoughts restricting this possibility too much is a bad idea. Suggestions as to how it can be amended? "Any interested users"?

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also might be worth noting that the dismissal constitutes an enforcement action when a request for enforcement is dismissed with no action by an administrator, specifically. NACs aren't as common at AE as some other areas, but there's no actual method of preventing it, so it might be worthwhile to have that clearly specified. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I have added " by an uninvolved administrator" after "has been dismissed".

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, to respond to the reservations expressed by various editors, would my colleagues be open to allowing all interested users to appeal a dismissal, but only to ARCA?

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would, as long as discussion with the closing administrator has been attempted first and this has not been fruitful. It should also be made clear (I'm not sure where though) that any admin can seek review of their own dismissal - something perhaps akin to how DRV works. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy about this new system of appeals - I agree with Newyorkbrad. Hopefully if we can find a way to ensure there's been a proper discussion before the request is either dismissed or acted upon, there will be little reason to appeal. If we really feel we need an appeal system I think that should be considered separately to make sure it doesn't make matters worse. Doug Weller (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem highlighted by Brad is not peculiar to this situation, however. All enforcement actions are liable to it: after a long discussion, ten admins come to a consensus and topic ban someone and that person is still entitled to an appeal to AN or AE and to us, regardless of how many people originally agreed with the restriction and how long the AE thread was kept open.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Salvio:, if you are going to let admins appeal, you should open it up so everyone can appeal. To do otherwise creates a caste system, the "any interested users" language would be proper, IMO. I think that your initial idea is correct, the editor facing sanctions and the filing editor should be the only ones who may appeal. GregJackP Boomer! 02:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

See my comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop#Conflict in principles. isaacl (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe appeals should be restricted to the initial petitioner. Notifications can be filed by anyone who saw the infraction; this does not mean they are sufficiently vested in the outcome to engage in an appeal process. In the interest of reducing acrimony, I think it would not be desirable to establish a process that encourages only vested individuals to file notifications, in order to preserve the appeal route. isaacl (talk)

I don't know what this proposal means. Does it mean that both administrators and the initial petitioner may appeal dismissal of a request, per the "Modifications by administrators" section? But the initial petitioner may not necessarily be an admin, so how is that supposed to work? Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, regarding non-admin closures of an enforcement request: if they are permitted, and an accurate assessment of the consensus view was performed, I don't see any inherent reason why it matters if the one performing the assessment is not an administrator. Following English Wikipedia's consensus tradition, no one should reverse the consensus without following one of the defined appeal procedures. Of course, the arbitration committee is free to specify as part of Arbitration enforcement procedures that only an administrator can assess the established consensus at the Arbitration enforcement requests noticeboard. isaacl (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caution should be used in authorizing a type of appeal that has not previously been seen, or at least has been seen very rarely. Note that as written, this would allow an appeal from a dismissal of an AE request by one administrator just a few hours after the request was opened; but it would also allow an appeal from a dismissal reached by the consensus of 10 administrators after a week of discussion. Allowing such appeals may also compound the adversary nature of the AE process as between "sides" of an underlying dispute, in topic-areas where the Committee typically has found that too much "battleground conduct" has already occurred. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typically appeals should be done by someone who has standing to do so, and my understanding of the Arbitration enforcement requests noticeboard is that it deliberately does not restrict who can notify administrators of an infraction, so the filer may not be sufficiently involved to have standing. Upon further reflection, in the case of an arbitration case remedy, I think generally speaking it is the arbitration committee who has standing, as a proxy for the will of the community under which authority the remedy was passed. Thus perhaps appeals should only be initiated by an arbitrator, and the entire arbitration committee can review the incident directly to determine the best action to implement the intent of the remedy. isaacl (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Newyorkbrad that it would be a mistake to allow appeals by persons other than the sanctioned editor. I think there could be all kinds of drama-fests opened up by allowing anyone to start an appeal, and I don't think that the circumstances of the case create any need for adding more appeals options. Instead, I think that requests for clarification provide the needed alternative. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this scenario, though, no enforcement action is being taken, and so the editor under restriction would not appeal the decision. isaacl (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller Please review my proposals above - you are likely to get a better discussion at AE, if you, layout what is to be decided - and how the actions are recorded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio giuliano I think it is right to limit third parties to ACRA or on perhaps rare occasions, as part of a RfArb. The ctte, for better or worse, are the only ones who can authoritatively settle process disputes in this area of policy, and the only body that can really reign in their "agents". Please see my evidence about the divisiveness of the AN discussion, in this case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals against sanctions

7) Only the sanctioned editor may file an appeal against a sanction. Other editors may offer assistance, but the decision to appeal and the choice of venue may only be made by the sanctioned editor.

Appeals filed by any user other than the one sanctioned may be closed at any time. However, any interested users may ask for clarifications, if they are acting in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Newyorkbrad: well, that's what the "other editors may offer assistance" is for. If someone is blocked without talk page access, he can send an e-mail to a colleague asking him to appeal on his behalf; that has occasionally been done by site banned editors, so there is precedent. I have also thought about mentioning something about the possibility for any user to ask for a review of someone else's sanction in exceptional cases, but that could lead to countless threads opened by third parties arguing that their case is truly exceptional and, in the end, it would risk robbing the underlying principle of any importance.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is generally quite sound, but may have rare exceptions, such as where the disputed sanction is a block with talkpage access removed, so there is no appeal path on-wiki. Please see my comments about a converse proposal higher on this page. That said, allowing a good-faith request for "clarification" where needed might, as a practical matter, be a sufficient safety valve. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption of validity

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The proximate cause of this dispute was a comment made by Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) on his talk page which was reported to arbitration enforcement as a violation of the indefinite topic ban imposed on him as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case.

Upon reviewing the report, Black Kite (talk · contribs) closed it with no action. At the time, no other uninvolved administrator had made any comments and the report had been open for only about five hours.

GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs), aware of of the fact Black Kite had dismissed the report, overruled his decision and unilaterally blocked Eric for a month without discussion.

Black Kite subsequently opened an AN discussion regaring GorillaWarfare's block of Eric which was treated as an appeal, despite the fact that Eric at no time expressed any desire to appeal the restriction. The discussion was then closed by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs), who unblocked Eric, arguing that there [was] definitely no consensus [there] for a block; indeed, the results seem[ed] to show a slight consensus in favor of unblocking. A pure vote count show[ed] a 60/40 split in favor of unblocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Even though this draft decision appears on the workshop rather than the PD page (which is good), I believe the four editors mentioned by name should be notified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of the administrators involved

2) The conduct of all administrators involved in the dispute was suboptimal.

Black Kite's actions had the effect of interfering with the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision; in fact, since Eric's comment was a violation of his restriction and was not minor in nature, Black Kite should not have dismissed the enforcement request so quickly and without waiting for input from other uninvolved administrators

GorillaWarfare's actions fell foul of the rules set out in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications and in Wikipedia:Administrators#Reversing another administrator's action, namely the expectation that administrative actions should not be reversed without [...] a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged.

Reaper Eternal's actions violated Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications requiring, for an appeal to be successful, a request on the part of the sanctioned editor and the clear and substantial consensus of [...] uninvolved editors at AN.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Various modifications, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop#How the PD will provide future guidance.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Sidaway: regarding what action a dissenting admin may take, this is discussed elsewhere. The point is that when an admin acts, other admins can no longer do it; if, for instance, Black Kite had blocked for 24 hours and another admin had though the block was too short, the latter would not have had any venue to complain, except for a message on Black Kite's talk page...

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum: regarding I think a reasonable reading of the rule would be that no use of admin tools are to be reversed, not a regular edit made with special admin authority, I disagree. For me, all actions which require the admin bit to carry out, regardless of whether it's actually being used, are covered by the policy. An example would be closing an AfD as keep; it does not require the use of the mop, but it is certainly an admin action (when performed by an admin) and, so, it can't be reverted out of process; another example would be the imposition of an editing restriction at AE, again, you do not need to use your mop, but it certainly is an admin action.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Tony Sidaway:, I don't see the issue—were the initial decision been a block, a dissenting admin has no obvious way to resolve this either. In both cases, the right of appeal lays with the accused editor or the original filing party, and no one else. An admin who disagrees with an admin who either took no action or blocked is limited to a review of the admin actions, not an appeal. GregJackP Boomer! 21:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think an apparent discrepancy still needs to be resolved. In this instance an enforcement case at AE was rapidly closed with no visible discussion of the case (though apparently it was discussed elsewhere). If this is done, what action should a dissenting admin take? It seems that the existence of an enforcement discussion that is closed actively preempts the dissenting administrator's discretion and leaves them with no obvious way to resolve this. Perhaps in egregious cases it might make some sense to escalate the case to the arbitration committee, but that seems to be too unwieldy for most cases. I think we may need to address the problem that some enforcement, though necessary, is unpopular. I don't think it's a coincidence that this arbitration case involves disputes over arbitration enforcement against a quite popular editor. --TS 14:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, it seems to me that the proposed finding simply says that GorillaWarfare should have, first, discussed it with Black Kite, so that was the action expected of a dissenting administrator. On the other hand, we still have the question of how to resolve a disagreement following that brief discussion. Aside from the principle above, about common sense, it seems to me that the Committee is choosing to leave that open for now, which I think is not unreasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is reasonable to criticize GorillaWarfare's actions as "running afoul" of a policy that describes reversing an admin action. I think a reasonable reading of the rule would be that no use of admin tools are to be reversed, not a regular edit made with special admin authority. If a closure(correct or otherwise) of an AE case is to be considered an "admin action" I think that this was not made clear. The wording is at best ambiguous and a reasonable interpretation might not see such a closure as an admin action at all. It seems we are codifying our rules as we see faults in them, let us not project those faults onto people trying to follow those rules in earnest. Chillum 04:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This set of findings strikes me as unnecessary and potentially unfair to all three of the administrators, given that 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. It is also procedurally unfair to Eric Corbett, who was repeatedly told that his conduct was not a subject of this case, and hence should not suddenly receive negative attention in the final decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the fair-minded thinking there, Brad, I think it's also important to illustrate how the committee sees the principles it has laid out interact with the set of facts that prompted the case. It's not possible to do that without commenting on the actions of those involved. If this finding is left out of the final decision, I'd be left thinking, "Yes, but what does that all mean in practice?" GoldenRing (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: While I can understand that point of view, is this what is described by the actual wording of policy and is this something that reflects our actual practices? To expand on your example, I have seen numerous occasions where an AfD closure was reversed by another admin, and then restored by the original admin. I don't think I have ever seen such an event be called wheel warring. While the position that closing an AE is an admin action is a reasonable position, I do not think it was the only reasonable interpretation of actual practices.

How many times a week are closures on ANI reversed? Has this ever been seen as wheel warring?

If the the purpose of this case is to clarify the rules in this matter, then I think it is a disservice to assume that the rules were clear to begin with. The lack of clarity is what has brought us here and I sincerely believe that Gorrilla was acting in good faith based on a reasonable interpretation of the rules as they were stated. Chillum 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sympathy for the argument that this finding is too harsh with respect to GorillaWarfare. On the other hand, I see value in the way that it is worded as "suboptimal" (as opposed to, for example, as an actual violation). Especially in the context of the amnesty, this finding can be understood as it was intended: as guidance for going forward. As I also said on the Workshop talk page, I think it is vital to spell out the ground rules for an inevitable next case, and I think this finding is important for that reason.

It does occur to me that the two draft findings of fact each contain more ideas than is typical in decisions. Perhaps that brings about a perception of complexity. One could, alternatively, break the two findings down into six: (1) what happened at AE, (2) what GW did, (3) what RE did, (4) why what BK did was suboptimal, (5) why what GW did was suboptimal, and (6) why what RE did was suboptimal. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

Drafters delegated

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Added, thanks.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As a minor note, the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement should also be updated accordingly. isaacl (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of mechanisms to enforce sanctions

As presented into evidence, there are different procedures for reporting violations of sanctions, and accordingly different standards for handling the reports. This may have contributed to confusion regarding the appropriate burden of proof required for an administrator to enforce an Arbitration Committee-enacted editing restriction. Sanctions enacted by the Arbitration Committee ought to be written with clear criteria defining their scope, thereby making it relatively straightforward to determine if they apply.

By its nature, a mandate to issue discretionary sanctions does not have specific criteria triggering specific actions, and instead gives administrators broad authority to use their judgment in deciding the best course of action. Accordingly, it is desirable for a higher burden of proof to be required to oversee the reasoning of administrators imposing sanctions at their discretion.

Although general methods for reporting violations are described for sanctions other than community-imposed editing restrictions, English Wikipedia's culture is not one of "notice-and-action" regarding problematic behaviour: any administrator, upon observing behaviour that violates Wikipedia guidelines or imposed sanctions, can take action, which can subsequently be appealed and reviewed. Thus an enforcement action can take place either through the processing of a request, or the individual initiative of an administrator. Wikipedia's tradition of avoiding bureaucracy argues against requiring all enforcement to take place via requests in a specific location. Any changes to how sanctions are enforced should take into account both of these options. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think you need to be clearer here about the distinction between situations where discretionary sanctions apply and where they do not. It is not generally true that an administrator can apply sanctions on his own initiative; an admin can generally block on his own, but can't apply other editing restrictions (mostly the various sorts of bans). It is also much clearer in the case where DS are not in play that an admin can't act against an established consensus on a particular matter. GoldenRing (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which sections you wish to have clarified; can you explain further? The distinction between discretionary sanctions and other arbitration case remedies is described in the evidence. In the analysis, the only place I mention administrators applying sanctions at their discretion is in the paragraph on discretionary sanctions. In the last paragraph, I refer to enforcement actions for violations of editing restrictions or general sanctions. isaacl (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of the restriction on reinstating a reverted action (deprecated draft)

In accordance with Wikipedia's tradition of acting boldly, editors are encouraged to perform an action they feel is beneficial, and also to revert an action they feel is detrimental, thereby restoring the original state, followed by a review and discussion of the action. This enables uncontroversial changes to proceed rapidly, while allowing debatable changes to be identified and discussed.

In a similar manner, in order to allow for administrative actions to take place with minimal overhead, many processes requiring administrative privileges to be completed only need a single admin to evaluate the best course of action. In cases of dispute, a review procedure is defined to re-assess the decision made.

Wikipedia's guidance on reinstating a reverted action (wheel-warring) is based on these principles: admins are able to act efficiently based on their judgment, and their actions can be reverted to restore the original state while the situation is re-evaluated. The guidance is not intended to set a deadline after which an editor can no longer be sanctioned: it provides a framework to avoid warring over the best steps to take in the interest of the community. By allowing the original state to be restored, the following discussion can take place under the original conditions prior to the first action, as if it had not occurred.

In cases of editors violating a policy, a general sanction, or an editing restriction, admins have the duty to impose appropriate sanctions (typically a block) for the violation, and they have a mandate to do so on their own initiative. Accordingly, the individual judgment of an admin that no action should be taken does not bind other admins to the same judgment. As the original state has been preserved, the first step in a wheel-warring incident has not been taken.

For many scenarios, there are also venues for discussion where the community can weigh in and determine a consensus view. (For the purposes of this analysis, no opinion is expressed on whether or not the Arbitration Enforcement request noticeboard is a venue for general community consensus.) For discussions within the scope of these venues, once a consensus is determined, actions to implement this consensus are within Wikipedia's consensus policy, rendering questions of wheel-warring moot. isaacl (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

As I understand it, BOLD means two things. a} sometimes it is best to show the effect of an edit by doing it, not asking about it . This meaning will rarely apply outside of article space. b.)sometimes for a complex or disputed action , or to break an impasse . it can clarify things to take an action that you hope will have consensus in the end , but are not the least sure will have immediate consensus. This still shouldn't be something you know will not possibly have consensus. I've have personally done this a few times at RfC,especially in closing MoS disputes where there may never be true consensus, but we are better off having closed somehow. They've usually stood, because people reason they don't want to open the whole thing up again, for uncertain benefit. AE is not usually the place for this sort of reasoning. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I & Dennis say is compatible. However I suppose it has to be said that, while I do not think he has done anything in such situations that I consider wrong, a few other admins have not always had equally good judgment. DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BOLD is for editing articles, not administrative actions. We do not and should not expect admins to make BOLD blocks. Quite the opposite. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, editors are encouraged to take actions they feel are beneficial for the project. This includes administrative actions as well (which encompasses many areas other than editor conduct), where admins are expected to use their best judgment in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, practices, traditions, and community consensus. In cases of problematic editors, the smallest action that garners the greatest benefit is desirable. If they can be managed without a block, that is ideal. (Note I did not say that BOLD blocks are desirable.) isaacl (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand the point you're trying to make. I don't think linking to BOLD is the best way to illustrate that though. But I can't think of any essay that reflects this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I do not feel the essay is limited to these two situations, or even primarily about them. Based on my reading, I feel its spirit is as I've described: editors are encouraged to fix things when they believe they can be made better. For Wikipedia to work, editors must feel empowered to perform a task that, in their best judgment, ought to be done, rather than wait for someone else to do it. Along similar lines, though not identical reasoning, to avoid undue amounts of overhead discussion, Wikipedia depends on admins with the trust of the community to use their best judgment and take actions that improve the project. Naturally, a high degree of confidence of the beneficial nature of the administrative action is required, and a quickly-triggered review process is available to manage any problematic actions. isaacl (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid confusion with this alternate viewpoint of being bold, I will rewrite the analysis to avoid referring to bold actions. isaacl (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being wp:bold as admin sometimes IS the right answer. I have closed block voting discussions as no action because the local voting wanted to block an editor while I knew a global consensus would not have. ie: the proverbial mob scene. You rarely see this because you upset many people unless you can really justify it. In my situations, they have stuck. I didn't use the tools, but I did use the authority as admin, so it was still really an "admin action", as I had the authority and tools to block but specifically said they would not be blocked in bold fashion. I could give many, many examples of applying WP:BOLD as admin (tools or not), from page protection, preventing a deletion, etc. It is risky, but it is often the best solution when there are no good choices. This is similar to DGG's reference to "impasse" situations, where it would be impossible for most non-admin to get away with action like these. The effect is the same: the benefit to Wikipedia is given more weight than the consensus or policy. AE is a different animal however, and as it has been argued throughout, the act of closing an AE without making a block is indeed just as much an admin action as making a block. It is one of those rare exceptions, likely because it isn't a community designed board, but an Arb designed board setup for a single purpose, with very different rules written by Arb, not the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note WP:BOLD does not say to make edits contrary to apparent consensus based on a judgment that there is a broader global consensus to be followed. The essay is about how taking initiative through action can be the best approach to improving an article. isaacl (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of the restriction on reinstating a reverted action (revised)

Wikipedia editors are encouraged to perform any action they feel is beneficial, and also to revert an action they feel is detrimental, thereby restoring the original state, followed by a review and discussion of the action. This enables uncontroversial changes to proceed rapidly, while allowing debatable changes to be identified and discussed.

In order to allow for administrative actions to take place with minimal overhead, many processes requiring administrative privileges to be completed only need a single admin to evaluate the best course of action. In cases of dispute, a review procedure is defined to re-assess the decision made.

Wikipedia's guidance on reinstating a reverted action (wheel-warring) is based on these concepts: empowering editors to take beneficial actions, and providing a way to review these actions. Admins are able to act efficiently based on their judgment, and their actions can be reverted to restore the original state while the situation is re-evaluated. The guidance is not intended to set a deadline after which actions can no longer be taken, such as sanctioning an editor: it provides a framework to avoid warring over the best steps to take in the interest of the community. By allowing the original state to be restored, the following discussion can take place under the original conditions prior to the first action, as if it had not occurred.

In cases of editors violating a policy, a general sanction, or an editing restriction, admins have the duty to impose appropriate sanctions (typically a block) for the violation, and they have a mandate to do so on their own initiative. Accordingly, the individual judgment of an admin that no action should be taken does not bind other admins to the same judgment. As the original state has been preserved, the first step in a wheel-warring incident has not been taken.

For many scenarios, there are also venues for discussion where editors can weigh in and determine a consensus view. (For the purposes of this analysis, no opinion is expressed on whether or not the Arbitration Enforcement request noticeboard is a venue for a consensus of either the general community or administrators.) For discussions within the scope of these venues, once a consensus is determined, actions to implement this consensus are within Wikipedia's consensus policy, rendering questions of wheel-warring moot. isaacl (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose, this gives the preference to a block-happy admin. When an admin takes an action that only an admin is authorized to take, even a close with "no action," that is an admin action and a reversal of that position (like a block) is the reversal of that position. GregJackP Boomer! 16:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl:, I'm not talking about a situation where an admin merely fails to take action on their own initiative, but where a specific admin action is required. For example, using the current situation at AE. Consensus of normal editors is not relevant, they may provide input but AE is not a consensus based area (at least as far as editors). When an admin closes an AE discussion with no action, that is an admin action. Any reversal of that no action decision is reverting another admin's action. GregJackP Boomer! 20:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken:, then reopen the discussion and deal with an inappropriate close. Don't take the opposite action without discussion, or for that matter, the clear consensus needed to overturn an AE decision. I agree that AE discussions should not be closed rapidly or before admin consensus can be established, but if they are closed it is still an admin action just as a poorly thought out block (in general, I am not referring to GW's block) is an admin action. GregJackP Boomer! 15:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@GregJackP, can you elaborate on the circumstances of the scenario you are describing? With current practice, if someone breaches, for example, the three-revert rule, and numerous admins fail to take action on their own initiative, this does not change the original state and so an admin subsequently choosing to act is not reversing the other admins. However, if a discussion of a breach of the three-revert rule is held at the incidents noticeboard and is closed with a determination of a consensus view, then any reversal of this is violating the consensus policy, and it doesn't matter if the consensus outcome changed the original state.

The application of this to the Administration Enforcement requests noticeboard depends on whether or not consensus is required to evaluate the request (and if so, amongst whom). This analysis is not assuming or proposing one way or the other. If consensus is required, then the consensus policy holds, and any reversal of the consensus view is a violation of this policy. If consensus is not required, then administrators are not bound by the individual decisions of other admins on how to respond to the request. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP, are you assuming that the closure of a request at the Arbitration Enforcement request noticeboard represents an evaluation of the consensus of administrators who discussed the matter? If so, then as I stated, such a closure now falls within the scope of English Wikipedia's consensus policy, and so yes, reverting actions taken to implement the consensus would breach this policy. isaacl (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: