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

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Talk) & Salvio giuliano (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop

, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Motion rescinding temporary injunction and granting an amnesty

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(3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.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

Passed on 12:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC). Enacting. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 12:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 4 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support:
  1. Doug Weller (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 17:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yunshui 雲水 21:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With emphasis this only applies to (addendum, admin) actions before the case. NativeForeigner Talk 17:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. as the others. Especially as I think this is by far the most likely conclusion if we did have a full decision on this part of the case . DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Per participation statement. LFaraone 19:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Inactive Note
    AGK's inactivity on this motion. (By email)  Roger Davies talk 09:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. This needs wrapping up today, but I am still undecided (per my comments below) and wont have time to do the necessary thinking today. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
For reasons that I've discussed with colleagues on the mailing list I am not currently comfortable with tying our hands by this full amnesty which could cause us problems down the line. I am though very firmly of the opinion that action by anyone other than the committee should lead to sanction. As of this timestamp I cannot decide whether I want to oppose what I feel is a very imperfect motion, or support it because the temporary injunction needs replacing (an emergency injunction was needed at the time, but the firefighting is now over and the investigation phase doesn't need to be so tightly restricted). Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Motion: Amended injunction terms

Proposed as follows:

1) The injunction adopted at the opening of the case is to be amended as follows.

  • Provision 2 is entirely replaced by the following: "During the case, action against the named parties to the case or Eric Corbett may only be taken if the express prior consent of the committee has been obtained".
  • Provision 3 is to be entirely replaced by the following: "Prior consent for taking action pursuant to (2) is to be obtained solely by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page."

For the purposes of the injunction, "action against the named parties or Eric Corbett" includes only:

  1. Creating noticeboard threads that request administrative action or sanctions; and
  2. Closing such noticeboard threads, with or without action.

To reduce further disruption and distraction to the community, the clerks are instructed not to serve notices to those previously affected by the injunction being amended; notices of the varied injunction will be served only to the parties to the case.

A copy of the injunction must be displayed at the top of each party's talk page for the duration of the case, this provision being enforceable (on the standard committee terms) by block.

Difference view of changes proposed to injunction
This is a courtesy tool showing the difference there would be between the original injunction and the amended one if this motion carries:

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the
    Case Requests page
    , may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.     During the case, action against the named parties to the case may only be taken if the express prior consent of the committee has been obtained.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only Prior consent for taking action pursuant to (2) is to be obtained solely by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

Action against the parties includes only (a) creating noticeboard threads that request administrative action or sanctions against the named parties and (b) closing such noticeboard threads, with or without action.

A copy of the injunction must be displayed at the top of each party's talk page for the duration of the case, this provision being enforceable (on the standard committee terms) by block.

Support:
  1. Proposed. (For those who don't talk in Arbspeak, I've also presented this in "diff" view so that you can clearly see the changes proposed.)
    [•] 06:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Also voting for immediate implementation; newer arbitrators should note the injunction implementation terms as explained above.
    [•] 06:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Oppose:
  1. Purely procedurally, since the motion above renders this one moot. Yunshui 雲水 21:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments by arbitrators:
  • I'd prefer any injunction modification to be self contained, as it's much easier to read and absorb. It should also be used to update/announce (not authorise, that is traditionally the drafters' role) any changes to the list of parties, scope (focus on fixing process rather than disciplining people), and timetable (to allow time for thorough community scrutiny of proposed changes to the AE procedure). It may also be better to hold fire on this for a short while, to see whether it can be rescinded altogether. I'd rather all this were rolled up together to minimise confusion/disruption.  Roger Davies talk 07:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the comments we recevied on the first version, we need to explicitly note that "administrative action against the named parties" does not include deleting or protecting articles, redirects, categories, images and templates parties have contributed to, closing XfD discussions they have contributed to that are unrelated to this case, closing other non-case related discussions they have participated in, etc. I'd like to see reporting of 3rr allowed but notified to the committee. I'd like to keep within scope nominating or deleting pages in parties' userspace though and any pages related to this case, and initiating or closing discussions at AE where a party is the subject or reporter. I also agree with Roger that it should be self-contained, replacing the whole of the previous injunction just replacing with identical language what we want to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If things have calmed sufficiently (which may well be the case), I'd rather get rid of the injunction altogether. I'm not keen on further process for what will likely only be a day or two at most.  Roger Davies talk 09:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) My personal preference would be to just vacate the motion; but if we keep this one, then we need to specify that it only enjoins editors and administrators from starting threads requesting sanctions against the named parties (+ plus Eric Corbett; this needs to be said) and administrators from closing said threads, either with a sanction or with no action. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this should be an announcement of the various changes - the list of parties, the scope, and the new timetable, although that has already been announce. I also am considering the possibility of rescinding the entire injunction. Doug Weller (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that things have calmed down considerably since the weekend, but I'm not 100% convinced that another inopportune comment by Eric or some other polarising figure (whether made with disruptive intent or not) would not at this point lead to a repeat of some of the same issues. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this with the amendments Salvio proposes above. Not hugely in favour of fully rescinding the injunction at this time, though. Yunshui 雲水 14:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too like Salvio's suggestions, although with the explicit statement that "seeking sanctions" does not include nominating a page they have contributed to for deletion, nor from closing such nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Motion amended accordingly. Is there anything else we want to do?
[•] 17:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
This would mean that any blocks of Eric Corbett, whether or not they are made via AE, are in effect ArbCom sanctioned blocks - we will be the ones deciding whether or not a block is warranted and if it is, authorising it. I'm not happy with this, I'd still rather vacate the injuunction. We can't guarantee avoiding problems either way, but I think we'll have less drama by vacating the injunction. Doug Weller (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KTC on the talk page makes a good point that if we do not send a message to everybody who was put under the injunction most of them will not know that it does not apply. Yes this is more emails but this is unavoidable, and we have given non-parties the chance to opt-out (and this must be respected, even if it means people are unaware the injunction has been changed). Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Clerk note, this proposed temporary injunction has a bit of an onerous requirement that an entire copy of the injunction (and since this injunction makes no sense on its own, also an entire copy of the original motion) is kept at the top of every party's talk page, so I've made a semi-compromise template at
ping in reply) 07:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
As a reply to L235's template: I have no objection to the overall wording of the template save for a few grammar issues. Would have preferred the second part of the collapsed text to say something along the lines of "An amendment (link to this) to the original injunction was passed time-and-date ..." - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've realized that there was a way to read it that made the grammar just flop. I've reworded it; how does it look now?
ping in reply) 07:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Replace "authorizing" by "original" or "above" should do. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
[•] 17:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 17:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. [•] 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

2) The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve (

discretionary sanctions
. From time to time the committee may revisit these enforcement systems – in order to, for example, clarify ambiguities or to evaluate whether they remain necessary.

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 17:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. [•] 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Arbitration Enforcement

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

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 17:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. [•] 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement

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

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 17:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. [•] 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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.

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 17:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. [•] 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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
forum shop
by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return for wasting the community's time.

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Preferred. The other wording is too absolute a prohibition. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice.
    [•] 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Second choice. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Much prefer 6.1. Yunshui 雲水 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 6.1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 6.1 Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 6.1 Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LFaraone 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Abstain:
Comments:

Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate) 6.1) Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened.

In these cases, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee at

forum shop
by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return.

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. LFaraone 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. First choice.
    [•] 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. First choice. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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.

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. [•] 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agreeing with Thryduulf below. LFaraone 21:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There are situations where exceptions should be allowed for, such as when a sanctioned ed. had left the project but the enforcement action nonetheless is a particularly bad precedent, or so unfair that it ought to be explicitly overturned for the record. (these are examples only; others may arise) # DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest that such would be permissible at ARCA and the low-frequency of occurrence shouldn't place too much burden on that venue. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

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#Appeals and modifications
), all enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper until an appeal is successful.

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 10:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Noting that this applies to sanctions and dismissals equally. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 17:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. [•] 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Appropriate participation in Arbitration Enforcement in every forum

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

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm in favour of the first sentence; the rest seems superflous given that such behaviour is unnacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. I don't disagree with it, though, so: Yunshui 雲水 13:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Similar to Yunshui, but I think the first two sentences are required and only the final one is superfluous. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. AE complaints tend to attract editors with views opposing the subject, who will submit generalisations about the subject in order to eliminate them from the dispute field. I would actually be minded to prohibit such involved editors from weighing into a request at all (unless they brought it) – it encourages the misappropriation of our enforcement processes.
    [•] 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Can live with. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. LFaraone 21:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Isn;t this primarily the role of the arb clerks? DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC) (answered on the talk p--only for some venues) DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although formally they'd be entitled to do so, in practice the clerks almost never take to do with AE (conduct regulation, process administration, or any other duties).
[•] 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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 regarding GorillaWarfare's block of Eric which was treated as an appeal, despite the fact that Eric at no time expressed any desire to appeal the restriction. The discussion was then 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.

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 10:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Accurate summary of the facts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, factual and needed for background. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. [•] 21:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. LFaraone 21:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

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
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.

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 10:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is the crucial point when administrators disagree. If everyone involved had talked more and slowed down, we probably never would have seen this case (or this blowup) happen. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Serpahimblade. I would have been open to considering mild sanctions for some of these actions had this not been explicitly ruled out. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per Thryduulf, in the absence of the amnesty I too would have wanted to consider some sanctions. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. [•] 21:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. LFaraone 17:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

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.

Support:
  1. -- Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Along with any other consequential references that exist. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. With the suggestion that this be considered only a temporary measure pending revision or replacement of the entire procedure. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 17:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. [•] 21:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics 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.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by LFaraone 21:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 08:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Role of the Arbitration Committee 10 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Arbitration Enforcement 10 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement 10 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Common sense in enforcement 10 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Dismissing an enforcement request 2 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
6.1 Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate) 9 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Appeals against sanctions 9 1 0 PASSING ·
8 Presumption of validity 10 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Appropriate participation in Arbitration Enforcement in every forum 9 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 9 0 1 PASSING ·
2 Conduct of the administrators involved 9 0 1 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Drafters delegated 10 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING 6 Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING 6 Passes by default
Notes


Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support
  1. Looks like all is done here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 21:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 01:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement/Proposed_decision&oldid=1131470729"