Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement

• To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
• To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
• To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see
  WP:ARBAE

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

It would have been nice to get notice that I was about to become an Arbcom-sanctioned user and asked for my input prior to being given a notice informing me that I had already been transformed into one. I get that Arbcom wanted to stop the fighting, but I've got to say I don't much appreciate how wide a net you've cast by restricting an extremely large number of completely-uninvolved-in-the-admin-warring editors. Could you truly not stop the four or five people involved in the case with anything other than blanket-sanctioning more than 100 people? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ETA: A vanishingly small percentage of the people you've sanctioned with this injunction did anything that could be taken to even resemble tool misuse, disruption, personal involvement, wheel warring, or anything that that would render them involved in the actual dispute here. Arbcom appears to be applying a very different standard for "involved enough to need to be explicitly kept away" than any other time I've seen it used, and B raises some good questions about just how far you intend to push this definition of "involvement" now that we're out in territory that wouldn't normally be anywhere near it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this concern. I would also like to add that it would be nice if Arbcom would clarify the definition of the word "involving" in this context. "Don't block and don't sanction the seven named users"? Okay, fine, whatever. But if I am closing a deletion discussion, do I have to carefully make sure that none of these users commented? Or if I am processing an OTRS ticket where we now have permission to use an image that was previously deleted, do I have to make sure that none of these users were involved in the deletion of that image? The wording is vague and the net is cast sufficiently wide as to ensnare lots of people who have nothing to do with the case. --B (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The message is even being sent to non-admins like myself. It would be nice if someone could explain what that is all about. MarnetteD|Talk 02:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AN3). --B (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the explanation B. MarnetteD|Talk 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for the explanation B - Least us non-admins know what the hell it means –Davey2010^Talk 02:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand the haste in passing the motion, it would probably have been better to say "This is not intended to reflect negatively on any user restricted in such a matter" or something to that effect too. --Rschen7754 03:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I appreciate B's explanation of what they think "initiate" means, it would be helpful if we could get answers from the Committee rather than have to guess (see my question). Some parts of my quesions are now moot, but not all.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page[1]: What does "initiate" mean in this context? Does this mean I cannot request that an uninvolved administrator look into something where I am prohibited from acting? For example does it mean I should not report to ANI if I see a legal threat or other blockable offence?

I may be misinterpreting it entirely and "initiate" may be just a redundant form of "take" meaning to actually "do" the action rather than to mean "set into motion". Please clarify as I am not used to being under arbcom restrictions.

Chillum 04:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I will also mention that I think this is overkill. You just put a vague restriction on a large group of people based on what I can only assume is a belief that we are going to do something stupid. I know there has been a lot of stupid going around lately but that is no reason to assume I have caught it.

Chillum 04:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm going to bed. Hopefully, I won't sleepwalk and block a named party in my sleep. Diminished capacity? Or is that the same thing as stupid? Pleasant dreams.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ALL: The purpose of this injunction is to make people stop and think a bit before they do anything else regarding the individuals who are parties to this case. There has been enough well-intentioned but slightly (and not so slightly) out-of-process activity over the past few days to last a lifetime. As has been mentioned above: It is not intended to reflect negatively on any individual temporarily restricted in such a matter. Sure this motion has trod on a few toes, and, yes, it could have been more diplomatically phrased, but it would have been much more abrasive, much more draconian, and much more widely-cast, if a couple of my colleagues had had their way. My personal apologies to you if you have been offended. In mitigation, I was dog-tired when I drafted it and we had to do something urgently to stop further disruption.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@Roger Davies: I'm confused. Black Kite and Reaper Eternal were both closing discussions and their actions were 100% valid within the closer's discretion. I'm only counting one "out-of-process" action - that being GorillaWarfare's block. Is there any reason to believe that anyone - party to this case or otherwise - was planning to take an inappropriate action here? --B (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that many of the actions taken have had their correctness disputed. This motion deliberately makes no judgement about whether any action was or was not correct, was or was not out of process, etc. It is simply enforcing a time out for everybody involved, which should not be regarded as a sanction, with the purpose of stopping a chain reaction. Yes this could have been clearer (and some of the clarity of an earlier version of the motion was sacrificed for the sake of simplicity) but we needed to act quickly and we decided that preventing any further damage to the encyclopaedia was better than crafting a perfect motion. This is only a temporary injunction until such time as the committee have had a chance to read all the evidence and determine the best way forward.

As a (probably poor) analogy when there is a large fire the first priority is to put it out and make sure it stays out, which includes putting water on a larger area than is necessary and excluding everybody from a larger area than is directly affected even if they had no role in starting the fire. Only once the fire is out can the process of working out what caused the fire and what can be done to prevent it happening again begin, and until that is finished and people can be let back in some disruption to the normal routine is unavoidable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "many", I apologize if I'm missing it, but are there more than three admin actions that are even in dispute? I looked, but can't find, the massive wheel war that you and the other arbiters have claimed is going on. --B (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's this, which is related and with overlapping participants. I don't think any arbitrators have claimed there's a wheel war going on. The contrary, in fact.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam is not a named party to this case, so even under the motion, nobody here is prohibited from taking action regarding Floquenbeam, or any of the other people mentioned by name in the close of that ANI thread. Other than the three actions on Eric Corbett (declining to block, blocking, unblock), is there any behavior which has actually occurred (or which is threatened to occur) that would have been prevented had this motion been in place at the time? --B (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

WP:UNBLOCK. This is a tangled dispute and it needs to be resolved calmly, once things have stabilised. Like the deletion-of-unreferenced-BLPs debacle a few years ago, the issues here cannot be resolved they're continually evolving with people robustly pursuing their own interpretation of complex events.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Roger Davies: If you have already determined that RE's action is inappropriate, then I'm not sure how you can claim to be a neutral arbiter in this matter. On its face, it is quite the opposite - a patrolling admin closing a block review discussion. If there is some evidence to be offered that he was not neutral, or did not properly weigh arguments, okay, fine, but on its face, the action seems valid.

I'm not sure if it was your intention, but you linked to an irrelevant guideline

WP:UNBLOCK, which discusses how blocked users are to go about asking to be unblocked. This has nothing whatsoever to do with when an administrator may unblock the user and so I'm assuming what you intended to link to was Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking

, which does provide for unblocking per a discussion at AN.

Regarding your contention that "No one can say with any certainty" that someone somewhere will not cause a disruption by inappropriately taking an admin action, that is certainly true, but to take an enforcement action based on that principle is positively absurd. Nobody can say with any certainty that the members of Arbcom are not all sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels. --B (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B Re your pars, in order. (1) You may have missed it in my post but I haven't told you what my position is (I don't have one), I've reported what others have said. (2) Thanks for picking the mislink. Yes, it does provide for unblocking at WP:AN but warns against situations where "Unblocking will almost never be acceptable". (3) On your third paragraph, it is intended to be preventative: we have not taken an enforcement action. And equally, I suppose you cannot say with any certainty that ArbCom and Wikipedia are not figments of your imagination :)  Roger Davies ^talk 15:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Re: your motion. Can you point me please to where I suggested it?  Roger Davies ^talk 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Please see #Hope. You suggested offering alternatives in the /Workshop. Although it was not directed specifically at me, I followed your suggestion. --B (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B Ah, I see. Not only was it not directed at you, it wasn't even about the motion so if it helps you, I don't mind. :)  Roger Davies ^talk

Regarding this being sent to non-administrators, the interpretation above is correct - nobody subject to the motion make take or request administrative action against any party to the case (including starting or closing AE requests) until the end of the case. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Thank you for confirming B's guess (mine, too, actually, but I like things spelled out). It begs another question. I assume, as an administrator, that I cannot request that another administrator take administrative action against a named party. The injunction provides a method for reporting an infraction of the injunction. However, what happens if I or any other editor, including non-administrators, notice a blockable offense by a named party, what am I or that other person supposed to do? Ignore it? Hope it gets taken care of by someone else? You should provide a method (private if you like) for the editor to report the blockable offense to you without violating the injunction. Honestly, I don't think this scenario is very likely, so I suppose I can imagine your response being too much trouble over something so unlikely, but at least you should acknowledge that you considered this possibility and rejected it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: If you come across a blockable action by a named party that is not being dealt with by someone not subject to this injunction, you should email the committee (arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org) and we will deal with it. As with all arbcom remedies, if there is some edit you want to make or action you want to take but you are unsure of whether a restriction prohibits it then ask for clarification before doing it. Every such question asked in good faith will be answered. As noted this was written under a time pressure and we didn't have time to consider every possible circumstance. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst I can understand the annoyance of some of the good faith contributors to that AN thread getting this injunction, I think the ArbCom are right in what they've done. I like Thryduulf's analogy with a fire. This isn't just about the involved parties or the admins who have so far used their tools or taken "admin action" or the use of admin tools at all, it's about drama and conflict generally. As so often on this topic, it has all the potential to continue to spiral out of control. Many/most of those posting at AN would never be the cause of that. But some potentially might. I can sympathise with ArbCom that they would not/could not pick through the list of posters to identify who falls into which category. It's a blunt and unfair instrument but in the circumstances I do think it's (temporary) necessary evil. DeCausa (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think they are right? To create a chilling effect warning users that don't you dare participate in a discussion because even if you don't do anything wrong, it might earn you a sanction? Not only is it not remotely right in the least, they should all be stripped of any advanced permissions, particularly checkuser. This behavior is indefensible. --B (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking us not to use our tools is one thing but this is essentially a gag order for everyone who participated in the discussion. If I mention edit warring and someone else blocks did I initiate it? Or do I actually have to recommend action? Preventing further abuse of admin tools by an extraordinarily extended version of "involved" admins is one thing, but since when has it ever been a problem to take an issue to an uninvolved admin? The reasoning given does not support the prohibition on "initiating" actions, it is just talking after all. "Chilling effect" is right, I guess this is what I deserve for commenting as an admin at the administrative noticeboard.

I will abide by the ruling but it is a real shit thing to do to so many people through no fault of their own.

Chillum 13:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not a sanction, as has already been made explicitly clear, and it does not imply anybody covered has done anything wrong. However we did not have the time available to us to do go through the every contribution to all three places individually and determine whether they had done something that one or more people have disputed or criticised (explicitly or implicitly) and or were likely to take an action that someone else would dispute or criticise. All it restricts people from doing is taking or initiating admin actions against less than 10 named users until we can untangle the mess. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

CAT:CSD. I cannot delete the page because that certainly "involves" the user in question. You could have accomplished what you set out to do by simply saying "don't block these people". Instead, you used a nuclear bomb to kill a fly ... and that fly was probably already gone anyway. There are countless unintended(?) consequences of this ill-conceived motion that make it practically impossible for anyone to abide by it and continue with normal admin activities. Heck, B-bot (talk · contribs) has a task where it tags orphaned fair use images for deletion. Do I need to worry that if one of those images happens to have been uploaded by a named party, I'm going to be sanctioned for it? And this absurd sanction is because I dared to offer this comment. That's it. An arbiter made a clearly incorrect statement of policy and I opined on that clearly incorrect statement of policy. If you can't see how this is a chilling effect then there's really a disconnect between arbcom and everyone else. --B (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

If you read the replies already given you will see that you should in such cases email the committee if someone else is not dealing with it. We deliberately did not say "don't block these people" because this case also concerns actions such as as unblocking and closing AE threads. If we had listed every possible action that was or was not included then the motion would be quadruple the size and far more complicated than it needs to be. The reasons why the motion was required to be as broad as it is have been explained and no amount of hyperbole will change that. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: In all those scenarios that B mentioned? And I'm sure they can come up with more if given a little time. You can't be serious. We might as well not act in any administrative capacity until the injunction is lifted. Why go to all that trouble? Is Arbcom going to become a mini-ANI clearinghouse? I sure hope you folk have exceptions for good-faith infractions because otherwise you may be sanctioning quite a few people. You know, even courts of law rarely issue injunctions against people or entities that are not parties to a case. Commenting on a case request doesn't make us parties.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

subst:npd}}, and one of the named users did not delete the image? That's ridiculous. And all of this is because I made this comment. You have achieved your goal of discouraging commenting on arbitration cases by us little folk - why would I ever do it if this is the consequence? I'm probably going to refrain from using the admin tools at all for the next month so I don't accidentally take some action that is less than six degrees of Kevin Bacon away from one of the named users. --B (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi

Chillum No, it's not a gag order, it isn't about fault and I'm really sorry you feel like that.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

So am I right that under the injunction I cannot close any AFD where any of the named parties have any involvement? Does this include them having ever made any edit to the article that has been nominated, or is that stretched further than you intend? I normally close a number of AFDs a day and just want to know what I need to check for before deciding if I can close an AFD. Davewild (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly closing an AfD for an article that one of the parties happens to have edited at some time is way beyond the scope of this injunction (likewise RfD and FFD, but steer clear of MFD's about pages parties have authored/are in their userspace and/or are about this case). Use your discretion for AfDs started by parties - if it is at all related to this case leave it, if you think it might become controversial then leave it.

An earlier version of the injunction (which was far too complicated) did contain an explicit exemption for routine editing work in the article, article talk, draft and draft talk namespaces if that helps. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, Thryduulf. It's all well and good to tell us to use common sense and discretion, but an admin would have to be pretty crazy to try use common sense as their guideline if it meant them violating a wide-ranging arbcom injunction created during a case where a number of admins were already on the chopping block for well-intentioned actions they thought were common sense. This injunction does not give the impression of being a situation where IAR would be well-received, given that the version you passed included no exemptions at all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have got into this position because of a series of slightly out of process 'common sense' actions by well-intentioned people. If it helps, it is extremely unlikely that I'll support a desysop for any party in this case. They'd have to do something new and truly remarkable for me to change my mind. Also, the one person who was most vocal about desysops has since recused. My preferred choice was an amnesty for all admin actions to date so that we could all just concentrate on fixing the processes instead of playing the destructive blame game but that didn't fly.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which was a shame. I'm with Roger on the desysop issue and made it clear during the discussion that I opposed any desysops. As for the motion, we are trying to prevent well-intentioned editors who believe they are exercising common sense from doing something that gets them blocked, or escalates the situation. I hope we can focus on processes, not people. Doug Weller (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted "reports of alleged breaches may be made only by email to arbcom" as meaning they want to avoid drama over minor or unintentional breaches that won't need any action, or that can be handled by having a brief private "please don't do that" discussion with the breacher. So I'm not too worried. On the theory that closing a discussion with no action is itself an admin action (one of the questions this case is supposed to answer), it's possible someone reported me below for saying I think this case shouldn't sanction anyone. If anything happens with such a report, there is no common sense left on Wikipedia and we may as well go home.

Roger's idea of an amnesty sounds good to me. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This motion is ridiculously broad. If I want to perform most admin actions during an indeterminate period of time I'll have to either check that seven people (some of whom I've never heard of) are involved with it or live with the threat of very serious consequences. All because I left one comment in a very long AN thread. Perhaps I won't bother. I'm certainly not going to leave another comment in a discussion that might lead to arbitration. Hut 8.5 21:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hut 8.5: Exactly. The arbiters either don't understand (or don't care) that they have created a gigantic chilling effect regarding participation in a discussion. I cannot speak for others, by for me, the burden of research required to perform any admin edit is too high - I will be abstaining from administrative activity (which, since basically all I do nowadays is processing OTRS tickets means everything) until the conclusion of this case. --B (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this motion is just ridiculous. Davies is trying his best to defend it (because he was tired, apparently - sheesh) rather than fessing up that he's made a gigantic cock up. He's even (laughably) trying to claim he's the good Samaritan by alleging other members of Armbcom would have made it worse. I bet he's real popular right now. It doesn't take much effort to work out there's a systemic problem if the Davies solution is apparently the best one. Pedro :  Chat 

• The restriction says that any admin who has commented on the case may not perform an admin action on any party to the case. Is this restriction on all prior commenters or on all future commenters as well. For example, I made a comment in the case. Were I to have my tools, am I now restricted from admin actions? The reason I ask, is that, won't this restriction cause a chilling effect on the case and prevent all interested parties from contributing to the Arbitration? If another previously unspoken admin has something important to add to the case, would they not be disinclined for concern of being under this restriction?--v/r - TP 18:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the restriction only lasts as long as the case, I don't see the big deal. There are a handful of people you wouldn't be allowed to administer to for a while. Most of them are relatively low-drama editors (despite this case) and if they do something that needs admin attention, someone else can handle it. There's one polarizing figure who's the subject of strong views by many editors, most of whom couldn't resist commenting in one of the threads. That means if any intervention is needed toward that person during the case, it will have to be determined by people with less strong views. That is a good thing and I think it was the intent of the restriction. It's a temporary version of WP:INVOLVED and I think most editors should be used to that. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "That means if any intervention is needed toward that person during the case, it will have to be determined by people with less strong views." - Or by people with just as strong views who have managed to be unaware of this case or who kept quiet at first.--v/r - TP 00:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The clear wording (noting that I was specifically notified as being affected by the ill=constructed "injunction" is that no editor at all who has used AE or AN or commented on this or any related ArbCom case can make any comment about any other named person affected by the "injunction." Where a person is specifically enjoined (given notice) then it is not limited to those "listed directly as parties to the case" nor is it limited to "administrators". In point of fact, I would note my comments did not deal in any way with having any made any judgments on the facts - but noting the

I remembered there was an earlier ARCA here (January 2015) where some of the same issues in this case came up. Arbcom responded to the request basically saying AE admins should use common sense instead of acting mechanistically. I've noticed (with approval; others may feel differently) saner and more thoughtful decisions coming out of AE since then, even though I haven't agreed with all of them. This February 2014 remark of Neotarf was also memorable, describing the DS regime operating at that time:[2]

Unlike the old "article probation" admins, the current crop of DS admins do not know anything about the cases they are dealing with and have no intention of reading them. They just want to takes a face-reading of the rules and apply them directly to the respective cases. What they are asking for, in this round of DS discussions, is a software decision-tree type flowchart with algorithms to apply blindly, that has been handed to them from a higher authority, to absolve them from knowing the reason behind their actions. I think the arbcom does not understand this, they think they are dealing with incompetence, but it is a disconnect based on ideology.

I think the AE admins are and were more astute observers than Neotarf gave them credit for, but that the "disconnect based on ideology" is real, and the ARCA above helped move away from that rigid approach. IMHO it documents a recognition by Arbcom of the current more flexible approach as a best practice. It supports Dennis Brown's statement (where he says discretion is always possible), contra those calling for bot-like responses. Sandstein is a good administrator but I'm glad he has switched from AE to other areas.

Anyway I'd oppose sanctioning anyone in this case. People did their best and made some mistakes, which happens. The case request comments from non-parties seem to have not been saved, but I remember liking Jehochman's in particular. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@50.0.136.194:: No, Jehochman's comments are now here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, who decides who is and isn't a party to a case? I assumed it would be arbs but perhaps I'm wrong. I ask because Kevin Gorman added RGloucester to the involved parties over a disagreement about Reaper's close at the AN thread. Kevin Gorman claims that the original close is invalid because it's at odds with AE policy. It's my understanding that such a positive claim can't be made given that this case is about clarifying the ambiguities in that policy. As far as I can tell RGloucester had literally no other involvement in the events that lead to this case at all. Seems silly to me to drag a completely uninvolved editor into this as a party. Capeo (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering this too. Further, did

re}} 22:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sure it was inadvertent - I will leave him a message. --B (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced comment. Been out of the loop for a bit and I didn't realize this case was open - or rather I forgot what the procedures were for open cases.--v/r - TP 00:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is a party to a case is at the absolute discretion of the drafters once a case has opened. If anyone feels they or someone else who is a party should be, or if they are and feel they should not be, they should comment to this effect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that my statement makes clear that I do not think I should be a party to this case. RGloucester — ☎ 17:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duly noted. If we can remove you, we will. Thank you,
    [•] 19:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• 1 week for the evidence phase;
• 3 weeks for the workshop phase (so that the Kww/TRM case and this one will not overlap entirely);
• 2 weeks' gap between the end of the workshop phase and the posting of the proposed decision; however, I do hope to be able to post a draft of the proposed decision on the workshop page after a week, to allow for a last round of comments. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Salvio giuliano: Do the arbiters intend to leave in place the injunction for the entire six-week (plus a few days for voting on the decision) period? --B (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. My goal would be to replace (or vacate it) as soon as possible. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Salvio giuliano: Can you please elaborate on what would cause such replacement or vacation to be possible? Do you need time to research each person's exact role? Are you debating alternatives? --B (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you please elaborate on what would cause such replacement or vacation to be possible? The most honest answer is: a majority of arbs in favour. We have to find something we agree on and, at the moment, the two options (amendming the motion or quashing it) are being discussed on the proposed decision page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the change of schedule, specifically the change of the closing of the evidence phase from July 13 to July 5, was it taken into account thzt this weekend is the Fourth of July weekend here in the States, so that many people will be basically inaccessible from July 3rd to the 5th? BMK (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, no. It was not something I thought about when modifying the timetable; I only saw it mentioned afterwards and considered changing the timetable again, but in the end decided against it, because I didn't want to spam another message to I don't know how many people and, more importantly, because this case is incredibly straightforward when it comes to facts (and it's only complicated when it comes to policy). So, this is one of the very few cases where the workshop phase is far more important than the evidence phase. Not to mention that, if the amnesty passes, there'll be even less need for evidence, because we will not be sanctioning anyone for the events which contributed to causing this case. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I had been planning to go through the AE archives to determine if Black Kite's close without discussion by uninvolved admins was unusual or not (my perception, as stated in my preliminary evidence, was that it was highly unusual), simply to determine if the close should be considered to be a legitimate one, which I think could have bearing on whether it was an "admin action" or not. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll have time to finish that before the 5th, but perhaps my preliminary evidence is sufficient to make that point. BMK (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, my point was not to disparage BK at all, either for his action or for his intent, simply to establish whether the close was in line with the usual AE process. BMK (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: if you wish, and if you believe it will be enough for you to collect the evidence you mention, I can grant you a one- or two-day extension. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very kind of you to offer, but I'm not at all sure with my RL responsibilities I'd be able to take advantage of that, nor am I myself convinced that the value of the evidence would be worth the effort it would take to produce it. For that matter, the more I think about it, the less relevant it seems to me to be -- if every other AE request was closed only after input from uninvolved admins, does that really have a bearing on whether BK's close was an admin action or not? I initially thought that it might, but now I'm not so sure.

Given all this, I'm going to turn decline offer, with my thanks. BMK (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I initially recused from this case when it principally discussed