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
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior 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]

@MarnetteD: I assume (though don't know because it's vague) that when the motion says "initiate", it is referring to non-admins as well. In other words, not only can you not block one of these users yourself, you also cannot ask someone else to do it for you (e.g. listing them at 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]

This was clumsily worded and has done more than "tread on a few toes" Davies. If you worded it then no, I don't accept your apology. Resign. Pedro :  Chat  07:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold no man responsible for what he says in grief.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: No Davies, I hold you totally responsible for a belittling, ill thought out, sanctimonious and offensive message, blanket spammed to editors. Pedro :  Chat  11:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we asked people to resign because they were belittling then this thread would have a lot less admins in it. I think calling for resignation is a bit over dramatic. Chillum 13:49, 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 @B:The simple answer is "no one can say with any certainty". You've been an admin long enough to know that nothing's ever over til it's over. What I do know is that such motions do have a calming effect, if only by making people think twice before acting. This whole issue is highly divisive, particularly among admins, and already many have irreconcilably opposing and strong views about who is to blame. Even your own post, above, ignored the arguments on the case page and elsewhere that RE's action is, on the face of it, directly contrary to 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 received a massive double message about the fact that arbcom will now sit about the consequences of confusing rules and rulings made by arbcom. I mentioned in the request that the theme of Bach's cantata for yesterday is mercy. It's derived from the parable about the Mote and the Beam with the fundamental "dangers of judging others". I hope - but can only hope and need A LOT of good faith - that nobody will be sanctioned for misunderstanding confusing rules, and that the rules will be changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt and Gerda: Rather than posting about this here, why not identify the confusing rules, comment on them in /Evidence and offer alternatives in the /Workshop?  Roger Davies ^talk 07:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that obviously not even trained insiders understand them, and several users arrived at different interpretations, all in good faith. How would I know what is wrong? But I see that something is massively wrong, looking at the amount of discussion. - Additionally, I am one of the [find better word for victims] of arbitration, so not in a position to be objective. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Woman saying that in grief,- thank you for the term.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed at workshop. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement/Workshop#AE_Motion_modified. --B (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "Arbcom apologizes for its momentary lapse in judgment" made my day! See also, - I remember having asked if Arbcom ever apologizes to their [see above] and was told "That would be a cold day in hell". I miss Kiefer.Wolfowitz, among others, and found the wording "petty restrictions" in 2012 (my salad days, when someone told me he had been an arb and I had no idea what that was). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I miss Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs). I can't imagine something so preposterous getting passed when he was here. He gave some gravitas to this committee that is now completely lacking. --B (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You probably noticed that the "See also" above goes right to his talk, where we chatted about the "right thing" and the impossibility of justice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --B (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]