Eric Corbett made a comment on his talk page that could be construed as violating his GGTF tban [1]. A discussion took place at WP:AE, and admin Black Kite closed the discussion as no action per consensus. GorillaWarfare who was aware of the discussion at AE, wheel-warred by reverting Black Kite's actions by blocking Eric Corbett. This has been discussed at WP:AN, but wheel-warring allegations are to be brought directly to ArbCom. The specific points that appear to be violations are:

• Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action, and
• Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation

GorillaWarfare admitted that she was aware of the existing discussion and AE close here [2].

Black Kite stated that his administrator action in closing the AE without action was undone without consultation here [3].

It is clear that Eric Corbett could have been blocked for a tban, whether he was blocked or not is not the issue in this case. The issue is whether an ArbCom member/admin can unilaterally take their preferred action after deliberately ignoring an AE discussion, and abruptly undoing another admin's no-block close of that AE discussion without consulting either with him or others. GregJackP Boomer! 04:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23, I would agree, except that the admin instructions clearly state that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy. Here, GW reversed in substance an action taken by BK pursuant to AE. GregJackP Boomer! 04:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but disagree. See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and so on. GregJackP Boomer! 05:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf, I don't have a problem if this is changed to a motion for clarification, although I believe that GW's actions were clearly inappropriate, at the least the issue at AE needs further definition, see [11].

As to the numerous comments on whether this should be rejected or not, I'll leave that to the judgment of the committee members. I obviously think that it needs to be addressed. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: I concur with his comments, and he was much more articulate and clear than I have been. GregJackP Boomer! 17:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, this needs to be clarified: two well respected admins, Jehochman and Kevin Gorman have opposing views. See [12] and [13]. Only one of them can be correct. It is better to determine that here, rather than in countless debates at other locations. GregJackP Boomer! 22:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to hear from anyone who feels that Eric Corbett did not violate his topic ban.

Whether the closure of the AE discussion was legitimate seems to be somewhat up for debate. Whether the closure of a discussion at AE constitutes an "admin action" should certainly be clarified. Whether my action was wheel warring against a consensus at WP:AE is up to others to decide, but I've yet to see anyone who feels the discussion at AE was complete or representative of the issue at hand. I enforced sanctions that Eric Corbett unequivocally breached, and I've yet to see anyone deny that he breached the sanctions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, firstly, the title of this case is misleading. GW did not wheel-war under the definition, she simply - at worst - reversed my decision to take no action.OK, that's been fixed. The reason that I posted at AN was that there seems to be a paradox under the AE rules. If an administrator blocks someone under AE, they cannot be reversed by another admin without a community discussion. However if an administrator declines to block someone under an AE case, it appears they can then be blocked anyway - as has happened here. This to me seems illogical. However, it is something that should be discussed somewhere other than an ArbCom case, unless ArbCom wish to take it to issue clarification on the issue. Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my close, which I'll copy here for your pleasure:

My opinion and reading of consensus stands: GorillaWarfare did not wheel war, and neither did I, since my actions were based off the community's decision. Furthermore, the process of appealing arbitration enforcement blocks was, largely, followed. Yes, the letter of the law may have been slightly broken (request not filed by Eric himself), but the spirit was not. I regularly unblock editors who misfile their unblock requests, since the purpose of the unblocking policy is to get editors unblocked. It is not an end in itself. It is merely one of many means to an end.

I would like to re-iterate what I hinted at above in my close. The blocking policy is designed such that the default state for any editor is unblocked. This is why reversals of admin actions are permitted while re-reversals are not, so that users are not stuck blocked while everyone has a big argument over the merits of the block. The spirit of the blocking policy was not being followed in this case because Eric was being left blocked while deliberations were ongoing. This is not a fair scenario. Either appropriate sanctions supported by consensus must be placed, or else Eric needs to be unblocked. It was clear from the administrators' noticeboard discussion that there was definitely no consensus to block, and, indeed, there was a slight consensus to unblock. For that reason, I unblocked Eric.

Several people have been trying to point out to me that arbitration enforcement blocks cannot be overturned. However, when they fly in the face of consensus, they can be overturned. This was the case. Otherwise, any arbitration enforcement blocks are absolute, and the admin placing them has absolute power over them. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I am of the belief that one should do what is right, regardless of any potential personal loss. And thus, I have acted. And thus, I will be judged. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: As one of the two primary admins being accused of misconduct (the other being GorillaWarfare), am I not allowed some exemption to the 500 word rule? This isn't some simplistic "he violated 3RR" or "she wheel warred", so I need to be able to explain, in depth, the reasoning for my actions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming for the sake of argument that Black Kite's closure with no action was an administrative action, GorillaWarfare's block was not wheel warring. It was simply a "reversal" of another administrator's action. If a third administrator - or Black Kite - had undone GorillaWarfare's block, that would have been wheel warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP: I'm not going to spend much time on this. Enough time has already been spent at WP:AN. However, your quote has nothing to do with wheel warring. Equally important, that particular provision is generally applied when an administrator blocks an editor for violating an arbitration decision and another administrator unblocks the editor without the required consensus. I can't speak for all time as I don't have the historical reach of many, but I have never heard it being applied when an administrator decides no action is warranted against an editor and another administrator blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Could you or any arbitrator please clarify what the difference is between "take administrative action" and "initiate administrative action"? Along those same lines, can a non-administrator violate the injunction (it says "user")? Finally, assuming the motion passes, which seems likely, is someone going to notify all the users in the three forums of the terms of the injunction? That's a lot of people. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented to the filer on his talk page, but I believe while it could be seen by the community as a wheel war type action, the discussion so far has been of the nature of a procedural or administrative faux pas rather than a wheel war. I believe there's consensus on that. I recommended he work to argue the case that it came under wheel war on the respective noticeboards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wheel warring, but I don't think there was malice as much as a lack of clarity in policy, so I wouldn't ask for sanctions, only clarification. Only an admin can close an AE discussion, so it DOES require the tools to do this, even if not literally. Had she reverted the closing to allow more discussion, there wouldn't be much controversy at all, but instead, she essentially reverted an admin decision at AE (a "no block"), using the most powerful of admin tools we have, the block button. If closing wasn't an "admin action", we wouldn't require the tools to do it. Saying "admin action" is only when we literally push a button is an unnecessarily rigid read of policy.

Additionally, there is the question of whether Arbs should use the block tool to enforce sanctions they themselves put in place. I don't think it should be barred, but it should be a last resort, not a first option, particularly in a case like this where it is very arguable that WP:INVOLVED is an issue. As there was no immediate threat, it was unnecessary and ended up causing a tremendous amount of drama that could easily been avoided, thus obviously, NOT best practice. For these reasons, Arb should take the case, as there is no other venue to decide these issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Arbs: While traditionally "wheel warring" requires three actions, Arb enforcement doesn't allow a second action, so this may not technically fit the definition, the end result is the same. We don't have a term to describe an admin overturning an admin action out of process with only two moves. "Wheel warring" is the closest analogy we have, which is why it is being used, as it is equally improper and forbidden in both circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from friends of the editor notwithstanding, this was a clear-cut violation of a sanction the Arbitration Committee placed. He tested the limits of it and was rightfully blocked. Arbcom can either assert that they have the authority to enforce their decisions or let it continue to slip away. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This obviously wasn't wheel warring as defined at WP:WHEEL given that GW took an action which was contrary to that of Black Kite, and didn't "repeat a reversed administrative action" as is required to violate that policy. As such, there are no grounds for an arbitration case there. I'll leave the interpretation of the wording at WP:AE to editors more familiar with its history, but the context for the motion suggests it refers to blocks, etc, being overturned rather than the closure of discussion threads with a decision to take no action - especially in the case of bright line topic bans. I'd note that several editors have also raised serious concerns around Black Kite's closure of the AE thread in the discussion at WP:AN, which should also be taken into account if a case was opened here (especially given the history of admins giving Eric lots and lots of chances for behaviour which typically leads to sanctions, often involving overly-hasty actions). I don't think that an arbitration case is warranted, as this request is seriously premature given that the discussion at WP:AN remains under way (with what looks to be fairly broad support for GW's action) and focusing on the niceties of process at AE seems pointless at best. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think enough custard pies have been thrown at GorillaWarfare for now, I am happy the case title has been changed and I don't believe wheel warring by the definition there took place. That said, there are some underlying issues that should be looked at with conduct in Arbitration Enforcement. Also, the latest AN thread proves the community is completely and utterly incapable of managing Eric Corbett, and any sanctions against him result in a huge amount of disruption from third parties.

I think there is merit in revisiting the scope of the GGTF topic ban and restricting it to the Gender Gap Task Force as an on-wiki group only. Saying "I am offended by a workshop tackling inter-gender relationships at the next Wikimania" is civil, attacks no person and is fair comment, but that's what's got Eric a month off. Everyone says "yes, Eric violated the ban", nobody has said if the terms of the ban are actually sensible in hindsight and why they're required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Eric's statement was an infringement of AE and I don't see anyone really disputing it. The AE discussion hinged more on that it was a possible case of unnecessary harrassment of Corbett. In normal circumstances, such repeated indiscretion is met with escalating periods of blocking which don't even necessarily need an AE discussion; this only being out of the ordinary because it concerns Eric Corbett. The discussion wasn't given time to develop (certainly not for some of us in geographical opposite time zones) before it was closed and unless I have missed something, there was no actual formal closing statement. One admin overturning another without discussion is possibly inappropriate but whether this is a case of wheelwarring per WP:WHEEL needs clarification. I think there is no way out of this without some proper arbitration to clarify the rules, but without sanctions being applied to any of the involved admins. I recommend that the committee take the case because IMO such a situation is likely to occur again, and the community needs to be spared discussions ad nauseam. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just been pointed out to me on my tp that there was in fact a closure that was't there at the time I looked. I still maintain however that the discussion was closed prematurely and that it therefore might not have been representative of a consensus that could have developed with more time and time for people in other time zones to wake up and then find out about it and navigate to it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

In the real world when we have these type of fuck ups we usually see a resignation, here we just see an arb request. I haven't seen anything near contrition or I may have acted out of process from GW. This tells me that she is a lot more invested in this situation then she will admit to. The writing has been there on the wall for some time and in this case she exercised poor judgement. I doubt it raises to taking her bit but a clarification or codification of AE would be a better idea for the entire project. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are likely right User:Thryduulf however I do wonder how much her being a present arb member will sway the committee opinions? I have a question, or rather a series of them. Has there been a case on a sitting arb like this in the past? I am curious what has been done in the past to what might be a conflict of interest or a desire to "protect your own". It may be a rare occurrence but something like this may need to be seen by a different committee, like a reserve committee. This is likely the correct venue but one of the reasons I wouldn't try a formal venue because of my perception that it would be filled by sycophants and partisans. What processes protect the case assuming it is accepted and it's perceived neutrality. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may be somewhat involved as I was the initiator of a previous AE action with regards to Eric Corbett, however i am aiming to be as impartial as is humanly possible. I agree that he does good work but thisis not the issue that is at hand here. There was a clear cut violation of a topic ban that was in force. If we are going to allow breeches of topic basn by one author then for consistencies sake we must allow other editors to do so.

If we are going to allow editors to evade these then the objective of them is moot and they should all be rescinded. I can see no good of us treating editors in a different light purely on their content contributions. If we were to do so we would have a balance of power that is not collabarative but more akin to I've been here longer and therefore have more rights than you. I have seen blocks and bans handed out to several long term editors in my brief existence here and fell that although they may be a great loss the actions taken are for the greater good.

GorillaWarfares actions were from my understanding following the letter of the law (for lack of a better description). Yes they may have wished to reopen the AE section that had been swiftly closed (something which I feel also needs evaluating) but their actions had grounds in policy and this is the line we must judge everyones actions by. Was the policy followed or not if we descend into name calling and personal opinions on the matter then we are going to end up as a 2nd version of ANI. Amortias (T)(C) 11:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs Per Collect's statement is there a policy for arbs to be removed from a case where appropriate if they do not recuse themselves? Noting that it doesn't affect the case at hand. Amortias (T)(C) 14:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a list of editors involved posted here and pinged so they are all aware of injunction 2. I'd be happy to collate the list. Amortias (T)(C) 21:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, that's very helpful. Please do so.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Moved from #Motion (AE) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: list as above (all 110 of them) now here. Amortias (T)(C) 22:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) I don't see where GregJackP, as a non-party to these events, has standing to bring this request. As such it should be rejected.
• (2) Black Kite closed the AE request after a mere 4 hours without any uninvolved admin discussion, something I've never seen happen before. For that reason, I do not see it as a legitimate close, but instead as an expression of Black Kite's opinion. I don't doubt that he came by that opinion honestly, and by taking the opinions of the commenters into account, but AE is a place for admin discussion and action, not a discussion board, and issues there have always been settled by a consensus of uninvolved admins, informed by, but not dependent on, the opinions of the commenters.
• (3) Therefore, GorillaWarfare's decision to block Eric Corbett was not a refutation of an AE decision, it was a choice to take action where Black Kite had decided to take none. That's not wheel-warring, and it's also not in any respect disrespectful to an AE decision, since there was effectively no AE decision as defined by normal processes, simply a statement of non-action by a single admin.
• (4) As pointed out by GorillaWarfare, the clear community consensus is that Eric Corbett's statement was an obvious violation of his topic ban. This fact needs to be kept firmly in mind when evaluating this situation.
• (5) The committee should reject this request.
• (6) If so inclined, a very mild rebuke could be issued by motion to Black Kite for usurping the normal AE process and shutting down the possibility of a discussion between uninvolved admins leading to a consensus, which, had it been allowed to happen, would most probably have prevented all this drama.
• (7) A more substantial sanction could also be considered for GregJackP for unnecessarily extending that drama with this request. BMK (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the additional events Davewilde summed up well below, I suppose the Committee really has no choice but to accept this case. BMK (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Discretionary Sanctions, the arbitration policy meant to actuate the committee's non-consensus powers and which creates the arbitration enforcement board, there is no procedure for "close" of discussions on AE, so any "procedural objections" to a block arising after a "close", simply do not exist (if one is going to object to something on "procedure", you at least have to show where the procedure is). The Discretionary Sanctions also give discretion to admins, like GW, to enforce the committee's non-consensus powers, and do specify that only the blocked party may appeal (so in actual "procedure" any appeal must be denied). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Arbs forbidden to act as admins, that sounds like bureaucratic nonsense (and is also not supported in policy). To draw an imperfect analogy, judges enforce their own decisions all the time: so, an arb/admin enforcing -- not their own decision -- but the decision of the committee is perfectly reasonable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following-up on this, the idea that it would be "best practice" for arbs not to enforce arbitration committee decisions, does not seem to have been thought through - to the contrary, individually, as admins, they should regularly be cursed (or blessed) with enforcing committee decisions - that would be the best way to get good practical decisions because experience is the best teacher. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To further discuss "close:" Non-Admin's "close" things all the time, generally, as long as they don't need tools to affect their close - so, "closing" does not make it an admin action. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well. No Monty, for example non-admins can close things "keep", "no merge", "no action", "it would be best if you all just move along", " no consensus", etc., etc., etc. Your AE "closing" claim is just not founded in the actual policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reaper Eternal: Only the blocked may appeal an arbitration enforcement block. So, how can you unblock for "Per the (lack of) consensus" [23], or on any basis at all? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept the case: I hope that User:Reaper Eternal(RE) can be talked down as RE is in defiance of the "will of the community." The will of the community is explicit in the Blocking policy RE cites, that RE must not do what RE has done. See, the Unblocking section. RE is also in defiance of the will of the community in the the Consensus policy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reaper Eternal: Your table collapses upon itself, as you found no consensus in the discussion - including no consensus that the block was not a block for arbitration enforcement. So, you cannot claim any protection for your actions from the discussion, in either column. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC) NOTE THE TABLE HAS BEEN AMENDED WITH MORE COLUMNS - SO, IF YOU READ THIS READ IT IN THAT LIGHT.[reply]

I will note, that what User:Reaper Eternal (and a few others) fear about what someone called rogue admins is unfounded. There just needs to be a proper appeal (even though Reaper does not recognize what policy states a proper appeal is) and of course the rogue admin can also be booted, or otherwise taken to task in the proper forum (here). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to share experience as somebody who was previously often active at WP:AE. As concerns GorillaWarfare's actions, this request (which is a block appeal in disguise) should be rejected because it was not made by a user who claims to have been disadvantaged by her actions. Per WP:AC/DS, only sanctioned users themselves may appeal discretionary sanctions.

As concerns Black Kite's actions, I don't think that closing an AE thread is an admin action. After all, it does not involve the use of admin tools, or the exercise of any particular authority delegated to administrators. Also, the AE board is not intended as a forum in which discussions are held and consensus is formed (because no consensus is needed for AE actions), but rather only as a place in which to make enforcement requests for individual admins to act on, much like WP:AIV. Nothing in any applicable procedure (except with respect to appeals, which are not at issue here) requires that there be any discussion threads at WP:AE, or that any such threads are explicitly closed by anybody. "Closing" threads at WP:AE, in my experience, is merely a housekeeping practice done to signal that a decision has been made and that no other admins need attend to the request. But because abandoned threads are automatically archived, it is not necessary to close them.

If one were to consider that an individual administrator could, by "closing" an enforcement request, prevent colleagues from acting on it, that would be tantamount to granting any admin preemptive veto power over future enforcement actions by other admins. I cannot imagine that any such thing was intended by ArbCom in setting up the relevant procedures. However, such a veto, by way of invoking a "consensus" of (judging by the tone of their messages, not very uninvolved) non-admin bystanders that had no material significance for the enforcement request, seems to be what Black Kite attempted to accomplish with their closure of the thread at issue. I recommend that the Arbitration Committee examine whether Black Kite has, in doing so, attempted to disrupt the effective enforcement of an arbitral sanction, has attempted to act as an administrator while involved, or has otherwise not met the Committee's expectations in administrators participating in arbitration enforcement.  Sandstein  12:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reasonable number of active admins. I know that nowhere near all of them involve themselves with matters at AE, and that some only rarely make any admin action at all, but there is no actual need for an Arbitrator who was involved in a case to enforce anything that is raised there which relates to the same case. That it is billed as an admin action doesn't really change a thing, and GorillaWarfare is most definitely not a neutral in the specific instance that has led to this case/clarification request. I'm not even sure whether clerks should do so, but that rather depends on the cross-over that exists between the arbs' mailing list and that of the clerks - if there is none then there is no issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, we should be aiming for a separation of powers at AE, if only in the interests of transparency. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend this Request be rejected. Let's turn back the clock to the moment the AE report-in-question was made & this time, allow uninvolved adminstrators to comment in the page's appropiate section :) GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors that enforce sanctions against Eric Corbett have routinely been subjected to a barrage of personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, and calls for their desysopping. I believe there is a significant segment of the community that objects to the topic ban, and whose actions have been sabotaging its enforcement. The ArbCom should take one of two courses: Either (1) Lift Eric Corbett's GGTF topic ban if it concludes that the ban never should have been imposed in the first place, or (2) Take it upon itself to impose a block or site ban since this is the fifth violation in half a year. ArbCom needs to step up to the plate here. The status quo, where admins who enforce the topic ban are forced to run a vicious gauntlet of assaults, is disgraceful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing some points raised:

The primary issue is the famed zugzwang or "first mover" issue on all acts by administrators. This has been discussed a few times, but never with an actual solution. Such a solution well ought to be discussed and agreed upon. In the past, an action based upon actual discussion was considered to be made by multiple persons, and thus a reversal of a discussion based upon a consensus of some sort is, indeed, "wheel warring." Otherwise any admin should simply wait until the person who notes a consensus acts, and then can simply reverse that act - and buys an entire second discussion. The first discussion, where a consensus exists (even a consensus of "no action" is, by definition an "action" by consensus) should stand. I make no statement as to whether any consensus exists or existed in the matter at hand, only that the precedent is that a consensus is not an "act by a single administrator" which can lightly be reversed.

The second issue is whether a judge who issues an order and then acts to enforce that order is also allowed to hear the appeal about his actions. He isn't. The idea that "arbitrators are elected, therefore have a right to recuse or not on their own volition" is exceedingly weak. (" - every committee member individually received majority support from the community to hear all cases, regardless of participants, and trusted our judgement to recuse when we had a conflict of interest or otherwise felt we would not be neutral" is far off the mark here.) If an arbitrator has prejudged an issue (and blocking a person indicates such a prejudgment as far as I can tell) then logic demands that they recuse from appeals of their own personal acts.

I hold no position at all whatever about the affair at hand. Collect (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to some points raised about the validity of an AE close, any other action EXCEPT a no-action close would unambiguously constitute an admin action, and under the discretionary sanctions rules, could not be overturned without an active consensus at a noticeboard. To wikilawyer a bit, if the block had been 1 minute long, extending it to a month without consensus (or permission of the original admin) would have violated the DS rules, and subjected the extender to a likely de-sysop. An interpretation of DS policy that would honor a 1 minute block, by not a close declining action seems arbitrary and capricious. The committee should definitely do something here to clarify policy, and either unambiguously accept or reject the position that the close of an AE thread is an enforcement action on DS that may only be reversed by clear consensus. This is something that it only makes sense for the committee to do. Given the policy was unclear at best, and there is no actual dispute about the underlying DS violation, a full case may not be necessary, but a clarification motion should occur at a minimum. Monty₈₄₅ 14:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: yes, it is normally the case that non-admins can close discussions, and thus the closes are not strictly admin actions(I'd call them quasi-admin actions). But AE is one of the only places that privilege admins above non-admins when it comes to discussions. A non-admin can theoretically close a community imposed topic ban discussion at AN or AN/I and impose it on another editor. A non-admin categorically cannot impose a DS topic ban, either directly or by closing an AE discussion. So AE is just different here. Monty₈₄₅ 15:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: well this was a motion rather than a whole case, and this was a case request on a former arb that was made moot by a resignation. Of course, there's been others that an arb had been a named party as well if someone want to go through the archives. -- KTC (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't require a full blown case I wouldn't think. It does require some hefty clarification by motion though. Just look at the AN thread and some of the statements above. We have admins whose interpretation of AE policies are completely at odds. Is consensus required in any way? My understanding is that it isn't. In fact I've seen admins block against the consensus of other admins. More commonly, you couldn't even have a consensus between admins because only one admin has chimed in. What constitutes an admin action? Given the wording "explicitly or in substance" my interpretation would be that closing without action, something only an admin can do, would be an admin action and the subsequent block would overturning that action. Is that the case though? The best outcome here, in my opinion anyway, would be clarification on the policies. If it's determined the block was out of process GW should get an admonishment at most and the block should be rescinded. The last thing WP needs now is more fuel on this fire. Capeo (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a situation in which any one rogue administrator can unilaterally overturn an AE close, so long as they are blocking, and impose an unalterable block. ArbCom needs to clarify this matter. The secondary question here is whether Gorilla Warfare, with her out of process block, abused tools in a sanctionable way. ArbCom is the only mechanism for enforcement of proper administrative behavior. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Allanscottwalker and Beyond My Ken's reasoning entirely, save that I don't believe Arbcom needs to rebuke Black Kite for a good faith error. In short, this was not a violation of WP:WHEEL, and re-interpreting WP:INVOLVED to suggest an a current or former arbitrator cannot take administrative action on an editor who was subject to a case they adjudicated opens the door wide open to arguing that taking any administrative action itself makes one involved. Finally, to reinforce what a few others have said and which Eric's defenders have deftly buried, this was Eric's fifth violation of his arbcom enforced topic ban in six months. If this was any other editor, does anyone actually think "no action" is the proper result? Resolute 16:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare's action did not actually constitute wheel-warring, since she did not reinstate an administrative action which had already been undone. Therefore, I don't think this particular case should be accepted. --Biblioworm 16:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears that this case will be accepted, I will briefly lay out my views in bullet-point form:

• Black Kite's close of the AE case was premature.
• GorillaWarfare, however, rather than re-opening the case or consulting with Black Kite, unilaterally blocked Eric Corbett for a month.
• GorillaWarfare has been involved with the gender gap topic and Eric. (I can easily provide diffs for this.)
• GorillaWarfare denied that she had been involved with said topics.[35]
• I'm not denying that Eric may have violated his topic ban, because he actually may have, but in any case the alleged violation was much too doubtful and should have been reviewed by multiple uninvolved admins. A unilateral one-month block by an involved arbitrator was not appropriate.
• The case was then taken to AN.
• After a good deal of drama and a reversal of Adjwilley's closure, Reaper Eternal closed the discussion, with what seemed to be a slim consensus that the block was out of process.
• There was no wheel-warring involved in this case. Wheel-warring is defined as reinstating an administrative action that was already undone. GorillaWarfare did not actually do this by unilaterally blocking Eric despite the AE closure. The first actual reversal of an administrative action was Reaper Eternal's unblock, and even then she did not reinstate an already reversed administrative action.
• Finally, we would do ourselves good to consider the larger picture. Is all the trouble that arises from Eric-blocks really worth it? Simply banning him will also not solve anything, since that will probably result in one of the largest and most heated controversies since Essjay. --Biblioworm 17:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you voted "Accept" twice. ;) --Biblioworm 00:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a most unfortunate mess to be reading through, with many comments which are disappointing. I don't think saying something to the effect of "nobody is arguing it wasn't a violation" really cuts it.

I sought clarification from this Committee in relation to exactly this type of issue in February 2015 (click here) - and that was sparked after Sandstein's handling of a similar AE request). It also dealt with the question of whether it would be wheel-warring. Each and every arb was fully aware of it, and knew this was coming; yet an arb has effectively perpetuated the issue. Instead of assisting in resolving disputes, the involvement by an arb has recklessly caused more problems. And that too, at AE.

I think a number of questions, including those below, need to be considered as far as a case is concerned or what is to happen next. I have given my answers and comments to some; others I've left alone to answer sooner or to be answered later.

Black Kite (admin)

• Did his closure of the AE thread constitute an AE action? To name a couple of arbs, Salvio & DQ considered a closure of an AE request does constitute such an action when we discussed this at my clarification request. Otherwise, any uninvolved editor would be able to close an AE request.
• What is a valid closure of an AE request? Is it from a consensus of AE admins or after an action is determined by an AE admin individually? Which of the two was this particular closure? If a consensus was required and there was no consensus or it was closed prematurely, then the closure needed to be overturned. If there was a consensus or if it was enough for an admin to determine that no action was needed, the closure was valid.
• Is he INVOLVED as far as the blocked user is concerned?
• Was the closure appropriate (with no action) in the circumstances of what was said at the thread, the time which had elapsed since the request was made, and the level of seriousness (however high or low) of the violation? This may not necessarily be answered here right here, given it is partially under discussion at AN.

GorillaWarfare (arb & admin)

• Was she aware of the AE thread and its closure? Yes.
• Was she aware of the vulnerability at AE in relation to this issue? Yes - she was a sitting arb at the time of my clarification request.
• Did she consult with the other users who discussed the matter at AE about her objection with the closure? Or did she consult with the admin who closed the thread about her intended reversal of the AE non-action?
• Was there a pressing need for her to use force to take the action that she did? No, it was inappropriate - and especially so for an arbitrator who should be leading by example in an arbitration-related matter (even if not a committee action). Due caution and restraint was not exercised.
• Could she have re-opened the AE discussion boldly, or sought to re-open the AE discussion?
• Was the unnecessary drama and disruption which resulted from the way she approached this situation predictable? Yes, this isn't as new as some suggest. It was her deliberate choice; she knew exactly what she was doing.
• Does the community hold arbitrators to higher standards when they perform actions on Wikipedia even as an admin? Yes.
• Were concerns regarding her strong feelings on the topic and user raised previously? Yes - I think it went to the point that a recusal request was raised during the gender gap case. Is she INVOLVED as far as the gender gap topic is concerned or the blocked user is concerned?
• Should she recuse - and refrain from taking any further admin actions in relation to the topic and this particular user? Is she open to resolving the concerns moving forward, or does she wish to behave as rigidly as certain other admins at AE have done previously?

Given the above, a case seems to be needed; the clarification at my last request seems to be unknown by most of the users commenting here. If the committee prefers the community is to have a discussion on aspects of this matter or the process which should be in place, it can by motion organise an RfC first (or after the case if it wants). A committee-organised RfC may help ensure it is not hijacked by the type of inappropriate commentary seen at this case request, at AN threads relating to this, at user talk pages relating to this, and elsewhere. It can also ensure there is a structure to the RfC so that the result is (hopefully) meaningful or beneficial to the project, broadly construed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Black Kite has been quite outspoken in regards to Eric Corbett in the past (link refers to [36]), I am concerned about his closure of the thread. With that being said, I do not think that arbitrators should be performing enforcement in most cases, but it is more of a "best practices" matter to me. --Rschen7754 17:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request should be declined. I opened and read "Information for administrators processing requests" at WP:AE several times now.

First bullet: If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.

I don't believe Black Kite was prepared to mete out a ban.

Second bullet (partial): ... administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy... (emphasis mine)

While doing nothing might be considered an "action," the action in question was not done "pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy" nor was it "explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy." Consensus among comments - in the span of four hours - was that EvergreenFir was engaging in "harassment." There was NO discussion of whether or not an ArbCom remedy had been violated, which is what AE is for. Lightbreather (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved in the matter. I just got to know about it because I watch WP:AE because of my involvement in WP:ARBPIA. 2 points

• Regarding the point that WP:AE closing is not an "admin" matter, it is routine to reopen WP:AE discussions when another admin has closed it, to offer different viewpoints. User GW was certainly aware of the WP:AE closing, and she could have reopened it, if it seemed to her that the measure was inadequate.
• Let's assume for the moment that Eric Corbett actually violated the remedy. Does it mean that he should be blocked without any discretion whatsoever? There is plenty of precedent in WP:ARBPIA where one person breaks WP:1RR, which can happen even accidentally, the other person either makes a request at WP:AE or makes a comment on the talk page. Even veteran users are unclear as to whether WP:1RR is broken. The other person can accept that WP:1RR is broken and self-reverts, (sometimes self-reverts even without accepting it) and that is the end of the matter.

I find myself in agreement with Black Kite. What is the point of WP:AE if anyone can simply ignore what goes on there? Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

..Personally I don't think there was any wheel warring - BK closed the AE report as no result and GW blocked him anyway... so had anyone reverted the block/GW then a case could've been brought forward ... But there was no unblocking-wars.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind the Committee of the complaints I raised in the GamerGate case regarding Black Kite's administrative conduct, particularly acting as an admin while WP:INVOLVED, which has continued after the conclusion of the case. Also reminding the Committee of GorillaWarfare's "unrecusal" in the GamerGate case itself despite her very strong views as noted in the dispute on her talk page. There has been similar controversy over her participation in the Lightbreather case. Neither of these admins seem to have improved their behavior since the concerns I raised during that case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd urge the committee to accept the case, even if it's framed as a sort of RfC solely for the purposes of identifying and rectifying grey areas, loopholes, points of contention etc that can be used to support or oppose Arbitration Enforcement. The fact the policy, as it currently stands, would have allowed me to block Eric for 1 minute and for nobody else to be able to impose a longer block makes a mockery of the whole system, as does the ability for all but 1 administrator to refuse to take action. AE as is really is an atrocious process resulting in some pretty abysmal decisions. Please, put it out of its misery and give us the opportunity to make something better. Nick (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement actions, as in closing a discussion with a particular result, are never to be undone without further discussion and consensus. ArbCom has said this in no uncertain terms. I think GorillaWarfare made a mistake, but the error was not wheel warring. It was interference with arbitration enforcement. The proper action would be to question BlackKite or to reopen the discussion as improperly decided and then see if other administrators would agree to change the result. On Wikipedia it is sometimes necessary to exhibit great patience to get a correct result that sticks. I oppose sanctioning anybody over this matter, and do not think a case is needed, so long as GorillaWarfare expresses an understanding of how her action destabilized the arbitration enforcement regime. Parties to a request for enforcement should not be able to shop around for the most strict administrator who will apply a sanction when others will not (and as Kevin says below, they shouldn't be able to shop around for the least strict). If a discussion does not produce a clear result and is closed prematurely, it can be reopened.

As for Eric, I think we need to construe things as leniently as possible when an editor is on their own talk page. Nobody needs to watch Eric's talk page unless they want to. On an article or project talk page, enforcement should be stricter, and on somebody else's talk page, hostile comments directed at the talk page owner should receive the sternest enforcement. Applying this principle, it would be better to ignore the comment Eric made. Working against Eric is his own admission that he's baiting a block. But, as they say, a smart fish doesn't take the bait. Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an AE request with a sanction or with a sanction of zero are logically identical. If the sanction is found to be zero, there is no logical reason that the close should be overturned by any admin who comes along and feels that the sanction should be >0. No more so than a close of >0 sanction should be overturned by an admin who thinks 0 is the correct sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 03:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In summary:

• Reaper Eternal should have all of his advanced privileges stripped by motion for intentionally and knowingly violating one of arbcom's most well accepted red-lines. Reaper knew full well what he was doing, and the ordinary penalties for doing it He may be a good checkuser, but the judgement he has demonstrated here demands that his CU and sysop bits to be stripped, possibly to be restored later by their appropriate processes.
• Eric's original block duration should be reinstated ASAP, because it was removed out of process. If he wants to appeal it, he can appeal it.
• A 'no action' close - particularly a rapid one - is not an 'enforcement decision' per policy. If it were, anyone could find a friendly admin to rapidly close ae sections about them thus dodging sanctions or people could collaborate to quickly file a AE with an admin arranged irresponsibly off wiki to enforce the harshest punishment possible. If this happened, we could deal with it with a lot of unnecessary drama and desysop cases.
• Black Kite deserves a trout for closing the AE so early, when so few admins and so many of Eric's friends had chimed in. I had certainly not had a chance to chime in.
• Gorilla may deserve a minor trout. If Arb majority view (and I view this as a serious error) is that a no action AE close is an 'enforcement action' then any action taken against GW should take in to fact that that was not at all established when she acted (whereas Reaper knew exactly what he was doing,) that Black Kite had left the AE thread open for an abnormally short period of time, and the fact that she was in fact enforcing an arb decision with appropriate block length. At best she should be minorly admonished by motion. She could have reopened the AE thread, but enforcing the violation (that everyone agrees is a violation) of Eric's topic ban is well within her power. In no circumstances should GW's penalties, if any, approach Reaper Eternal's.
• Issues regarding AE policy - like the appropriate length of time a section should be open and other revisions - can be handled by the community.
• RGloucester behaved in a significantly problematic way. For word count reasons, I'll share my description of what I think he did wrong for the evidence phase. For word counts, not responding to his accusations here.
• Adjwiley deserves admiration for being willing to even consider closing the ANI thread, and has already made the wise choice not to shorten the block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Arbs supporting the idea that a no action close is an enforcement decision - you realize you're shooting yourself in the foot and greatly limiting the utility of AE, as outlined above? People can shop friendly (or unfriendly) admins, and then get the decisions they want. If a No action close is an 'enforcement decision' in the meaning of policy, it's not at all clear that even reopening the discussion would be permissible. This would allow massive manipulation of AE. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Having seen that there's now a majority to accept, I would highly encourage all arbs to resolve this as much as possible by motion, rather than full case. Most if not all can certainly be fixed with motions Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Reaper: I think that his explicit decline to self-revert his unblock of Eric, despite the fact that even poorly formed AE blocks require consensus to overturn that is lacking here and despite the fact that this was clearly an AE block makes it even more clear that he needs to be stripped of his advanced tools. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN made it clear there are a number of issues that need addressing:

1. How does admin discretion come into play if admins are a part of the community's inability to independently resolve an issue?
2. Similarly, what is INVOLVED in regards to admin actions on AE filings?
3. What is considered "admin action" on AE?
4. What does an ideal AE course of events look like for filing with merit?
5. How should tban violations be handled if the violation is minor?
6. How should tbans and sanctions for them be viewed?

Part of the fundamental problem is that admins typically use their discretion when addressing problem behavior, but this discretion is problematic with respect to tban enforcement when they have strong opinions counter to the arbcom's ruling. If they oppose the sanctions, they will look for ways to avoid enforcing them. The same can be said for the reverse that someone may look for excusing to mete out blocks. We have mechanisms in place to review such poor blocks, but any way to review lack of action.

Moreover, arbcom is used when the community cannot resolve problems. This means that ANI and admins themselves were unable to deal with an issue effectively. So how can we expect admins to adequately handle AE requests if they themselves are also so polarized unless they are directed to simply enforce as in Arbitration Enforement the arb com remedies? Admins should only use discretion and consider community input to determine if the alleged violation is indeed a violation and was done so knowingly and intentionally. Nothing more. (Note, only referring to dealing with tbans from cases, not discretionary sanctions).

If anyone cares to read the rest of my thoughts on this (lol I know you don't), see here.

AE blocks are not in response to the single action, they're in response to the pattern of actions. In this sense, blocks are not quite punitive or preventative. They are meant to stop the pattern of behavior. They prevent further ongoing disruption but also discourage continuation of that disruption by use of negative sanctions (blocks).

Thus I encourage arbcom to consider and clarify the purpose of AE, its ideal protocol for admin responses to AE filings, and the purpose and nature of tbans.

• Given Reaper Eternal's unblock of Corbett, this needs arbcom attention. There was not certainly not clear and substantial consensus.
• Question for AGK - If BK's action is "admin action", do you see this case as investigating if it was an appropriate action?
• @AGK: Thank you! Follow up question: will all those who this applies to be notified of the injunction individually? I imagine that some folks from AN might not be following things here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Can you add during the duration of the proceedings or something similar to the end of your second point in the motion? Else it sounds like they may never take or initiate actions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. AGK [•] 21:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Moved from #Motion (AE) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I request the committee to look at an aspect of AE that troubles me: a report without a talk to the other user before. A talk hoping for a revert has been done, and I suggest to request it if not done, before comments even begin, hoping that the user in question will revert or modify the edit in question. The Sunday sermon in music is about mercy.

Further reading:

• Read a book
• Take a stroll

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A review of Eric's block log clearly shows there was no wheel-warring. That was defined long ago as the 3rd act. He was blocked and unblocked. Whether he violated the GGTF topic ban with a comment on his talk page is beyond my knowledge. However, being taken to AE for a comment on his talk page might be the basis for an IBAN between the filer and Eric. Whether that can be handled through AE DS or needs a case here is up to the committee. Unwatching Eric's talk page might be good for everyone. Perhaps Eric can be the first editor that has full protection on his own space so he can concentrate on content and avoid comments unrelated to articles he works on. --DHeyward (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the case request was opened, Adjwilley closed the WP:AN discussion saying that given no consensus they were shortening the block length to 1 week, but crucially did not immediately implement this. After comments on their talk page - User talk:Adjwilley#Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions - including from 2 arbitrators Courcelles and Euryalus, they reverted the close after it was pointed out to them that they could not modify an arbitration enforcement sanction without "clear and substantial consensus". Reaper Eternal has now reclosed the discussion and unblocked Eric Corbett saying that as there was no consensus and the default state is to be unblocked they have unblocked.

I think that given the latest developments the committee is going to have to look at the whole run of events both to clarify areas that are unclear and decide if anyone should be sanctioned. This could include the original comment by Eric Corbett (was this a violation of the Topic Ban and should it be sanctioned?), the original closure by Black Kite (was this an acceptable closure?), the subsequent blocking by GorillaWarfare (was this allowed given Black Kite's closure as no action and if not would it have been acceptable for them to reopen the WP:AE thread?) and finally the unblocking by Reaper Eternal (was this ok without "clear and substantial consensus"?) At the very least the committee needs to give clarity for the future to try and reduce the likelihood of similar events happening again. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Reaper Eternal's recent unblocking, it looks like he is unfamiliar with the standards set out for reversing another administrator's Arbitratation Enforcement action. A lack of consensus for the block at AN/I (note, not a clear and substantial consensus to overturn to the block) is insufficient grounds to reverse an AE block.

AE blocks (and other enforcement actions taken under Discretionary Sanctions) are afforded this special status precisely because they are applied in areas where interminable and inconclusive noticeboard discussions have previously been tried and failed repeatedly to resolve problems. Allowing Reaper Eternal to overturn a friend's block based on yet-another-interminable-and-inconclusive-AN/I-thread directly undermines the purpose and function of the entirely DS framework.

I hope that Reaper Eternal was simply unaware of the strictness of the rules that apply to AE/DS blocks – or failed to fully think through the consequences of trying to bend those rules so far, or to appreciate why the standards for an AE/DS appeal are as high as they are – and that he will withdraw or amend his actions accordingly. (Or, if someone else does it first, that he will acknowledge going forward that he made a mistake in overturning another admin's AE/DS action this way.)

Failing that, Reaper Eternal should be barred from acting or participating in the the AE/DS process in any administrative capacity. ArbCom should further consider whether or not he remains fit to retain adminship and other advanced privileges. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, as a procedural matter I think that the bulk of the issues presented can be addressed by motion without requiring a full case. The ArbCom can re-affirm its provisions regarding the application of discretionary sanctions (especially that overturning an enforcement action requires a clear, active, and substantial consensus of uninvolved admins, and that enforcement isn't paralyzed or defeated by a deadlocked noticeboard thread) and remind the admin corps that appeals are to be directed to the ArbCom. Depending on Reaper Eternal's response to these proceedings, his situation can be dealt with by admonishment, restriction, or desysopping, again by motion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: You said, "Whether the closure of a discussion at AE constitutes an 'admin action' should certainly be clarified."

No, there is nothing that needs to be clarified. The policy says, "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy ... ."

It does not say "admin action" - it says "any action" and, "any action" means "any action", not "any block". Believing that the wrong decision was made does not give you the authority to overturn the close. --B (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clear from the WP:AN discussion that the community is not of one mind about these issues, and that the issues are highly contentious. Consequently, I think that the Committee should accept something like this case, in some manner, in order to resolve the questions for the community going forward. It seems to me that there are really two very separate groups of issues here, however. The first group of issues concerns the original talk page comment by Eric Corbett. Obviously, ArbCom and the community have been here many, many times before, and potentially could be here in the future many, many times again. We have abundant data proving that the community splits into opposing camps that cannot agree whenever issues about Eric come up. In this particular instance, I don't think what he said was terribly disturbing as these things have gone, but it was obviously a violation of the existing sanctions, and an obvious attempt to test the waters to see whether it would be seen as a sufficiently serious violation to trigger a block. And it wasn't provoked by someone trying to get him in trouble. Would Wikipedia lose more by losing a long-time content builder, or by maintaining a reputation as a place that isn't always welcoming to female editors? The community can't agree on an answer – you should. The second group of issues concerns administrative actions: what is or isn't wheel warring, and what is the role of ArbCom itself in AE? Personally, I think that everyone acted in good faith but with a lack of procedural clarity, and that GorillaWarfare has been beaten up on unfairly, but that's just my opinion and the Committee needs to clarify all of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of Arbcom desysoping the angry acid admin mentioned in reaper eternal's statement by motion? Someone who says such things is clearly not the sort of person who should have any form of community trust put in them. Being angry is no excuse. How are editors meant to feel comfortable contributing to the encyclopaedia knowing that there's an admin who relishes in such thoughts and that this sort of thing is tolerated (to the extent that their identity hasn't been disclosed) on admin IRC channels? Bosstopher (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two most important points that needs deciding above everything:

1. Should WP:AE requests be open for a minimum period, to garner sufficient views from enforcing admins?

2. When a WP:AE request is closed with no action, what opportunities are available for appeal of that decision? Is an appeal even necessary, and overturning of that decision is then without consequence?

I feel any investigations of conduct are not necessary, as there does not appear that clear cut misconduct has taken place.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved (not WP:Involved) with the EC case for some time now with the agenda of killing drama. When I can I try to stamp out fires before they spread too far, and my primary goal has been to prevent the time-wasting and rancorous discussions at community noticeboards and Arbcom, with the associated blocks, retirements and desysops that so often accompany them.

Regarding my closure of the WP:AN discussion, my interpretation of the rules is that a WP:AN discussion with such broad participation completely overrides Black Kite's closure of the short WP:AE discussion, and absolutely overrides the actions of a single admin (GorillaWarfare). 50 admins collectively saying "no consensus for this block" means "no consensus for this block". Per my reading of the discussion, there was consensus that GorillaWarfare's block was out of process, and I note that Reaper Eternal found the same thing. I didn't find consensus to unblock Eric, but by the same measure I didn't find consensus to leave Eric blocked. Because of this I used some discretion to set the block to a more reasonable time in hopes that it would deescalate the situation. (Closing and leaving the block in place would have been unfair and would have resulted in more drama; closing and unblocking would have rubbed a lot of people wrong and would also result in more drama, so I split the difference.) I intentionally waited before implementing the close, and the ensuing conversation on my talk page convinced me that moving forward with the modified block would not be worth the drama, so I reversed my close. I still believe it would have been a valid close, and I believe that Reaper Eternal's close is just as valid, even if it didn't result in a net decrease in drama.

For this case request, I don't believe that any action needs to be taken other than perhaps making small clarifications in the rules for AE. All the users involved in this case have already gotten all the "punishment" they deserve.

• Eric Corbett got blocked for the mild but intentional infringement of his topic ban, and the length of the (shortened) block was proportionate to the severity of the offense.
• Black Kite got some scrutiny and some trouts for their early closing of the AE noticeboard discussion. I don't think they will make that mistake again.
• GorillaWarefare got scrutiny and some trouts for their out-of-process block of EC. I don't think they will make that mistake again.
• Reaper Eternal is getting a sufficient amount of blowback from unblocking Eric. Desysopping them would only be shooting Wikipedia in the foot.
• Wikipedia has punished itself enough...I suspect the man/woman-hours already wasted on this number in the hundreds. If you accept this case, please skip the evidence/workshop phases and just clarify the rules as others have suggested. We don't need a GGTF 2.0 case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I have no involvement in this matter, and am not concerned with the particulars of the case. In response to the allegations by a Mr Gorman, I will make my response simple. I do not know what "wheel-warring" is. I did not think it was appropriate for Mr Gorman, an involved party in the discussion with strong opinions, to remove another administrator-in-good-standing's well-written assessment of consensus and closing statement, which he used as justification for an unblocking, without first having gone through a closure review. Therefore, I reverted per WP:BRD. In fact, given that these events were already being developed in an arbitration case, it was almost certain that the matter would be dealt with here, making such an overturning disruptive to the process. I do not think that Mr Gorman's statement about "policy violations" makes much sense. Whether the closing statement was a "policy violation" or not is not for Mr Gorman to decide unilaterally. It is a matter for the Committee or the community to decide. I imagine that the Committee will make that determination here. Mr Gorman's removal of the closing statement was nothing more than an attempt to throw a spanner in the works, and also to force his own interpretation of policy through without regard of the consensus in the discussion or of the other ongoing processes. Finally, I find my addition to this case as a party both offensive and misleading. Mr Gorman is muddying the waters, has threatened me on my talk page, and shown behaviour that is unbecoming of administrator. Regardless of other matters pertaining to this case, of which I am not familiar, I imagine that Mr Gorman should be stripped of his rank for threatening the citizenry and for attempting to issue diktats without the standing to do so. RGloucester — ☎ 19:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr Gorman has continued to push his view on everyone else, as it seems is his habit. I would like to once again remind my colleagues here that Mr Gorman, as an involved party in this matter, should not've unilaterally overturned the AN closure, and should've left it to the Committee. His continued campaign in this matter warrants note, and should, as I said above, result in the immediate stripping of his rank. RGloucester — ☎ 20:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll follow this advice, but you really should. Don't make a case out of this (drama, drama, drama), but rather pass a resolution as follows:

1) For conduct which lacks the good judgement, decorum, and neutrality expected of administrators, all named parties who are administrators are and referred to WP:RFA immediately for reconfirmation, and will lose their administrator status if they fail to pass. 2) The arbitration committee is instructed to avoid creating situations in which a user under scrutiny will almost certainly find themselves brought to WP:AE on a regular basis, and admonished for failing to do this in the recent past.

For what it's worth, I am about as uninvolved in this situation as it's possible to be. The Malleus account was registered after I had more or less left the project, and the GGTF case was over before I returned earlier this year. I couldn't be more uninvolved if I were posting from DOOP Headquarters.

I have three concerns about the matters related to this case:

1. The Arbitration Enforcement process: This whole creaking edifice was built in my absence, and looking at it with fresh eyes makes its serious deficits abundantly clear. As currently constructed and interpreted, it's effectively a decision ratchet; escalation from a no-action decision is always allowed and de-escalation after action has been taken is always forbidden. Minimally, clarification on the status of a no-action decision is needed here; preferably, the process should be refined to reduce this asymmetry.
2. The effect of this incident on efforts to address the gender gap: This is really outside the scope of this case, but I believe critical to keep in mind as the broader context to all of this internal wikiprocess-wonking. The way Eric's comment has been handled is in my opinion destructive to overall efforts to address the gender gap. It plays directly to the insulting stereotype of "feminists" as hypersensitive drama-mongers ready to pounce on any minor perceived transgression. The topic ban itself, as an empirical matter, manifestly does not reduce disruption and should be refined to a more reasonable scope that doesn't invite this kind of overreaction.
3. Kevin Gorman's reaction to Reaper's unblock: Reaper made a thoughtful closing statement explaining a decision intended to de-escalate a volatile situation. Kevin - who is clearly involved - responded by escalating still further, apparently believing his interpretation of "policy violations" to supersede this already existing request for clarification on the very policy he was invoking. His repeated "Nice admin bit, shame if something happened to it" posts (eg [46], [47], [48], [49] though RG isn't an admin, plus his statement here) were in very poor taste and reflect poor judgment about the purpose of process as a means of avoiding rather than perpetuating disruption. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]