Case clerks: L235 ( Talk) & Jim Carter ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Salvio giuliano ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
![]() | The Workshop phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Where I come from: uninvolved, and sleeping through the initial filing of an AE request that brought us here, I left a statement in the case request (copied to evidence), and Hope on the evidence talk. I am not an admin nor do I want to be one. I am restricted by the arbitration committee and was on the receiving end of AE several times. I tried to educate our founder but only once ;)
I dream of a Wikipedia where AE is not needed and offer small steps in the direction. Imagine you see something I did which you think breaches my restrictions.
I read today "If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith, we could dispense with some of the drama ..." For the record: I recently mentioned the waste of time for arbitration-related edits on my talk, - back to expanding an article for GA. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
2)
3)
Note: Moved from below by User:Penwhale
Item #2 of the "AE" motion is modified to apply only to users who are named parties in this case. Arbcom apologizes for its momentary lapse in judgment in coming up with this ridiculously vague and broad motion, which forces well-meaning users who have nothing whatsoever to do with the dispute to walk around on eggshells in order to make sure that nothing they do indirectly affects a named party.
Item #2 of the "AE" motion is modified to apply only to users who are named parties in this case. Arbcom and specifically Roger Davies apologizse for the abrasive and draconian [1] motion, which forces well-meaning users who have nothing whatsoever to do with the dispute to walk around on eggshells in order to make sure that nothing they do indirectly affects a named party.
Pedro : Chat 21:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee vacates paragraphs (2) and (3) of the injunction which was enacted when this case was opened, and enacts the following in its place:
2)
3)
4)
1) The purpose of Arbitration Enforcement authority is two fold. First, to provide "a fast-track procedure to tackle misconduct within defined topic areas and/or to prevent disputes from within the defined topic area overflowing freely into other areas of the encyclopedia". (Taken from the old discretionary sanctions language, but dropped DS to apply it to all enforcement authority) Second, it allows action to be taken in certain highly contentious areas designated by the committee, where the community is unable to come to consensus.
2) Arbitration Enforcement Authority allows action in the absence of consensus, but is not designed to permit action contrary to consensus where consensus has been found.
3) It is rarelynot appropriate to act contrary to a close of a discussion that purports to finds consensus while the close stands. If the close is wrong, the proper course of action is to contact the closer and request the close be withdrawn, and failing that, to seek review of the close by the community.
4) Discussions at Arbitration Enforcement are unusual in that they weigh the opinions of uninvolved Admins more heavily than non-admins, which is contrary to practice in all other discussions. Allowing non-admins to close a discussion decided by the opinions of admins would be unreasonable, and admin only closes has long been the practice at AE.
5) Because only an Admins can close a discussion at Arbitration Enforcement, the close of an AE discussion is an admin action.
6) When an Admin rejects a request to enforce under AE/DS, that rejection is itself an enforcement action, and may not be overturned without consensus. (Inaction, refusing to take action oneself, or referring a matter elsewhere are all different from a rejection of the request)
"Only involved admins"? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 23:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC) @ EvergreenFir: Doh. Thx. -- DHeyward ( talk) 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Dheyward. What we need is clear process for logging and somehow accountability of users who violate and admins who give "free pass" - whatever they do admins should not obstruct the binding remedy, nor suggest what they do is in any sense a free pass (logged advice, warning or clearance notation, maybe). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 19:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is either necessary or desirable. We set up AE as a way to encourage administrators to enforce arbitration remedies. If it's fallen short of the purpose, it needs to be reformed. We certainly should not be encouraging the current trend towards interminable talk and watered down enforcement. If some administrators make mistakes or some remedies have undesirable effects, deal with those issues without discouraging admins from using their discretion in enforcing remedies. -- TS 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Not within the scope of the case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1) Anyone who has paid even a little attention to the inner workings of Wikipedia over the last seven or eight years knows that Eric Corbett/Malleus has become the most contentious individual on this entire project. He is an issue unto himself and there are strong feelings from both his allies and detractors regarding his overall value to the project. This has led, time and again, to explosions of infighting, incivility, blocking, unblocking, reblocking, ANI threads, multiple arbcom cases, and ragequits. Somehow, what to make of this one user appears to be the most intractible problem on Wikipedia, more so even than the ethnic, religious, and political feuds that spur most arbcom cases.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated. 1) Anytime there is an arbitration enforcement thread, ANI discussion, block, or other such discussion or action related to Eric Corbett, special rules shall apply for a period of 96 hours afterward, in a sort of "free-fire zone"
|
1) Reverting an AE close where no further action was takenis not a violation of an 'enforcement action,' though any admin to do so may not take admin action based on the results of the same section
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) Until this case occurred and is resolved, there was no consensus or obvious answer as to whether a 'no action' close at AE was considered an 'enforcement action' in terms of arb policy.
3) At the time Reaper Eternal reversed it, GorillaWarfare's action was clearly an AE action, subsequent to rules about requiring strict consensus to overturn.
4) When Reaper Eternal reversed Gorillwarfare's AE action, there was clearly insufficient consensus to justify overturning an AE block
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Hatting proposal to consider Eric's block as outside of case scope. (Clerk Action)- Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 14:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1) As a proper AE block, Erics's original block length should be restored
|
2) With the motion of amnesty granted, this entire case should be dismissed
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
Eric's conduct not in scope. (Clerk Action) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1) At the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF arbitration case, Eric Corbett was "indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic". Its scope is described in a motion of 7 February 2015. Eric Corbett has been blocked for violating the topic ban five times, the latest of which is the locus of dispute in this case. In all the previous blocks, the enforcing administrator has been subjected to intense criticism, in several cases escalating to personal attacks and accusations of bad faith.
|
1) Enforcing ArbCom decisions is already a hard task. All users are reminded that although disagreements may arise, resorting to personal attacks, or making allegations of bad faith (such as having a personal agenda) are unacceptable and serve only to exacerbate the situation.
1) Discussions at Arbitration Enforcement are unusual in that they weigh the opinions of uninvolved Admins more heavily than non-admins, which is contrary to practice in all other discussions. Allowing non-admins to close a discussion decided by the opinions of admins would be unreasonable, and admin only closes has long been the practice at AE.
2) Admins reviewing enforcement requests must strive for neutrality regarding all parties. When reviewing enforcement requests, admin discretion should be exercised in evaluating the alleged violations only.
Probably not a great idea in this context, at least in its present form. Parties subject to arbitration enforcement have already been warned, at a minimum, of the possibility of sanctions. Their past activities should be considered in deciding on the effectiveness of any sanction. Perhaps there is a core of truth here that could be expressed better than this current proposal. -- TS 19:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
3) When evaluating enforcement requests, parties' past conduct and sanctions should be considered alongside the current alleged violations. Any enforcement decisions should address patterns of behavior in addition to individual alleged violations.
Much better. I think this is a good general principle. -- TS 19:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Enforcement requests with merit should only be closed if (1) there is consensus between at least three uninvolved admins or (2) the case has been open for at least 48 hours. Closure of the case, with or without sanctions, would considered arbitration enforcement. Closures outside of (1) and (2) (e.g., when emergency action is considered warranted) would be considered admin action and can be reversed by any uninvolved admin. Upon such a reversal, (1) and (2) must be adhered to.
Now, on the merits, I disagree, because this change would, in my opinion, limit the flexibility of the process and its ability to react quickly to disruption in contentious areas, which are two of the reasons we needed such a process in the first place. Personally, I'd prefer to rely on the common sense and reasonableness of our admins, by telling them to feel free to act, but to also be careful not to give the impression they are trying to obstruct the enforcement of our decisions. After all, let's remember that AE has been active for years now and there only have been a couple of problematic cases so far. I'd say that relying on their common sense has been the right approach... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Closures outside of (1) and (2) (e.g., when emergency action is considered warranted) would be considered admin action and can be reversed by any uninvolved admin. Upon such a reversal, (1) and (2) must be adhered to.I think this would address your concerns.
common sense and reasonablenessare what got us in this mess. This could be limited to "controversial" issues perhaps, or even just Corbett. I find myself agreeing with Sandstein's comments on the evidence page about this. How can we prevent a recurrence of this? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
to rely on the common sense and reasonableness of our admins, (and for the record I think that's the right attitude to take), but that will only work if there are consequences for those who get it wrong. Otherwise, AE will just descend into the same farce that AN and ANI all-too-regularly resemble. That means sanctions for Black Kite, for hastily closing a discussion claiming 'consensus' where there was, realistically, none; GorillaWarfare, for unilaterally overturning an AE action outside the proper process; and, probably Reaper Eternal, for likewise overriding an AE action without the requisite consensus. I think RE is the least to blame, here; there is at least a reasonable argument to be made that a wide-ranging discussion was had at AN and consensus reached, though whether it reaches the level of a clear, substantial and active consensus is rather more dubious. Exactly what sanctions could have been levied against a sitting arbitrator is beyond my knowledge, but sanctions were necessary if any good was to come of this.
@ Seraphimblade: Would people be able to appeal a closure of no action then? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 02:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
2) AE requests may be closed by any uninvolved admin after weighing the merits of the request the comments by others. If another uninvolved admin strongly objects to the closure, they may reopen the AE request for further discussion. A reopened AE request discussion should only be closed if (1) the original closing admin agrees with the objecting admin, (2) no clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE has been reached after 48 hours from reopening, (3) there is clear and substantial consensus of at least two additional uninvolved administrators, or (4) the reopening admin withdraws their objection to the original closure. The actions of the original closing admin will remain in effect during the review and cannot be changed without (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator or (2) the clear and substantial consensus between the objecting admin and the additional two admins. The status quo is maintained if (1) there is a lack of clear and substantial consensus after 48 hours, (2) the clear and substantial consensus between the original closing admin and the additional two admins, or (3) the objecting admin withdraws their object.
I agree with DGG. We're not going to make arbitration enforcement better by introducing more bureaucracy. I'd go further, and say this is time to remind the community that arbitration remedies are applied specifically and solely when community processes break down, and that enforcement relies on the initiative of administrators as empowered to act by the committee through motions and case rulings.
I'll add such an item to my proposed principles if I can find a reasonably current case that had such a principle. If I cannot, I'll precis something from the arbitration policy documents.
I do understand that some arbitrators have indicated that they feel themselves pulled towards tightening the bureaucracy around enforcement. I ask them to consider that the cost of such bureaucracy is likely to be further deterrence against the few administrators who combine the experience and wisdom needed to enforce arbitration remedies with the determination to do it anyway knowing that it's at best an ugly necessity for which they will receive little recognition. -- TS 16:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
3) Apply the wording Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction. Conversely, editors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly.
(from
ACDS) to AE as well.
There's a lot in this principle that applies always in administrative actions. However at AE the admin is always dealing with someone who has either been named specifically in a arbitration remedy or been made aware that a remedy applies to their edits in a topic area (no other editor can normally be sanctioned at AE, with the possible exception of those who being cases to AE but are otherwise not covered by any remedy--the boomerang exception for vexatious complaints).
So I think it's a bad idea to act as if every first time enforcement considered at AE is a "first offence", and where it applies to editors specifically named in arbitration sanctions it's especially inappropriate to apply a " first offence" consideration. The remedies are specific instances of broadened administrator discretion, and arbcom is quite capable of drafting remedies tailored to have a desired effect. -- TS 17:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
1) If an administrator does not regularly process requests on a particular noticeboard, and then processes a particularly controversial request as his or her first foray into that process, that close should be viewed with heightened scrutiny.
1) Administrators should not attempt to enforce their desired outcome by "
supervoting" unilaterally overturning a consensus-based close or unilaterally taking their desired administrative action.
No, it sounds too much like asking administrators not to do their job. We can and should expect them to exercise their powers impartially in discretionary sanctions, and if they don't the arbitration committee can tell them off in a variety of ways. No extra rules like this are needed, and bringing in such rules would only scare away more admins. As will this case, sadly, but that can't be helped now. -- TS 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
2) Non-admins may participate at arbitration enforcement, and their comments carry weight equal to that which his comment or vote would carry if they were an administrator.
As a matter of fact, the opinions of non administrators count for nothing because enforcement of arbitration remedies isn't subject to a vote. Evidence, on the other hand, is welcome. -- TS 20:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Moot. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 17:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
} ==== Admins have acted in good faith ==== 1) The three administrators, Black Kite ( talk · contribs), GorillaWarfare ( talk · contribs), and Reaper Eternal ( talk · contribs) have all acted in good faith. All of them have attempted to improve Wikipedia through their administrative actions, and no foul motive was in play.
|
1) Arbitration Enforcement is intended to lead to an expeditious decision, without a risk of deadlock. It differs in this way from other administrative noticeboards.
2) Arbitration Enforcement is not intended to determine community consensus, but instead it should reflect existing decisions made by the Arbitration Committee. A local consensus that emerges in an Arbitration Enforcement discussion does not override the previous decision of the Committee. (Editors who believe that an existing decision needs to be revised should instead raise their concerns at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.)
3) Members of the Arbitration Committee may carry out administrative actions, acting as individual administrators, or the Committee may issue administrative actions on behalf of the Committee as a whole.
4) When a decision made at Arbitration Enforcement is determined by the Arbitration Committee to be inconsistent with the Committee case decision that was to be enforced, the decision of the Committee supersedes that of the Arbitration Enforcement administrator.
1) All of the named parties in this case appear to have acted in good faith, but under unclear procedures. In particular, there is no need for sanctions against administrators.
1) The Arbitration Committee may act, as a whole, to override the outcome of any discussion at Arbitration Enforcement. However, individual Arbitrators, acting as individual administrators, should avoid taking actions that reverse the outcome of an Enforcement discussion.
2) Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures will be revised to reflect the issues raised in this case.
3) A section specifically about Arbitration Enforcement should be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) There is a general amnesty for the named parties with respect to Arbitration Enforcement, liberally defined; this amnesty is combined with the expectation that all future actions will conform with Wikipedia policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area.
1) The AE Noticeboard is a place where editors and administrators bring attention to and discuss Arbitration Enforcement and Discretionary sanction request. The result on the board is not an end unto itself, rather it is an aid to determine whether a sanction is imposed and logged. The Enforcement Action is what is logged. Closing an AE request is not an enforcement action, rather logging actions is the enforcement action.
This is how we've always done it. I think it works very well that way. -- TS 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
2) Uninvolved Administrators are free to act at any time, with or without discussion, when they observe or have knowledge of a breech of ArbCom AE or DS and that are within remedies provided. They may use tools such as AE Discussion board for input and this is obviously encouraged. Administrator actions that deviate from established norms are made at the administrators peril.
Yes. Thanks for saving me the bother of recording that this is what we've always done (or assumed everybody agreed that this was what we were doing). - TS 20:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
3) As with any other action, Administrators may face scrutiny if they act against consensus and particularly with AE action, if they implement out-of-proportion sanctions. Discussion at AE may be used as an aid in determining whether an AE sanction is out-of-proportion or whether there is outright consensus to overturn it. It may also be used by ArbCom in regards to sanctioning an admin.
::Assuming you're referring to GW's action, it wasn't out of proportion. It was in line with what was called for in standard AE escalating blocks, and the same length as even a first civility block for Eric should've been. Noteworthy that if this has been an Eric civility block, then no amount of consensus at AE could declare the block length inappropriate, since it was explicitly called for in the arb sanction
Kevin Gorman (
talk)
16:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Administrators enforcing arbitration remedies, particularly in discretionary sanctions which form a sizable proportion of cases at AE, necessarily act without reference to community consensus. Arbitration exists only insofar as community processes have failed. To mistake AE for a community process is a serious error, and may well be part of the reason why even quite clear and unambiguous discretionary sanctions so often seem to go unenforced. -- TS 12:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
4) Editors are the Encyclopedia's best asset (arguably its only asset with future value) and returning editors to a contributing status is an overarching goal of the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It is not proper to reject good faith appealsprocess reviews based solely on who has brought the appealrequest, rather they should be measured on their merits. These appeals apply only to review whether an AE or DS sanction was warranted per process and is not to limits of an appeal included in of the sanction normally reserved only for the editor being sanctioned.
5) In general, ArbCom members should reserve their judgement for cases that are before ArbCom and avoid contentious disputes. By definition, areas that are under DS or AE are contentious. ArbCom members should leave it to the community to enact their "will" and wield "power" rather than assuming that duty for themselves as they have already made their "judgement". ArbCom, as elected members, are expected to be able to participate in ArbCom proceedings and if they become involved a priori, they cannot fulfill that duty and fall short of the communities expectations.
No. There's no real reason why Arbitrators should not use their buttons, as admins, in enforcing rulings. -- TS 20:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
1) There was nothing to log and any admin reviewing the behavior, regardless if they were aware of the AE request, is free to implement and log a sanction. The block was an AE action and was logged. "Involved" is not discussed here.
I think it's this kind of sterile debate that threw everybody into a tizzy. There's nothing wrong with taking administrative action against a participant in a discretionary sanction. All such actions are subject to appeal. Perhaps the problem is people formally closing notices at WP:AE. Why not wait until a sanction is made or the archiver removes it? Otherwise you risk preempting somebody else's action. This is why they are called discretionary sanctions. -- TS 20:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
2) The discussion and close at AE combined with the discussion at ANI and determining consensus was in process as it is with any other appeal process. The close with no action and arguments presented at AE have weight in determining consensus of appeals. "Involved" is not discussed here.
The term "in process" should not be used on Wikipedia. We don't decide whether an action is valid on the basis of whether or not it's "in process". -- TS 21:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
1) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Arbitration committee members acting as individual administrators in Arbitration Enforcement may do so normally as any administrator may. Any official AC actions in such settings need to be labeled clearly as such as appeal procedures are different, and any action not so labeled may be treated as individual action by other administrators (taken to AE or other noticeboards for consensus reversal, etc).
I wonder if there might not be a case for resolving the fact that "appeals processes are different" by making them the same. -- TS 00:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
2) The Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard is a hybrid noticeboard. It is not subject to normal editor closes of discussions. Only uninvolved administrators may comment in that section of the discussion, close discussions, or reopen the same discussion again. Other participation by normal editors and involved administrators is as with any noticeboard.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) An "admin action" is defined as any action that requires the admin tools, or any action that can only be completed by virtue of having the admin bit. This includes threats to use the tools as well as any other action that policy grants exclusive domain to admin.
I can see a case where saying "I will block you if..." can be construed as a form of intimidation, which may, depending on the circumstances, lead to sanctions as an abuse of admin status (even though it is not technically an abuse of admin tools) and yes we could probably quibble on the difference between a warning and a threat, but I'd rather not adopt so sweeping a principle, especially in a case where there was no warning/threat on the part of any admin (at least as far as I can see). Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
2) When an Arbitrator plays a role in placing Arbitration restrictions on an editor, that Arbitrator should refrain from enforcing the terms of that restriction, except in unusual circumstances, for as long as they serve as Arbitrator.
1) Reporting sanctioned editors to AE, should be an act limited to uninvolved editors. This would cut down any animosity, which tends to occur when involved editors do the reporting. GoodDay ( talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Dispute resolution is a tool that exists solely towards the end of creating the encyclopaedia. The arbitration committee wields its ultimate dispute resolution power solely for that purpose.
a) Arbitration is imperfect and evolving.
b) Solutions that worked once may decline in utility or become a liability in the future.
c) Mechanisms devised in good faith and implemented by editors and administrators in good faith may sometimes exacerbate tensions and lead to a poorer editing climate
d) The Arbitration Committee is not bound by precedent, but rather learns from experience.
2) The arbitration committee is an elected body that possesses the ultimate power to settle conduct disputes on English Wikipedia. As part of this task it delegates its enforcement powers to administrators, enhancing their individual discretion which is normally restricted to acting in clear and egregious breaches of policy. Administrators remain fully accountable for their actions in enforcing arbitration remedies.
1) Proposal
1) In March 2006, WP:AE was created after a brief discussion between administrators, arbitrators and others. [2]. The purpose was to enable communications "from anyone to admins asking for enforcement" against editors covered by active arbitration sanctions, but for whom the community reporting noticeboards of the time did not usefully cater.
1) Proposal
1) The Arbitration Committee clarifies and reiterates that, when the conditions for active discretionary sanctions and other remedies are fulfilled, all administrative actions are taken at the discretion of the uninvolved administrator on their own cognisance unless the wording of the sanction or other remedy specifically requires otherwise. All administrator actions may be reviewed and appealed.
2) Parole is a formal relaxation of administrator enforcement of a remedy, granted as a relief from undue hardship caused by an editor's prominence in the community, and for other reasons.
a) An editor under parole on a remedy is monitored and expected to comply fully with all Wikipedia policies and additionally with the remedy.
b) However administrators are, for the duration of the parole period, explicitly forbidden from taking administrative action on the remedy against the named editor without leave from the arbitration committee.
c) Remedies not covered by the parole are to be handled by administrators.
d) This enforcement restriction applies to all administrators, including arbitrators and other functionaries acting without appropriate authorisation.
e) The arbitration committee or anyone acting with its direct authorisation may take enforcement action.
f) The arbitration committee may delegate enforcement to a subcommittee or to any other suitable body of administrators in the interests of efficient enforcement.
This is just adding unnecessary complication in my view. Users under sanction are already effectively on "parole" and if they keep a clean slate long enough can at least hope to have sanctions rescinded. Users sanctioned under WP:AE can already appeal at AE or AN. And what problem is this proposal addressing? I'm not aware of large numbers of editors of "prominence" being discriminated against under the existing rules, and giving them extra privileges might itself be viewed as discriminatory. Apart from all that, I suspect this proposal would run counter to its intended purpose, as Arbcom in my experience generally takes a harder line against breaches of remedy than AE itself. Gatoclass ( talk) 02:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
3) Paroled editors will be held to the highest standards of conduct. The usual community monitoring processes apply. If the arbitration committee becomes convinced that the user under parole is not living up to these requirements, parole may be revoked.
a) Any editor not banned from doing so may apply for a parole to be revoked on the grounds of misconduct.
b) Revocation will be by motion of the arbitration committee.
c) After revocation, enforcement of the remedy passes back into the hands of the administrators.
4) Any editor named in an active arbitration remedy may apply directly to the arbitration committee for relief.
a) The Committee will formally consider whether to grant parole by motion.
b) Parole applies to the remedies named in the motion, and does not normally apply to topic bans, site bans, or restrictions in posting from multiple accounts.
c) Parole may also be considered as an alternative if the editor appeals for the remedy to be lifted entirely but the arbitration committee is not satisfied that this would be appropriate.
d) Parole will not be granted lightly. Be prepared to show that controversy over arbitration enforcement has caused you undue hardship.
5) The arbitration committee has in the distant past sometimes issued remedies requiring a decision by more than one administrator (typically three) before a block is authorised, but this practice soon fell out of use. The committee reserves the power to restrict enforcement in this way, but emphasises that consensus to block or to not block is not otherwise a feature of arbitration enforcement. Conversely, active consensus of uninvolved admins is required to reverse a block.
1) Proposal
1) Proposal
1) Wikipedia comprises a global community, where discussions can take place over extended periods of time, due to the time-delay effects of online communication and the different time zones of the participants. Large-scale consensus-based decision-making is difficult under best circumstances; with unmoderated online discussions, repetition, digressions, and overly-verbose responses exacerbate the problem. Most situations do not need a rapid reaction to stop imminent damage, and so there is no need to close discussions or take actions too quickly. In order for comments to be considered judiciously and to accommodate contributors from around the world, patience is required to allow for consensus to develop.
I like this as a general principle; it works well at AfD, for instance, where it's not unusual to relist an item if there isn't much discussion.
I'd rather adopt a much more radical approach on AE, which really isn't supposed to be a talking shop like AfD. What if the arbitration committee just said "please don't close AE items that aren't clearly and obviously bogus until the automatic archiver deals with them?" I encourage all to consider that the problem here is not an administrator using their discretion after a closure, but a rather odd and not fully explained rapid closure of an AE item without any discussion at all in the uninvolved admins section. Unless I'm seriously misled by the archive at Archive 176, this item was closed before any discussion by uninvolved administrators had taken place. It also seems to have been closed with indecent haste. Use of bureaucratic action that has the effect of preempting a sanction and then laying the blame on an uninvolved administrator who acts well within the enhanced discretion routinely afforded in arbcom remedies doesn't seem to me the direction we should be encouraging.
I'm sure there are valid exceptions to the "don't close" idea; we don't want AE filling up with nonsense. This was, though, apparently a good faith item, albeit one that was seen as unpopular by those who commented (for reasons I honestly don't care about; the subject can petition arbcom for relief if the terms of the sanction are too onerous).
Closing that discussion so precipitately was a clear mistake, because at least one admin found the action sanctionable in good faith. Borderline case? Well it's a fact that sanctions have fuzzy borders unless drafted with razor precision. -- TS 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
1) Arbitration enforcement consists of the delegation, by the arbitration committee, of part of its authority to the admin corps for the purposes of expeditiously enforcing the decisions of the committee. This authority is based in the community's consensus to make the arbitration committee the final arbiter of disputes between editors.
2) Arbitration decisions are enforceable by any uninvolved administrator without first needing to seek consensus. The action is justified by the pre-existing consensus of the community that the arbitration committee has the power to make such decisions and to so delegate its authority for enforcement.
3) As the enforcement of arbitration decisions is grounded in the existence of a consensus of the community to abide by the decisions of the arbitration committee, any community consensus established in regard to a particular situation or enforcement action binds the admin corps from the type of unilateral action authorised in the absence of such consensus.
3) The arbitration enforcement noticeboard provides a central place for editors to bring alleged breaches of arbitration decisions to the attention of the admin corps. As such, it is the natural place for consensus regarding specific circumstances or actions to form, and an existing consensus formed there must not be unilaterally overruled by an administrator. Rather, an administrator who disputes the consensus should seek to change it through the usual consensus-building process. Where there is dispute about the existence of consensus, further discussion to establish consensus is required.
1) Black Kite improperly closed a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, claiming consensus where insufficient time had been given for consensus to possibly form.
2) GorillaWarfare improperly unilaterally overturned a claimed consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
3) Reaper Eternal improperly overturned an arbitration enforcement action where the required clear, substantial and active consensus of editors at AN did not exist.
Out of scope. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1) Black Kite and GorillaWarfare are (admonished|warned|desysopped).
2) Reaper Eternal is (admonished|warned|desysopped).
|
"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity . . . nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's" policies and guidelines. ( WP:CONSENSUS)
According to Wikipedia policy on Consensus: "Requests for arbitration: are "[t]he final step for intractable disputes. The Arbitration Committee may rule on almost any aspect of a dispute other than on a content dispute, and has broad powers in its decisions. ( WP:CONSENSUS#Administrative or community intervention)
"The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time." ( WP:CONSENSUS#CONEXCEPT)
"The Arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes [] that neither community discussion, Administrators, nor Bureaucrats have successfully resolved." Wikipedia:Arbitration
Where there is a global, binding WP:CONSENSUS to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. [3]
"A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia." WP:Blocking policy
"If there is any doubt whether a limited ban [eg., topic ban] prohibits any specific edit, the banned editor should assume that it does, unless whoever imposed the ban expressly clarifies that it does not. If clarification is not sought before making the edit, the banned editor assumes the risk that an administrator takes a broader view of the scope of the ban and enforces it with a block or other sanction." ( WP:Banning policy)
"Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure [] Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted . . ." [4]
"The following are the applicable parts from the standard provision for appeals of arbitration enforcement bans:
Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
- ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
- request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
- submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-l
lists.wikimedia.org).
Important notes:
- For a request to succeed, either
- (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
- (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
- is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
- While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
- These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
— Arbitration Committee, Standard provision for appeals and modifications
( Wikipedia:Banning policy#Arbitration enforcement bans and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking)
1) The locus of dispute in the present case is an arbitration enforcement report at (AE) concerning enforcement of a globally binding topic ban, and the proper procedures to follow there and at the Administrators Noticeboard (AN) concerning such a report.
2) AE discussions are focused solely on evidence and policy. There are two issues to address at AE concerning a report of a breach of a binding topic ban: 1) was there a breach; and 2) what must the remedy for the breach be.
3) Only the editor sanctioned in any arbitration enforcement process may appeal, under the standards outlined in Policy. All other editors may seek clarifications of AE process concerns (including "involved" administration) and AE procedures, only by application directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) If there is no breach of a binding topic ban, the editor complained against must be informed on their talk page that a finding of no breach has occurred. If there is a breach, a remedy must be applied: this can be anything from informing the editor on their talk page that they have breached the ban and must not continue, to blocking, and/or extension of the ban. In some cases the arbitration committee may have prescribed a series of escalating sanctions for a ban, in those cases, that must be enforced.
2) [Extend the repeat offender principal proposed above in Roger Davies talk 06:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC) comment]
3) [There is a finding in another recent Arb case about good contributions, not being a reason not to sanction for bad conduct and that also should be repeated in this case]
2) Any uninvolved administrator reviewing the behavior, regardless if they are aware of an AE request, has discretion to implement and log a sanction or remedy, where there is a breach of a binding, global topic ban. Review of discretion at AE or AN is not the standard of 'that's what I would do', it is 'could any reasonable administrator perform the action, based on the evidence and policy' (this is in part borrowed from Dheyward above.)
1, 2, 3) [Carry into Arb procedures the four adopted remedies]
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
2) The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve ( § Arbitration Policy). Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are often thereafter subject to ongoing special enforcement arrangements, such as discretionary sanctions. From time to time the committee may revisit these enforcement systems – in order to, for example, clarify ambiguities or to evaluate whether they remain necessary.
3) Arbitration enforcement (AE) is the noticeboard, set up by the Arbitration Committee and staffed by administrators, for editors to report suspected breaches of arbitration decisions. When enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators act as delegates of the Arbitration Committee and, in that role, they review the facts and, if necessary, take action.
4) Although administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally, they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement. In addition, when a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. Administrators overruling their colleagues without good cause may be asked to refrain from further participation in arbitration enforcement.
I don't like the notion that administrators should be permitted to "overrule" an emerging consensus, regardless of whatever "good cause" they may provide. It sounds like a licence for disruption to me. When a group of administrators may have already spent considerable time examining the evidence and/or discussing possible actions, it would be just plain disrespectful to have another admin come along and decided for himself what needs to be done without consultation. I see no reason why consensus of uninvolved admins should not be respected at all times. If no clear consensus is emerging, then I think the appropriate thing to do for an admin who has decided on a given course of action is to announce his intention to take that action and allow the others adequate time, say 24 hours, to object before closing the discussion with that action. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I'm wary of setting up a process that encourages hasty action versus considered thought. If enforcement via a request at the arbitration enforcement request noticeboard is treated differently, then there is an incentive to rush to file requests in order to trigger this different treatment, and with the current proposed decision there is an incentive for a quick response. isaacl ( talk) 10:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
5) In enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators are expected to use their common sense. Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions to be imposed for violations of a final decision, the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question.
Administrators may also close a report with no action when no actual violation occurred or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate; in these cases, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.
Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request are reminded that they should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions. Administrators are also reminded they are still expected to comply with the expectations set out in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Expectations of administrators. Violating these expectations may lead to sanctions.
(
edit conflict)::::Alanscottwalker Just to clarify, you are saying that there should be no findings of "no issue to pursue", but would you be happy with " violation is so minor that, under the circumstances, no sanction is warranted"? That seems to satisfy your points - a breach was found but it was considered to be so minor that no remedy was required.
Doug Weller (
talk)
15:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
6) Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened, except in compliance with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators.
In these cases, the initial petitioner may appeal the decision, but care should be taken that this only be done when appropriate. Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return for wasting the community's time.
I don't know what this proposal means. Does it mean that both administrators and the initial petitioner may appeal dismissal of a request, per the "Modifications by administrators" section? But the initial petitioner may not necessarily be an admin, so how is that supposed to work? Gatoclass ( talk) 15:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, regarding non-admin closures of an enforcement request: if they are permitted, and an accurate assessment of the consensus view was performed, I don't see any inherent reason why it matters if the one performing the assessment is not an administrator. Following English Wikipedia's consensus tradition, no one should reverse the consensus without following one of the defined appeal procedures. Of course, the arbitration committee is free to specify as part of Arbitration enforcement procedures that only an administrator can assess the established consensus at the Arbitration enforcement requests noticeboard. isaacl ( talk) 22:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller Please review my proposals above - you are likely to get a better discussion at AE, if you, layout what is to be decided - and how the actions are recorded. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 23:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
7) Only the sanctioned editor may file an appeal against a sanction. Other editors may offer assistance, but the decision to appeal and the choice of venue may only be made by the sanctioned editor.
Appeals filed by any user other than the one sanctioned may be closed at any time. However, any interested users may ask for clarifications, if they are acting in good faith.
8) For the purpose of applying the special rules against modifying or overturning an enforcement action (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators), all enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper until an appeal is successful.
1) The proximate cause of this dispute was a comment made by Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs) on his talk page which was reported to arbitration enforcement as a violation of the indefinite topic ban imposed on him as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case.
Upon reviewing the report, Black Kite ( talk · contribs) closed it with no action. At the time, no other uninvolved administrator had made any comments and the report had been open for only about five hours.
GorillaWarfare ( talk · contribs), aware of of the fact Black Kite had dismissed the report, overruled his decision and unilaterally blocked Eric for a month without discussion.
Black Kite subsequently opened an AN discussion regaring GorillaWarfare's block of Eric which was treated as an appeal, despite the fact that Eric at no time expressed any desire to appeal the restriction. The discussion was then closed by Reaper Eternal ( talk · contribs), who unblocked Eric, arguing that there [was] definitely no consensus [there] for a block; indeed, the results seem[ed] to show a slight consensus in favor of unblocking. A pure vote count show[ed] a 60/40 split in favor of unblocking.
2) The conduct of all administrators involved in the dispute was suboptimal.
Black Kite's actions had the effect of interfering with the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision; in fact, since Eric's comment was a violation of his restriction and was not minor in nature, Black Kite should not have dismissed the enforcement request so quickly and without waiting for input from other uninvolved administrators
GorillaWarfare's actions fell foul of the rules set out in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications and in Wikipedia:Administrators#Reversing another administrator's action, namely the expectation that administrative actions should not be reversed without [...] a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged.
Reaper Eternal's actions violated Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications requiring, for an appeal to be successful, a request on the part of the sanctioned editor and the clear and substantial consensus of [...] uninvolved editors at AN.
@ Salvio giuliano: While I can understand that point of view, is this what is described by the actual wording of policy and is this something that reflects our actual practices? To expand on your example, I have seen numerous occasions where an AfD closure was reversed by another admin, and then restored by the original admin. I don't think I have ever seen such an event be called wheel warring. While the position that closing an AE is an admin action is a reasonable position, I do not think it was the only reasonable interpretation of actual practices.
How many times a week are closures on ANI reversed? Has this ever been seen as wheel warring?
If the the purpose of this case is to clarify the rules in this matter, then I think it is a disservice to assume that the rules were clear to begin with. The lack of clarity is what has brought us here and I sincerely believe that Gorrilla was acting in good faith based on a reasonable interpretation of the rules as they were stated. Chillum 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) The Arbitration Committee delegates the drafters of this case to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to bring them in line with the clarifications contained in this decision.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
As presented into evidence, there are different procedures for reporting violations of sanctions, and accordingly different standards for handling the reports. This may have contributed to confusion regarding the appropriate burden of proof required for an administrator to enforce an Arbitration Committee-enacted editing restriction. Sanctions enacted by the Arbitration Committee ought to be written with clear criteria defining their scope, thereby making it relatively straightforward to determine if they apply.
By its nature, a mandate to issue discretionary sanctions does not have specific criteria triggering specific actions, and instead gives administrators broad authority to use their judgment in deciding the best course of action. Accordingly, it is desirable for a higher burden of proof to be required to oversee the reasoning of administrators imposing sanctions at their discretion.
Although general methods for reporting violations are described for sanctions other than community-imposed editing restrictions, English Wikipedia's culture is not one of "notice-and-action" regarding problematic behaviour: any administrator, upon observing behaviour that violates Wikipedia guidelines or imposed sanctions, can take action, which can subsequently be appealed and reviewed. Thus an enforcement action can take place either through the processing of a request, or the individual initiative of an administrator. Wikipedia's tradition of avoiding bureaucracy argues against requiring all enforcement to take place via requests in a specific location. Any changes to how sanctions are enforced should take into account both of these options. isaacl ( talk) 16:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with
Wikipedia's tradition of acting boldly, editors are encouraged to perform an action they feel is beneficial, and also to revert an action they feel is detrimental, thereby restoring the original state, followed by a review and discussion of the action. This enables uncontroversial changes to proceed rapidly, while allowing debatable changes to be
identified and discussed.
In a similar manner, in order to allow for administrative actions to take place with
minimal overhead, many processes requiring administrative privileges to be completed only need a single admin to evaluate the best course of action. In cases of dispute, a review procedure is defined to re-assess the decision made.
Wikipedia's guidance on reinstating a reverted action (wheel-warring) is based on these principles: admins are able to act efficiently based on their judgment, and their actions can be reverted to restore the original state while the situation is re-evaluated. The guidance is not intended to set a deadline after which an editor can no longer be sanctioned: it provides a framework to avoid warring over the best steps to take in the interest of the community. By allowing the original state to be restored, the following discussion can take place under the original conditions prior to the first action, as if it had not occurred.
In cases of editors violating a policy, a general sanction, or an editing restriction, admins have the duty to impose appropriate sanctions (typically a block) for the violation, and they have a mandate to do so on their own initiative. Accordingly, the individual judgment of an admin that no action should be taken does not bind other admins to the same judgment. As the original state has been preserved, the first step in a wheel-warring incident has not been taken.
For many scenarios, there are also venues for discussion where the community can weigh in and determine a consensus view. (For the purposes of this analysis, no opinion is expressed on whether or not the Arbitration Enforcement request noticeboard is a venue for general community consensus.) For discussions within the scope of these venues, once a consensus is determined, actions to implement this consensus are within
Wikipedia's consensus policy, rendering questions of wheel-warring moot.
isaacl (
talk)
23:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, BOLD means two things. a} sometimes it is best to show the effect of an edit by doing it, not asking about it . This meaning will rarely apply outside of article space. b.)sometimes for a complex or disputed action , or to break an impasse . it can clarify things to take an action that you hope will have consensus in the end , but are not the least sure will have immediate consensus. This still shouldn't be something you know will not possibly have consensus. I've have personally done this a few times at RfC,especially in closing MoS disputes where there may never be true consensus, but we are better off having closed somehow. They've usually stood, because people reason they don't want to open the whole thing up again, for uncertain benefit. AE is not usually the place for this sort of reasoning. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are encouraged to perform any action they feel is beneficial, and also to revert an action they feel is detrimental, thereby restoring the original state, followed by a review and discussion of the action. This enables uncontroversial changes to proceed rapidly, while allowing debatable changes to be identified and discussed.
In order to allow for administrative actions to take place with minimal overhead, many processes requiring administrative privileges to be completed only need a single admin to evaluate the best course of action. In cases of dispute, a review procedure is defined to re-assess the decision made.
Wikipedia's guidance on reinstating a reverted action (wheel-warring) is based on these concepts: empowering editors to take beneficial actions, and providing a way to review these actions. Admins are able to act efficiently based on their judgment, and their actions can be reverted to restore the original state while the situation is re-evaluated. The guidance is not intended to set a deadline after which actions can no longer be taken, such as sanctioning an editor: it provides a framework to avoid warring over the best steps to take in the interest of the community. By allowing the original state to be restored, the following discussion can take place under the original conditions prior to the first action, as if it had not occurred.
In cases of editors violating a policy, a general sanction, or an editing restriction, admins have the duty to impose appropriate sanctions (typically a block) for the violation, and they have a mandate to do so on their own initiative. Accordingly, the individual judgment of an admin that no action should be taken does not bind other admins to the same judgment. As the original state has been preserved, the first step in a wheel-warring incident has not been taken.
For many scenarios, there are also venues for discussion where editors can weigh in and determine a consensus view. (For the purposes of this analysis, no opinion is expressed on whether or not the Arbitration Enforcement request noticeboard is a venue for a consensus of either the general community or administrators.) For discussions within the scope of these venues, once a consensus is determined, actions to implement this consensus are within Wikipedia's consensus policy, rendering questions of wheel-warring moot. isaacl ( talk) 14:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Case clerks: L235 ( Talk) & Jim Carter ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Salvio giuliano ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
![]() | The Workshop phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Where I come from: uninvolved, and sleeping through the initial filing of an AE request that brought us here, I left a statement in the case request (copied to evidence), and Hope on the evidence talk. I am not an admin nor do I want to be one. I am restricted by the arbitration committee and was on the receiving end of AE several times. I tried to educate our founder but only once ;)
I dream of a Wikipedia where AE is not needed and offer small steps in the direction. Imagine you see something I did which you think breaches my restrictions.
I read today "If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith, we could dispense with some of the drama ..." For the record: I recently mentioned the waste of time for arbitration-related edits on my talk, - back to expanding an article for GA. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
2)
3)
Note: Moved from below by User:Penwhale
Item #2 of the "AE" motion is modified to apply only to users who are named parties in this case. Arbcom apologizes for its momentary lapse in judgment in coming up with this ridiculously vague and broad motion, which forces well-meaning users who have nothing whatsoever to do with the dispute to walk around on eggshells in order to make sure that nothing they do indirectly affects a named party.
Item #2 of the "AE" motion is modified to apply only to users who are named parties in this case. Arbcom and specifically Roger Davies apologizse for the abrasive and draconian [1] motion, which forces well-meaning users who have nothing whatsoever to do with the dispute to walk around on eggshells in order to make sure that nothing they do indirectly affects a named party.
Pedro : Chat 21:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee vacates paragraphs (2) and (3) of the injunction which was enacted when this case was opened, and enacts the following in its place:
2)
3)
4)
1) The purpose of Arbitration Enforcement authority is two fold. First, to provide "a fast-track procedure to tackle misconduct within defined topic areas and/or to prevent disputes from within the defined topic area overflowing freely into other areas of the encyclopedia". (Taken from the old discretionary sanctions language, but dropped DS to apply it to all enforcement authority) Second, it allows action to be taken in certain highly contentious areas designated by the committee, where the community is unable to come to consensus.
2) Arbitration Enforcement Authority allows action in the absence of consensus, but is not designed to permit action contrary to consensus where consensus has been found.
3) It is rarelynot appropriate to act contrary to a close of a discussion that purports to finds consensus while the close stands. If the close is wrong, the proper course of action is to contact the closer and request the close be withdrawn, and failing that, to seek review of the close by the community.
4) Discussions at Arbitration Enforcement are unusual in that they weigh the opinions of uninvolved Admins more heavily than non-admins, which is contrary to practice in all other discussions. Allowing non-admins to close a discussion decided by the opinions of admins would be unreasonable, and admin only closes has long been the practice at AE.
5) Because only an Admins can close a discussion at Arbitration Enforcement, the close of an AE discussion is an admin action.
6) When an Admin rejects a request to enforce under AE/DS, that rejection is itself an enforcement action, and may not be overturned without consensus. (Inaction, refusing to take action oneself, or referring a matter elsewhere are all different from a rejection of the request)
"Only involved admins"? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 23:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC) @ EvergreenFir: Doh. Thx. -- DHeyward ( talk) 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Dheyward. What we need is clear process for logging and somehow accountability of users who violate and admins who give "free pass" - whatever they do admins should not obstruct the binding remedy, nor suggest what they do is in any sense a free pass (logged advice, warning or clearance notation, maybe). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 19:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is either necessary or desirable. We set up AE as a way to encourage administrators to enforce arbitration remedies. If it's fallen short of the purpose, it needs to be reformed. We certainly should not be encouraging the current trend towards interminable talk and watered down enforcement. If some administrators make mistakes or some remedies have undesirable effects, deal with those issues without discouraging admins from using their discretion in enforcing remedies. -- TS 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Not within the scope of the case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1) Anyone who has paid even a little attention to the inner workings of Wikipedia over the last seven or eight years knows that Eric Corbett/Malleus has become the most contentious individual on this entire project. He is an issue unto himself and there are strong feelings from both his allies and detractors regarding his overall value to the project. This has led, time and again, to explosions of infighting, incivility, blocking, unblocking, reblocking, ANI threads, multiple arbcom cases, and ragequits. Somehow, what to make of this one user appears to be the most intractible problem on Wikipedia, more so even than the ethnic, religious, and political feuds that spur most arbcom cases.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated. 1) Anytime there is an arbitration enforcement thread, ANI discussion, block, or other such discussion or action related to Eric Corbett, special rules shall apply for a period of 96 hours afterward, in a sort of "free-fire zone"
|
1) Reverting an AE close where no further action was takenis not a violation of an 'enforcement action,' though any admin to do so may not take admin action based on the results of the same section
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) Until this case occurred and is resolved, there was no consensus or obvious answer as to whether a 'no action' close at AE was considered an 'enforcement action' in terms of arb policy.
3) At the time Reaper Eternal reversed it, GorillaWarfare's action was clearly an AE action, subsequent to rules about requiring strict consensus to overturn.
4) When Reaper Eternal reversed Gorillwarfare's AE action, there was clearly insufficient consensus to justify overturning an AE block
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Hatting proposal to consider Eric's block as outside of case scope. (Clerk Action)- Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 14:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1) As a proper AE block, Erics's original block length should be restored
|
2) With the motion of amnesty granted, this entire case should be dismissed
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
Eric's conduct not in scope. (Clerk Action) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1) At the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF arbitration case, Eric Corbett was "indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic". Its scope is described in a motion of 7 February 2015. Eric Corbett has been blocked for violating the topic ban five times, the latest of which is the locus of dispute in this case. In all the previous blocks, the enforcing administrator has been subjected to intense criticism, in several cases escalating to personal attacks and accusations of bad faith.
|
1) Enforcing ArbCom decisions is already a hard task. All users are reminded that although disagreements may arise, resorting to personal attacks, or making allegations of bad faith (such as having a personal agenda) are unacceptable and serve only to exacerbate the situation.
1) Discussions at Arbitration Enforcement are unusual in that they weigh the opinions of uninvolved Admins more heavily than non-admins, which is contrary to practice in all other discussions. Allowing non-admins to close a discussion decided by the opinions of admins would be unreasonable, and admin only closes has long been the practice at AE.
2) Admins reviewing enforcement requests must strive for neutrality regarding all parties. When reviewing enforcement requests, admin discretion should be exercised in evaluating the alleged violations only.
Probably not a great idea in this context, at least in its present form. Parties subject to arbitration enforcement have already been warned, at a minimum, of the possibility of sanctions. Their past activities should be considered in deciding on the effectiveness of any sanction. Perhaps there is a core of truth here that could be expressed better than this current proposal. -- TS 19:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
3) When evaluating enforcement requests, parties' past conduct and sanctions should be considered alongside the current alleged violations. Any enforcement decisions should address patterns of behavior in addition to individual alleged violations.
Much better. I think this is a good general principle. -- TS 19:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Enforcement requests with merit should only be closed if (1) there is consensus between at least three uninvolved admins or (2) the case has been open for at least 48 hours. Closure of the case, with or without sanctions, would considered arbitration enforcement. Closures outside of (1) and (2) (e.g., when emergency action is considered warranted) would be considered admin action and can be reversed by any uninvolved admin. Upon such a reversal, (1) and (2) must be adhered to.
Now, on the merits, I disagree, because this change would, in my opinion, limit the flexibility of the process and its ability to react quickly to disruption in contentious areas, which are two of the reasons we needed such a process in the first place. Personally, I'd prefer to rely on the common sense and reasonableness of our admins, by telling them to feel free to act, but to also be careful not to give the impression they are trying to obstruct the enforcement of our decisions. After all, let's remember that AE has been active for years now and there only have been a couple of problematic cases so far. I'd say that relying on their common sense has been the right approach... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Closures outside of (1) and (2) (e.g., when emergency action is considered warranted) would be considered admin action and can be reversed by any uninvolved admin. Upon such a reversal, (1) and (2) must be adhered to.I think this would address your concerns.
common sense and reasonablenessare what got us in this mess. This could be limited to "controversial" issues perhaps, or even just Corbett. I find myself agreeing with Sandstein's comments on the evidence page about this. How can we prevent a recurrence of this? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
to rely on the common sense and reasonableness of our admins, (and for the record I think that's the right attitude to take), but that will only work if there are consequences for those who get it wrong. Otherwise, AE will just descend into the same farce that AN and ANI all-too-regularly resemble. That means sanctions for Black Kite, for hastily closing a discussion claiming 'consensus' where there was, realistically, none; GorillaWarfare, for unilaterally overturning an AE action outside the proper process; and, probably Reaper Eternal, for likewise overriding an AE action without the requisite consensus. I think RE is the least to blame, here; there is at least a reasonable argument to be made that a wide-ranging discussion was had at AN and consensus reached, though whether it reaches the level of a clear, substantial and active consensus is rather more dubious. Exactly what sanctions could have been levied against a sitting arbitrator is beyond my knowledge, but sanctions were necessary if any good was to come of this.
@ Seraphimblade: Would people be able to appeal a closure of no action then? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 02:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
2) AE requests may be closed by any uninvolved admin after weighing the merits of the request the comments by others. If another uninvolved admin strongly objects to the closure, they may reopen the AE request for further discussion. A reopened AE request discussion should only be closed if (1) the original closing admin agrees with the objecting admin, (2) no clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE has been reached after 48 hours from reopening, (3) there is clear and substantial consensus of at least two additional uninvolved administrators, or (4) the reopening admin withdraws their objection to the original closure. The actions of the original closing admin will remain in effect during the review and cannot be changed without (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator or (2) the clear and substantial consensus between the objecting admin and the additional two admins. The status quo is maintained if (1) there is a lack of clear and substantial consensus after 48 hours, (2) the clear and substantial consensus between the original closing admin and the additional two admins, or (3) the objecting admin withdraws their object.
I agree with DGG. We're not going to make arbitration enforcement better by introducing more bureaucracy. I'd go further, and say this is time to remind the community that arbitration remedies are applied specifically and solely when community processes break down, and that enforcement relies on the initiative of administrators as empowered to act by the committee through motions and case rulings.
I'll add such an item to my proposed principles if I can find a reasonably current case that had such a principle. If I cannot, I'll precis something from the arbitration policy documents.
I do understand that some arbitrators have indicated that they feel themselves pulled towards tightening the bureaucracy around enforcement. I ask them to consider that the cost of such bureaucracy is likely to be further deterrence against the few administrators who combine the experience and wisdom needed to enforce arbitration remedies with the determination to do it anyway knowing that it's at best an ugly necessity for which they will receive little recognition. -- TS 16:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
3) Apply the wording Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction. Conversely, editors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly.
(from
ACDS) to AE as well.
There's a lot in this principle that applies always in administrative actions. However at AE the admin is always dealing with someone who has either been named specifically in a arbitration remedy or been made aware that a remedy applies to their edits in a topic area (no other editor can normally be sanctioned at AE, with the possible exception of those who being cases to AE but are otherwise not covered by any remedy--the boomerang exception for vexatious complaints).
So I think it's a bad idea to act as if every first time enforcement considered at AE is a "first offence", and where it applies to editors specifically named in arbitration sanctions it's especially inappropriate to apply a " first offence" consideration. The remedies are specific instances of broadened administrator discretion, and arbcom is quite capable of drafting remedies tailored to have a desired effect. -- TS 17:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
1) If an administrator does not regularly process requests on a particular noticeboard, and then processes a particularly controversial request as his or her first foray into that process, that close should be viewed with heightened scrutiny.
1) Administrators should not attempt to enforce their desired outcome by "
supervoting" unilaterally overturning a consensus-based close or unilaterally taking their desired administrative action.
No, it sounds too much like asking administrators not to do their job. We can and should expect them to exercise their powers impartially in discretionary sanctions, and if they don't the arbitration committee can tell them off in a variety of ways. No extra rules like this are needed, and bringing in such rules would only scare away more admins. As will this case, sadly, but that can't be helped now. -- TS 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
2) Non-admins may participate at arbitration enforcement, and their comments carry weight equal to that which his comment or vote would carry if they were an administrator.
As a matter of fact, the opinions of non administrators count for nothing because enforcement of arbitration remedies isn't subject to a vote. Evidence, on the other hand, is welcome. -- TS 20:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Moot. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 17:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
} ==== Admins have acted in good faith ==== 1) The three administrators, Black Kite ( talk · contribs), GorillaWarfare ( talk · contribs), and Reaper Eternal ( talk · contribs) have all acted in good faith. All of them have attempted to improve Wikipedia through their administrative actions, and no foul motive was in play.
|
1) Arbitration Enforcement is intended to lead to an expeditious decision, without a risk of deadlock. It differs in this way from other administrative noticeboards.
2) Arbitration Enforcement is not intended to determine community consensus, but instead it should reflect existing decisions made by the Arbitration Committee. A local consensus that emerges in an Arbitration Enforcement discussion does not override the previous decision of the Committee. (Editors who believe that an existing decision needs to be revised should instead raise their concerns at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.)
3) Members of the Arbitration Committee may carry out administrative actions, acting as individual administrators, or the Committee may issue administrative actions on behalf of the Committee as a whole.
4) When a decision made at Arbitration Enforcement is determined by the Arbitration Committee to be inconsistent with the Committee case decision that was to be enforced, the decision of the Committee supersedes that of the Arbitration Enforcement administrator.
1) All of the named parties in this case appear to have acted in good faith, but under unclear procedures. In particular, there is no need for sanctions against administrators.
1) The Arbitration Committee may act, as a whole, to override the outcome of any discussion at Arbitration Enforcement. However, individual Arbitrators, acting as individual administrators, should avoid taking actions that reverse the outcome of an Enforcement discussion.
2) Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures will be revised to reflect the issues raised in this case.
3) A section specifically about Arbitration Enforcement should be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) There is a general amnesty for the named parties with respect to Arbitration Enforcement, liberally defined; this amnesty is combined with the expectation that all future actions will conform with Wikipedia policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area.
1) The AE Noticeboard is a place where editors and administrators bring attention to and discuss Arbitration Enforcement and Discretionary sanction request. The result on the board is not an end unto itself, rather it is an aid to determine whether a sanction is imposed and logged. The Enforcement Action is what is logged. Closing an AE request is not an enforcement action, rather logging actions is the enforcement action.
This is how we've always done it. I think it works very well that way. -- TS 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
2) Uninvolved Administrators are free to act at any time, with or without discussion, when they observe or have knowledge of a breech of ArbCom AE or DS and that are within remedies provided. They may use tools such as AE Discussion board for input and this is obviously encouraged. Administrator actions that deviate from established norms are made at the administrators peril.
Yes. Thanks for saving me the bother of recording that this is what we've always done (or assumed everybody agreed that this was what we were doing). - TS 20:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
3) As with any other action, Administrators may face scrutiny if they act against consensus and particularly with AE action, if they implement out-of-proportion sanctions. Discussion at AE may be used as an aid in determining whether an AE sanction is out-of-proportion or whether there is outright consensus to overturn it. It may also be used by ArbCom in regards to sanctioning an admin.
::Assuming you're referring to GW's action, it wasn't out of proportion. It was in line with what was called for in standard AE escalating blocks, and the same length as even a first civility block for Eric should've been. Noteworthy that if this has been an Eric civility block, then no amount of consensus at AE could declare the block length inappropriate, since it was explicitly called for in the arb sanction
Kevin Gorman (
talk)
16:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Administrators enforcing arbitration remedies, particularly in discretionary sanctions which form a sizable proportion of cases at AE, necessarily act without reference to community consensus. Arbitration exists only insofar as community processes have failed. To mistake AE for a community process is a serious error, and may well be part of the reason why even quite clear and unambiguous discretionary sanctions so often seem to go unenforced. -- TS 12:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
4) Editors are the Encyclopedia's best asset (arguably its only asset with future value) and returning editors to a contributing status is an overarching goal of the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It is not proper to reject good faith appealsprocess reviews based solely on who has brought the appealrequest, rather they should be measured on their merits. These appeals apply only to review whether an AE or DS sanction was warranted per process and is not to limits of an appeal included in of the sanction normally reserved only for the editor being sanctioned.
5) In general, ArbCom members should reserve their judgement for cases that are before ArbCom and avoid contentious disputes. By definition, areas that are under DS or AE are contentious. ArbCom members should leave it to the community to enact their "will" and wield "power" rather than assuming that duty for themselves as they have already made their "judgement". ArbCom, as elected members, are expected to be able to participate in ArbCom proceedings and if they become involved a priori, they cannot fulfill that duty and fall short of the communities expectations.
No. There's no real reason why Arbitrators should not use their buttons, as admins, in enforcing rulings. -- TS 20:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
1) There was nothing to log and any admin reviewing the behavior, regardless if they were aware of the AE request, is free to implement and log a sanction. The block was an AE action and was logged. "Involved" is not discussed here.
I think it's this kind of sterile debate that threw everybody into a tizzy. There's nothing wrong with taking administrative action against a participant in a discretionary sanction. All such actions are subject to appeal. Perhaps the problem is people formally closing notices at WP:AE. Why not wait until a sanction is made or the archiver removes it? Otherwise you risk preempting somebody else's action. This is why they are called discretionary sanctions. -- TS 20:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
2) The discussion and close at AE combined with the discussion at ANI and determining consensus was in process as it is with any other appeal process. The close with no action and arguments presented at AE have weight in determining consensus of appeals. "Involved" is not discussed here.
The term "in process" should not be used on Wikipedia. We don't decide whether an action is valid on the basis of whether or not it's "in process". -- TS 21:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
1) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Arbitration committee members acting as individual administrators in Arbitration Enforcement may do so normally as any administrator may. Any official AC actions in such settings need to be labeled clearly as such as appeal procedures are different, and any action not so labeled may be treated as individual action by other administrators (taken to AE or other noticeboards for consensus reversal, etc).
I wonder if there might not be a case for resolving the fact that "appeals processes are different" by making them the same. -- TS 00:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
2) The Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard is a hybrid noticeboard. It is not subject to normal editor closes of discussions. Only uninvolved administrators may comment in that section of the discussion, close discussions, or reopen the same discussion again. Other participation by normal editors and involved administrators is as with any noticeboard.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) An "admin action" is defined as any action that requires the admin tools, or any action that can only be completed by virtue of having the admin bit. This includes threats to use the tools as well as any other action that policy grants exclusive domain to admin.
I can see a case where saying "I will block you if..." can be construed as a form of intimidation, which may, depending on the circumstances, lead to sanctions as an abuse of admin status (even though it is not technically an abuse of admin tools) and yes we could probably quibble on the difference between a warning and a threat, but I'd rather not adopt so sweeping a principle, especially in a case where there was no warning/threat on the part of any admin (at least as far as I can see). Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
2) When an Arbitrator plays a role in placing Arbitration restrictions on an editor, that Arbitrator should refrain from enforcing the terms of that restriction, except in unusual circumstances, for as long as they serve as Arbitrator.
1) Reporting sanctioned editors to AE, should be an act limited to uninvolved editors. This would cut down any animosity, which tends to occur when involved editors do the reporting. GoodDay ( talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Dispute resolution is a tool that exists solely towards the end of creating the encyclopaedia. The arbitration committee wields its ultimate dispute resolution power solely for that purpose.
a) Arbitration is imperfect and evolving.
b) Solutions that worked once may decline in utility or become a liability in the future.
c) Mechanisms devised in good faith and implemented by editors and administrators in good faith may sometimes exacerbate tensions and lead to a poorer editing climate
d) The Arbitration Committee is not bound by precedent, but rather learns from experience.
2) The arbitration committee is an elected body that possesses the ultimate power to settle conduct disputes on English Wikipedia. As part of this task it delegates its enforcement powers to administrators, enhancing their individual discretion which is normally restricted to acting in clear and egregious breaches of policy. Administrators remain fully accountable for their actions in enforcing arbitration remedies.
1) Proposal
1) In March 2006, WP:AE was created after a brief discussion between administrators, arbitrators and others. [2]. The purpose was to enable communications "from anyone to admins asking for enforcement" against editors covered by active arbitration sanctions, but for whom the community reporting noticeboards of the time did not usefully cater.
1) Proposal
1) The Arbitration Committee clarifies and reiterates that, when the conditions for active discretionary sanctions and other remedies are fulfilled, all administrative actions are taken at the discretion of the uninvolved administrator on their own cognisance unless the wording of the sanction or other remedy specifically requires otherwise. All administrator actions may be reviewed and appealed.
2) Parole is a formal relaxation of administrator enforcement of a remedy, granted as a relief from undue hardship caused by an editor's prominence in the community, and for other reasons.
a) An editor under parole on a remedy is monitored and expected to comply fully with all Wikipedia policies and additionally with the remedy.
b) However administrators are, for the duration of the parole period, explicitly forbidden from taking administrative action on the remedy against the named editor without leave from the arbitration committee.
c) Remedies not covered by the parole are to be handled by administrators.
d) This enforcement restriction applies to all administrators, including arbitrators and other functionaries acting without appropriate authorisation.
e) The arbitration committee or anyone acting with its direct authorisation may take enforcement action.
f) The arbitration committee may delegate enforcement to a subcommittee or to any other suitable body of administrators in the interests of efficient enforcement.
This is just adding unnecessary complication in my view. Users under sanction are already effectively on "parole" and if they keep a clean slate long enough can at least hope to have sanctions rescinded. Users sanctioned under WP:AE can already appeal at AE or AN. And what problem is this proposal addressing? I'm not aware of large numbers of editors of "prominence" being discriminated against under the existing rules, and giving them extra privileges might itself be viewed as discriminatory. Apart from all that, I suspect this proposal would run counter to its intended purpose, as Arbcom in my experience generally takes a harder line against breaches of remedy than AE itself. Gatoclass ( talk) 02:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
3) Paroled editors will be held to the highest standards of conduct. The usual community monitoring processes apply. If the arbitration committee becomes convinced that the user under parole is not living up to these requirements, parole may be revoked.
a) Any editor not banned from doing so may apply for a parole to be revoked on the grounds of misconduct.
b) Revocation will be by motion of the arbitration committee.
c) After revocation, enforcement of the remedy passes back into the hands of the administrators.
4) Any editor named in an active arbitration remedy may apply directly to the arbitration committee for relief.
a) The Committee will formally consider whether to grant parole by motion.
b) Parole applies to the remedies named in the motion, and does not normally apply to topic bans, site bans, or restrictions in posting from multiple accounts.
c) Parole may also be considered as an alternative if the editor appeals for the remedy to be lifted entirely but the arbitration committee is not satisfied that this would be appropriate.
d) Parole will not be granted lightly. Be prepared to show that controversy over arbitration enforcement has caused you undue hardship.
5) The arbitration committee has in the distant past sometimes issued remedies requiring a decision by more than one administrator (typically three) before a block is authorised, but this practice soon fell out of use. The committee reserves the power to restrict enforcement in this way, but emphasises that consensus to block or to not block is not otherwise a feature of arbitration enforcement. Conversely, active consensus of uninvolved admins is required to reverse a block.
1) Proposal
1) Proposal
1) Wikipedia comprises a global community, where discussions can take place over extended periods of time, due to the time-delay effects of online communication and the different time zones of the participants. Large-scale consensus-based decision-making is difficult under best circumstances; with unmoderated online discussions, repetition, digressions, and overly-verbose responses exacerbate the problem. Most situations do not need a rapid reaction to stop imminent damage, and so there is no need to close discussions or take actions too quickly. In order for comments to be considered judiciously and to accommodate contributors from around the world, patience is required to allow for consensus to develop.
I like this as a general principle; it works well at AfD, for instance, where it's not unusual to relist an item if there isn't much discussion.
I'd rather adopt a much more radical approach on AE, which really isn't supposed to be a talking shop like AfD. What if the arbitration committee just said "please don't close AE items that aren't clearly and obviously bogus until the automatic archiver deals with them?" I encourage all to consider that the problem here is not an administrator using their discretion after a closure, but a rather odd and not fully explained rapid closure of an AE item without any discussion at all in the uninvolved admins section. Unless I'm seriously misled by the archive at Archive 176, this item was closed before any discussion by uninvolved administrators had taken place. It also seems to have been closed with indecent haste. Use of bureaucratic action that has the effect of preempting a sanction and then laying the blame on an uninvolved administrator who acts well within the enhanced discretion routinely afforded in arbcom remedies doesn't seem to me the direction we should be encouraging.
I'm sure there are valid exceptions to the "don't close" idea; we don't want AE filling up with nonsense. This was, though, apparently a good faith item, albeit one that was seen as unpopular by those who commented (for reasons I honestly don't care about; the subject can petition arbcom for relief if the terms of the sanction are too onerous).
Closing that discussion so precipitately was a clear mistake, because at least one admin found the action sanctionable in good faith. Borderline case? Well it's a fact that sanctions have fuzzy borders unless drafted with razor precision. -- TS 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
1) Arbitration enforcement consists of the delegation, by the arbitration committee, of part of its authority to the admin corps for the purposes of expeditiously enforcing the decisions of the committee. This authority is based in the community's consensus to make the arbitration committee the final arbiter of disputes between editors.
2) Arbitration decisions are enforceable by any uninvolved administrator without first needing to seek consensus. The action is justified by the pre-existing consensus of the community that the arbitration committee has the power to make such decisions and to so delegate its authority for enforcement.
3) As the enforcement of arbitration decisions is grounded in the existence of a consensus of the community to abide by the decisions of the arbitration committee, any community consensus established in regard to a particular situation or enforcement action binds the admin corps from the type of unilateral action authorised in the absence of such consensus.
3) The arbitration enforcement noticeboard provides a central place for editors to bring alleged breaches of arbitration decisions to the attention of the admin corps. As such, it is the natural place for consensus regarding specific circumstances or actions to form, and an existing consensus formed there must not be unilaterally overruled by an administrator. Rather, an administrator who disputes the consensus should seek to change it through the usual consensus-building process. Where there is dispute about the existence of consensus, further discussion to establish consensus is required.
1) Black Kite improperly closed a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, claiming consensus where insufficient time had been given for consensus to possibly form.
2) GorillaWarfare improperly unilaterally overturned a claimed consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
3) Reaper Eternal improperly overturned an arbitration enforcement action where the required clear, substantial and active consensus of editors at AN did not exist.
Out of scope. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1) Black Kite and GorillaWarfare are (admonished|warned|desysopped).
2) Reaper Eternal is (admonished|warned|desysopped).
|
"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity . . . nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's" policies and guidelines. ( WP:CONSENSUS)
According to Wikipedia policy on Consensus: "Requests for arbitration: are "[t]he final step for intractable disputes. The Arbitration Committee may rule on almost any aspect of a dispute other than on a content dispute, and has broad powers in its decisions. ( WP:CONSENSUS#Administrative or community intervention)
"The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time." ( WP:CONSENSUS#CONEXCEPT)
"The Arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes [] that neither community discussion, Administrators, nor Bureaucrats have successfully resolved." Wikipedia:Arbitration
Where there is a global, binding WP:CONSENSUS to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. [3]
"A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia." WP:Blocking policy
"If there is any doubt whether a limited ban [eg., topic ban] prohibits any specific edit, the banned editor should assume that it does, unless whoever imposed the ban expressly clarifies that it does not. If clarification is not sought before making the edit, the banned editor assumes the risk that an administrator takes a broader view of the scope of the ban and enforces it with a block or other sanction." ( WP:Banning policy)
"Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure [] Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted . . ." [4]
"The following are the applicable parts from the standard provision for appeals of arbitration enforcement bans:
Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
- ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
- request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
- submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-l
lists.wikimedia.org).
Important notes:
- For a request to succeed, either
- (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
- (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
- is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
- While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
- These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
— Arbitration Committee, Standard provision for appeals and modifications
( Wikipedia:Banning policy#Arbitration enforcement bans and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking)
1) The locus of dispute in the present case is an arbitration enforcement report at (AE) concerning enforcement of a globally binding topic ban, and the proper procedures to follow there and at the Administrators Noticeboard (AN) concerning such a report.
2) AE discussions are focused solely on evidence and policy. There are two issues to address at AE concerning a report of a breach of a binding topic ban: 1) was there a breach; and 2) what must the remedy for the breach be.
3) Only the editor sanctioned in any arbitration enforcement process may appeal, under the standards outlined in Policy. All other editors may seek clarifications of AE process concerns (including "involved" administration) and AE procedures, only by application directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) If there is no breach of a binding topic ban, the editor complained against must be informed on their talk page that a finding of no breach has occurred. If there is a breach, a remedy must be applied: this can be anything from informing the editor on their talk page that they have breached the ban and must not continue, to blocking, and/or extension of the ban. In some cases the arbitration committee may have prescribed a series of escalating sanctions for a ban, in those cases, that must be enforced.
2) [Extend the repeat offender principal proposed above in Roger Davies talk 06:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC) comment]
3) [There is a finding in another recent Arb case about good contributions, not being a reason not to sanction for bad conduct and that also should be repeated in this case]
2) Any uninvolved administrator reviewing the behavior, regardless if they are aware of an AE request, has discretion to implement and log a sanction or remedy, where there is a breach of a binding, global topic ban. Review of discretion at AE or AN is not the standard of 'that's what I would do', it is 'could any reasonable administrator perform the action, based on the evidence and policy' (this is in part borrowed from Dheyward above.)
1, 2, 3) [Carry into Arb procedures the four adopted remedies]
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
2) The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve ( § Arbitration Policy). Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are often thereafter subject to ongoing special enforcement arrangements, such as discretionary sanctions. From time to time the committee may revisit these enforcement systems – in order to, for example, clarify ambiguities or to evaluate whether they remain necessary.
3) Arbitration enforcement (AE) is the noticeboard, set up by the Arbitration Committee and staffed by administrators, for editors to report suspected breaches of arbitration decisions. When enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators act as delegates of the Arbitration Committee and, in that role, they review the facts and, if necessary, take action.
4) Although administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally, they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement. In addition, when a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. Administrators overruling their colleagues without good cause may be asked to refrain from further participation in arbitration enforcement.
I don't like the notion that administrators should be permitted to "overrule" an emerging consensus, regardless of whatever "good cause" they may provide. It sounds like a licence for disruption to me. When a group of administrators may have already spent considerable time examining the evidence and/or discussing possible actions, it would be just plain disrespectful to have another admin come along and decided for himself what needs to be done without consultation. I see no reason why consensus of uninvolved admins should not be respected at all times. If no clear consensus is emerging, then I think the appropriate thing to do for an admin who has decided on a given course of action is to announce his intention to take that action and allow the others adequate time, say 24 hours, to object before closing the discussion with that action. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I'm wary of setting up a process that encourages hasty action versus considered thought. If enforcement via a request at the arbitration enforcement request noticeboard is treated differently, then there is an incentive to rush to file requests in order to trigger this different treatment, and with the current proposed decision there is an incentive for a quick response. isaacl ( talk) 10:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
5) In enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators are expected to use their common sense. Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions to be imposed for violations of a final decision, the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question.
Administrators may also close a report with no action when no actual violation occurred or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate; in these cases, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.
Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request are reminded that they should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions. Administrators are also reminded they are still expected to comply with the expectations set out in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Expectations of administrators. Violating these expectations may lead to sanctions.
(
edit conflict)::::Alanscottwalker Just to clarify, you are saying that there should be no findings of "no issue to pursue", but would you be happy with " violation is so minor that, under the circumstances, no sanction is warranted"? That seems to satisfy your points - a breach was found but it was considered to be so minor that no remedy was required.
Doug Weller (
talk)
15:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
6) Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened, except in compliance with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators.
In these cases, the initial petitioner may appeal the decision, but care should be taken that this only be done when appropriate. Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return for wasting the community's time.
I don't know what this proposal means. Does it mean that both administrators and the initial petitioner may appeal dismissal of a request, per the "Modifications by administrators" section? But the initial petitioner may not necessarily be an admin, so how is that supposed to work? Gatoclass ( talk) 15:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, regarding non-admin closures of an enforcement request: if they are permitted, and an accurate assessment of the consensus view was performed, I don't see any inherent reason why it matters if the one performing the assessment is not an administrator. Following English Wikipedia's consensus tradition, no one should reverse the consensus without following one of the defined appeal procedures. Of course, the arbitration committee is free to specify as part of Arbitration enforcement procedures that only an administrator can assess the established consensus at the Arbitration enforcement requests noticeboard. isaacl ( talk) 22:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller Please review my proposals above - you are likely to get a better discussion at AE, if you, layout what is to be decided - and how the actions are recorded. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 23:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
7) Only the sanctioned editor may file an appeal against a sanction. Other editors may offer assistance, but the decision to appeal and the choice of venue may only be made by the sanctioned editor.
Appeals filed by any user other than the one sanctioned may be closed at any time. However, any interested users may ask for clarifications, if they are acting in good faith.
8) For the purpose of applying the special rules against modifying or overturning an enforcement action (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators), all enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper until an appeal is successful.
1) The proximate cause of this dispute was a comment made by Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs) on his talk page which was reported to arbitration enforcement as a violation of the indefinite topic ban imposed on him as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case.
Upon reviewing the report, Black Kite ( talk · contribs) closed it with no action. At the time, no other uninvolved administrator had made any comments and the report had been open for only about five hours.
GorillaWarfare ( talk · contribs), aware of of the fact Black Kite had dismissed the report, overruled his decision and unilaterally blocked Eric for a month without discussion.
Black Kite subsequently opened an AN discussion regaring GorillaWarfare's block of Eric which was treated as an appeal, despite the fact that Eric at no time expressed any desire to appeal the restriction. The discussion was then closed by Reaper Eternal ( talk · contribs), who unblocked Eric, arguing that there [was] definitely no consensus [there] for a block; indeed, the results seem[ed] to show a slight consensus in favor of unblocking. A pure vote count show[ed] a 60/40 split in favor of unblocking.
2) The conduct of all administrators involved in the dispute was suboptimal.
Black Kite's actions had the effect of interfering with the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision; in fact, since Eric's comment was a violation of his restriction and was not minor in nature, Black Kite should not have dismissed the enforcement request so quickly and without waiting for input from other uninvolved administrators
GorillaWarfare's actions fell foul of the rules set out in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications and in Wikipedia:Administrators#Reversing another administrator's action, namely the expectation that administrative actions should not be reversed without [...] a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged.
Reaper Eternal's actions violated Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications requiring, for an appeal to be successful, a request on the part of the sanctioned editor and the clear and substantial consensus of [...] uninvolved editors at AN.
@ Salvio giuliano: While I can understand that point of view, is this what is described by the actual wording of policy and is this something that reflects our actual practices? To expand on your example, I have seen numerous occasions where an AfD closure was reversed by another admin, and then restored by the original admin. I don't think I have ever seen such an event be called wheel warring. While the position that closing an AE is an admin action is a reasonable position, I do not think it was the only reasonable interpretation of actual practices.
How many times a week are closures on ANI reversed? Has this ever been seen as wheel warring?
If the the purpose of this case is to clarify the rules in this matter, then I think it is a disservice to assume that the rules were clear to begin with. The lack of clarity is what has brought us here and I sincerely believe that Gorrilla was acting in good faith based on a reasonable interpretation of the rules as they were stated. Chillum 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) The Arbitration Committee delegates the drafters of this case to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to bring them in line with the clarifications contained in this decision.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
As presented into evidence, there are different procedures for reporting violations of sanctions, and accordingly different standards for handling the reports. This may have contributed to confusion regarding the appropriate burden of proof required for an administrator to enforce an Arbitration Committee-enacted editing restriction. Sanctions enacted by the Arbitration Committee ought to be written with clear criteria defining their scope, thereby making it relatively straightforward to determine if they apply.
By its nature, a mandate to issue discretionary sanctions does not have specific criteria triggering specific actions, and instead gives administrators broad authority to use their judgment in deciding the best course of action. Accordingly, it is desirable for a higher burden of proof to be required to oversee the reasoning of administrators imposing sanctions at their discretion.
Although general methods for reporting violations are described for sanctions other than community-imposed editing restrictions, English Wikipedia's culture is not one of "notice-and-action" regarding problematic behaviour: any administrator, upon observing behaviour that violates Wikipedia guidelines or imposed sanctions, can take action, which can subsequently be appealed and reviewed. Thus an enforcement action can take place either through the processing of a request, or the individual initiative of an administrator. Wikipedia's tradition of avoiding bureaucracy argues against requiring all enforcement to take place via requests in a specific location. Any changes to how sanctions are enforced should take into account both of these options. isaacl ( talk) 16:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with
Wikipedia's tradition of acting boldly, editors are encouraged to perform an action they feel is beneficial, and also to revert an action they feel is detrimental, thereby restoring the original state, followed by a review and discussion of the action. This enables uncontroversial changes to proceed rapidly, while allowing debatable changes to be
identified and discussed.
In a similar manner, in order to allow for administrative actions to take place with
minimal overhead, many processes requiring administrative privileges to be completed only need a single admin to evaluate the best course of action. In cases of dispute, a review procedure is defined to re-assess the decision made.
Wikipedia's guidance on reinstating a reverted action (wheel-warring) is based on these principles: admins are able to act efficiently based on their judgment, and their actions can be reverted to restore the original state while the situation is re-evaluated. The guidance is not intended to set a deadline after which an editor can no longer be sanctioned: it provides a framework to avoid warring over the best steps to take in the interest of the community. By allowing the original state to be restored, the following discussion can take place under the original conditions prior to the first action, as if it had not occurred.
In cases of editors violating a policy, a general sanction, or an editing restriction, admins have the duty to impose appropriate sanctions (typically a block) for the violation, and they have a mandate to do so on their own initiative. Accordingly, the individual judgment of an admin that no action should be taken does not bind other admins to the same judgment. As the original state has been preserved, the first step in a wheel-warring incident has not been taken.
For many scenarios, there are also venues for discussion where the community can weigh in and determine a consensus view. (For the purposes of this analysis, no opinion is expressed on whether or not the Arbitration Enforcement request noticeboard is a venue for general community consensus.) For discussions within the scope of these venues, once a consensus is determined, actions to implement this consensus are within
Wikipedia's consensus policy, rendering questions of wheel-warring moot.
isaacl (
talk)
23:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, BOLD means two things. a} sometimes it is best to show the effect of an edit by doing it, not asking about it . This meaning will rarely apply outside of article space. b.)sometimes for a complex or disputed action , or to break an impasse . it can clarify things to take an action that you hope will have consensus in the end , but are not the least sure will have immediate consensus. This still shouldn't be something you know will not possibly have consensus. I've have personally done this a few times at RfC,especially in closing MoS disputes where there may never be true consensus, but we are better off having closed somehow. They've usually stood, because people reason they don't want to open the whole thing up again, for uncertain benefit. AE is not usually the place for this sort of reasoning. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are encouraged to perform any action they feel is beneficial, and also to revert an action they feel is detrimental, thereby restoring the original state, followed by a review and discussion of the action. This enables uncontroversial changes to proceed rapidly, while allowing debatable changes to be identified and discussed.
In order to allow for administrative actions to take place with minimal overhead, many processes requiring administrative privileges to be completed only need a single admin to evaluate the best course of action. In cases of dispute, a review procedure is defined to re-assess the decision made.
Wikipedia's guidance on reinstating a reverted action (wheel-warring) is based on these concepts: empowering editors to take beneficial actions, and providing a way to review these actions. Admins are able to act efficiently based on their judgment, and their actions can be reverted to restore the original state while the situation is re-evaluated. The guidance is not intended to set a deadline after which actions can no longer be taken, such as sanctioning an editor: it provides a framework to avoid warring over the best steps to take in the interest of the community. By allowing the original state to be restored, the following discussion can take place under the original conditions prior to the first action, as if it had not occurred.
In cases of editors violating a policy, a general sanction, or an editing restriction, admins have the duty to impose appropriate sanctions (typically a block) for the violation, and they have a mandate to do so on their own initiative. Accordingly, the individual judgment of an admin that no action should be taken does not bind other admins to the same judgment. As the original state has been preserved, the first step in a wheel-warring incident has not been taken.
For many scenarios, there are also venues for discussion where editors can weigh in and determine a consensus view. (For the purposes of this analysis, no opinion is expressed on whether or not the Arbitration Enforcement request noticeboard is a venue for a consensus of either the general community or administrators.) For discussions within the scope of these venues, once a consensus is determined, actions to implement this consensus are within Wikipedia's consensus policy, rendering questions of wheel-warring moot. isaacl ( talk) 14:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)