Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop#Conflict in principles

Despite being entirely uninvolved in this mess, I've added some proposals as I think many of the existing proposals are going the wrong way. The process doesn't need tinkering with, the presenting circumstances need dealing with.

Complicating this is the fact that the committee has pronounced, unwisely in my view, an amnesty to all involved. This should be rescinded if at all possible.

I can add evidence to the proposed findings of fact if required, but I hope it's all pretty obvious; the facts of the case are not disputed. Unusually, even which facts are relevant is not really in dispute. GoldenRing (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

:You can't just rescind amnesty, that is not how amnesty works. Chillum 15:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

::Well, strictly speaking of course the committee can rescind amnesty. The reasons not to are not that the committee is bound in some way, but that doing so might rather tarnish the image of the committee. Nonetheless, I think that at the very least this case needs some hard findings of face that some editors acted improperly, even if sanctions are not available. Otherwise, we will end up here again very shortly. GoldenRing (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

:::Actually, just clarifying the process and what is or is not an admin action will prevent a quick recurrence. We don't need to set up firing squads {{lang|fr|pour encourager les autres}}. GregJackP Boomer! 02:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

:::: While I realise that question seems to be important to lots of people here, I'm not convinced it's the right one to be asking. I think the right question is not one about administrative actions but one about consensus: Is a community consensus expressed at AE binding on administrators or can they still act unilaterally even after a consensus on the matter has formed? GoldenRing (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::I anticipate (or, to be more correct, I hope) that too will be tackled in the final decision. That said, the amnesty will not be rescinded. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

:I would echo Chillum's statement. If Arb was actually so foolish as to attempt to rescind amnesty (and I know they aren't), the streets would fill with angry villagers editors due to the principle. From a western legal perspective, you can't revoke amnesty once granted, or it wasn't amnesty to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted somewhere (evidence, workshop, here, somewhere) that {{user|Eric Corbett}} was blocked today for one month by {{user|Keilana}} following an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=672197032&oldid=672196331#Eric_Corbett unrelated AE request]. --B (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

:It is turning into farce when someone with possibly the longest incivility block log currently still active has their block reduced to 72 hours due to 'process'. At this point anything involving Eric makes a mockery of civility on wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

::Not the place to air opinions on the block. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

:::It does, however, speak once again to the process involved, where the discussion was closed after 2-1/2 hours. The only difference is that the first time those that wanted a block were unhappy with the time the discussion was open, and that this time the ones that did not want a block are unhappy. And there are two ways to look at it, first, if everyone's unhappy it must be working right, or second, if everybody's unhappy it must be real messed up. Y'alls call. GregJackP Boomer! 21:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

::::One of the issues being discussed on the Workshop page itself is the degree to which the decision here should be minimalist, or be more detailed, with respect to how to proceed in the event that the issues that led to the filing of this case continue after the present amnesty. We now know that they are continuing, and we now know (not that it should surprise anyone) that the community is arguing sharply about it. Clearly (just look at the blocked user's talk page), various members of the community have vehemently opposed opinions about the block, the process of the block, and the discussion that occurred at AE. Consequently, my suggestion to the drafting Arbs is that you recognize that the best way to help the community in this case is to spell things out very clearly, with respect to the ground rules for what, it seems, will inevitably be the next case here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::^^what Tryptofish said. GregJackP Boomer! 00:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::(ec) Apologies if this is straying from the topic somewhat, but it's getting hard to see what rules can be laid down. It seems to me likely that the process around this latest episode has a natural, benign explanation; an editor who didn't want to expose themselves to opposition asked Kevin Gorman to file an AE request, and Kevin and Keilana are friends, tend to go places together and so Keilana saw the request and acted on it. But it's certainly easy to see how it has the appearance of skulduggery; an admin who's been gunning for Eric for a while sifts through Eric's contributions for anything mildly offensive, posts a request at AE and then pings his friend to come and do the enforcement, which by a 'mistake' just happens to be considerably longer than the actual sanction imposed allows. I'm not saying that's what happened (I don't think it is) but you can certainly see how, at a glance, it could have that appearance. With this level of mistrust in the community over straightforward sanction enforcement, what option is left but to reserve all enforcement regarding Eric Corbett to the committee? A job I'm sure they just can't wait to get started on... GoldenRing (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

::::::I can't speak for Keilana (I had not spoken to her for >24 hours at the time,) but I can confirm that I was asked to file an enforcement request by someone who saw Eric's quite clear violation of the probation, but did not want to expose themselves to the shit that reporting Eric would bring. And despite the fact that pretty much everyone agrees the comments were violations of Eric's probation, look at the amount of shit I've gotten for reporting it, over a number of pages. I am going to continue reporting Eric when he violates his AE sanctions, but how many people are going to be willing to report Eric for violating his sanctions? The answer is gonna be pretty low. Something - by arbcom - needs to be done. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::::So some other editor contacted you off-wiki in order for you to file an enforcement request? Are violating wiki-policies OK if it is intended to sanction an editor you don't like? If the community doesn't want to do something, that's known as consensus - so if the number of people willing to report EC is "pretty low" that could be an indication that the community doesn't want him sanctioned. GregJackP Boomer! 04:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

::::::::There's a reason why Category:Administrators willing to make difficult blocks (excuse me if I got the exact cat name wrong, but it's been forever, and the only point of that cat is quite similiar to what happpened here. People who file AE reports even against black and white violations of Eric's sanctions are themselves hounded for it. Right now, it doesn't matter if your small segment if the community doesn't want him blocked - it matters that he violated his black/whte restriction, I filed an AE, and someone else took the action prosribed by the committee under the circumstances. And if you'll look through our many contradictory policies, you'll find instances where anyone can contact anyone, anyone can contact an admin, any admin can contact another admin, where any admin can cntact any functonary, etc. Socialization is not an inherently bad thing, and in a situation where it lets one editor who can already barely edit content currently under this name take the heat cools down from prior stuff off of someone who can currently productively create content, then it improves the encyclopedia and I'm all for it. In a situation where an AE block has been upheld by a sitting arb, I don't think complaning I was canvassed is very productive. This will be my last contribution to this conversation unless something useful comes up. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Kevin...how about a mutual iban between you and Corbett?--MONGO 04:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

::::::::MONGO: iBans don't customarily apply to arb proceedings. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::I wasn't suggesting an iban, I was recommending one. Considering most of your recent editing has been revolving around Eric Corbett in one fashion or another, appearances are you're either on a witchhunt or at least have an unhealthy obsession that may be interfering with your usual featured article level work.--MONGO 15:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::::{{ec}} Or, what MONGO said. Kevin: {{tq|I am going to continue reporting Eric when he violates his AE sanctions}} You really should stop. Eric is not a low-profile person; if he does something that needs attention, someone else will notice and it can be handled by someone without a clear history of repeatedly trying to sanction him and anyone who takes actions perceived to be in his favor (just for examples related to this case, see out-of-scope evidence, point 3 of my preliminary statement, talk page followup). You should effectively follow the terms of the original injunction and refrain from taking or initiating any administrative action with regard to Eric. The continued participation of involved users (some arguably, some unambiguously) as the self-appointed civility police is itself contributing to the disruption caused by the original incivility. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

::::::::Notice how much shit I get every time I report Eric for reporting a clear violation on Eric's part Opabinia? I don't want to subject other users to the same degree of shit, and at the same time, want Eric to adhere to his remedies. And from past history, when others do report,they get the same treatment I do. If I see a clear violation on Eric's part (which is an exemption to even normal i-bans,) I will be bringing it to AE unless Arbcom takes over Eric enforcement directly themselves. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::"Getting shit" is a form of community feedback about your approach here, to which you seem unreceptive. Purportedly protecting others from shit is unnecessary self-martyrdom. If you don't do anything about a putative violation, and nobody else does either, which is a more likely explanation: a) every single other person on the wiki who saw the problem was too intimidated to do anything, or b) it wasn't actually much of a problem?

:::::::::As for exemptions to ibans, that's why I like my formulation better. No enforcement, period. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

:::Opabinia I think you will find it goes well beyond community feedback and extends to abuse and intimidation. The reality is that if you enforce the rules on certain users, regardless of how correct you are then you will get shit. And when I say shit I don't mean community feedback. Chillum 13:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

GoldenRing I think the committee sort of passed the buck when they decided to pass the discretion back the community even though it was clear that the community had already failed to deal with it which is why it ended up at arbcom. I think you make very good point about leaving enforcement to the committee. Without in any way prohibiting normal admin actions the sanctions themselves could be taken over by arbcom.

We are feeling the repercussions of pushing the problem down the road right now. While the community can often be relied upon to handle enforcements of arbcom decisions it seems in this case it would help a lot if they just took it out the community's hands and dealt with the matter with whatever clear criteria they wish to. The matter is simply too divisive, I am seeing good people on both sides and neither side is feeling good about the site at the end of the day. Chillum 03:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

:Well, be fair, that's a pretty standard enforcement provision. In fact, so standard that it's part of the standard 'Enforcement of restrictions' clause in decisions that doesn't need voting on.

:What we're seeing here is not that dissimilar to what we saw at the height of the GamerGate ruckus; any admin who dares to enforce the remedies is immediately beset by hordes of editors telling them what a bad block it is - and this happened no matter which side of the debate the blockee was on. As someone who was near the centre of that storm, I'd be interested to hear if {{ping|HJ Mitchell}} has any good ideas on enforcement of remedies that are disliked by a significant faction of editors. GoldenRing (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

::Yeah, don't be gratuitously offensive to (or about) people, and don't go looking for an excuse to be offended. Oh, and focus on improving the encyclopaedia rather than on the he-said she-said. Wouldn't that make Wikipedia a much nicer place? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|L235|Jim Carter|Penwhale}} Requesting this section be hatted as off topic. The discussion has (of course) become about Corbett and Gorman. Not related to this case. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

:@Clerks: it's not as simple as that. Per my earlier comment above, there are really two things going on here. One is simply argument about individual editors, and that, indeed, is outside the scope of this case (however much it illustrates a community problem that ArbCom will have to to deal with in an inevitable next case). But the other thing is entirely within case scope: discussion of how the community is failing to deal with AE here, and the need for ArbCom to spell out the ground rules for what is hitting the fan next. Where an editor asked what rules can be laid down, well, I don't see that much here that I would call "benign", but your mileage may vary – and that's part of where the community cannot reach consensus. As for the specifics of what ArbCom could decide, well, that's what the Workshop page is for, so please see there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

:Waiting for L235 and Jim Carter to respond, but my personal view is that part of this section is at least on-topic. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

::Not sure how discussion iban between Gorman and Corbett is on topic. Even the rest of it is just about how unable the community is at dealing with Corbett. Great example, but not sure we need to hash it all out. I'm rather confident everyone here knows the issues. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

:::My opinion is that this is outside of the topic specified by the arbitrators, so I'd temporarily ask that no further comments be made here (until otherwise noted by any clerk or arb) but since another clerk is against it, I'll wait on word from the arbs before making a final call to hat here. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely hope, whatever Arbcom decides in this case, it results in all sanctioned editors being treated equally. FWIW, the 2 times I was reported to AE, the results were quite swift & with little fuss. GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to find time to add some significant proposals for a week or so, and only just now managed to get them down on the workshop. I hope these proposals get some discussion, but I notice that the workshop deadline is fast approaching. Would a one week extension be acceptable?

I also notice that nearly everybody has been uncommonly collegial on this workshop, and want to thank all involved for that. --TS 16:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

:I also think Tony managed to focus in better on the ... core description of the problem, but that we could use more time to review and discuss his contributions here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

:The thing is, we are already writing the draft of the proposed decision that will then be posted here for the community to comment on, and said draft is almost ready. So, while I am not a stickler for deadlines, there is the possibility that, over the next couple of days, arbitrators will be focusing on arbwiki, where we are wordsmithing the proposed decision, rather than here. I have no objection to continued discussion here, mind you, but it's fair to let you know what's going on elsewhere. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

:An extenstion wouldn't hurt. Afterall, the results of this case, will effect all of us. GoodDay (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

: It does sound as if my contribution has come along too late in the day. In that case an extension would probably just be a waste. I'd rather the arbitrators focused on their own internal discussions. --TS 10:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

::TS, proposed decisions can change after they are posted. Often the subsequent talk page discussion can influence what later becomes the final decisions in a case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

::: Yes, I'm aware of that. Overall, though, I think my most recent contributions probably arrived too late and are unlikely to affect the thoughts of the arbitrators, who are surely more painfully aware of the issues than I and probably have more experience of the practical effects.

::: I don't doubt that the problems caused by the current processes for arbitration enforcement will have to be tackled, but I have no unique insight into how they can be resolved. --TS 21:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have just posted the draft PD for any interested users to comment on; as a result, I have reopened the workshop for the limited purpose of discussing the proposed decision. The workshop will close again on 9 August 2015. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

: With the best of intentions, it's easy to let one's mind wander and start to continue discussion in other areas of the workshop. Perhaps it would be better if a clerk roped off all the closed portions with one of those templates used to close discussions. You get a big obvious blue background which serves to jog the memory. --TS 14:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

::Quite so. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In the draft proposed decision, the principle "Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement" specifies that administrators can act unilaterally to enforce an arbitration decision. The principle "Dismissing an enforcement request" states that once a request has been dismissed, it may not be reopened. These two principles are in conflict, and so additional clarification is desirable. The second principle implies that an administrator unilaterally deciding not to enforce an arbitration decision has now prevented all other administrators from acting, which prevents unilateral enforcement and forestalls enforcement based on consensus, if the dismissal is taken swiftly.

As a point of clarification: does the second principle hold regardless of where the request was made? If so, in order for administrators to be aware of the disposition of the request, a central log is needed to record the outcome. (Presumably, if an administrator notices a violation without a request, and chooses not to act, this too would have to be recorded, and so the first administrator on the scene will handle the incident.) If not, there is an asymmetry between breaches of arbitration remedies discussed at, say, the incidents noticeboard, and at the Arbitration Enforcement requests noticeboard. isaacl (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Given that arbcom sanctions are generally given when the community fails to handle a problem I always assumed that sanction were meant to be enforceable by any admin, and that no admin had the authority to decide it should not be enforced. If an admin is enforcing arbcom sanctions incorrectly then arbcom can correct them.

:Otherwise we just end up where we started, where the community is handling something it has already failed to handle in the past. Really what is the point in making a binding decision to break a deadlock if any admin is allowed to decide it should not be enforced? Chillum 14:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:: Bingo! Chillum and Isaacl, I wobbled all over the place on the workshop page just now trying to articulate these concerns which you have both stated so well here. --TS 14:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

::{{ec}} There is always the requirement that a consensus for no action, or action short of sanction (e.g. a reminder or warning) is appropriate. For example not every action reported at AE as a violation of a sanction is actually a violation - and if made in bad faith sometimes a WP:BOOMERANG results. On other occasions things may be such a minor violation that no action is deemed appropriate - the spirit, intention and letter of a restriction are considered, and this can result in a clarification or amendment request (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality for example). Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence; can you provide additional clarification? Are you saying that there is a requirement that some decisions are appropriately made by consensus? isaacl (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

::::Sorry for not being clear. I'm saying that there is a requirement for "no action" to be a possible result of an (alleged) breach of a restriction. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

::As appeal mechanisms are available, ultimately up to the arbitration committee, the deadlock will be resolved again, but with the cost of additional discussion. If this is going to be the case, then perhaps any potentially contentious remedies should be flagged by the arbitration committee as requiring a discussion amongst arbitrators to determine any required enforcement. isaacl (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

::: As I remarked on the workshop a week or two ago, some very early arbitration cases (2005) had remedies of the form "[enforcement by block] if in the opinion of any three uninvolved administrators, [enforcement condition]". (example) Such conditions have fallen out of use, but it's always possible to revive that kind of remedy. It would be easy to merge that into the current AE mechanism, which is of later vintage. --TS 15:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

::::Yes, it would be possible (and, indeed, it might be quite useful to deal with particularly complicated cases) to revive such a remedy, but that would be something to be done at the level of the specific remedy, in my opinion, rather than here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

::::: Yes, that was supposed to be my point, but I think I drifted a little in the expression. In principle at least the AE rules wouldn't need to be changed to accommodate this. Whether multiple admins are needed to take action can be decided by the Arbitration Committee. In practice, they don't use this kind of remedy. --TS 13:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that this case has been intended to provide guidance about the ground rules in the event of future cases. I've looked at the draft PD with that in mind. I expect that, in the future, editors will look to what the PD says about the finding of fact at (2) Conduct of the administrators involved. As I read it, the draft PD is telling administrators "this is suboptimal, so you need to be careful about it". As such, it has to be very clear as to what the suboptimal aspects are, and I want to make some suggestions about that necessary clarity.

1. About Black Kite's actions, to what extent is the problem one of "giving the impression", such that administrators need to avoid giving the wrong impression? It seems to me that, instead, the central issue is whether there was "obstructing the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision." Was this, in turn, because the AE discussion was closed prematurely (first finding of fact), or because the result was contrary to the ArbCom decision (I think it was), or both? I would suggest getting rid of the verb "to obstruct", so you don't have to waffle over "giving the impression". Instead, you could frame it in terms of "having the effect of interfering with the enforcement of" the ArbCom decision. And you should specify why: because of how quickly the AE discussion was closed, and because of what the ArbCom decision actually required. I think you should also spell out that the issue of the quick AE closure was not strictly a matter of time, but a matter of the need for a consensus of uninvolved administrators, per principle (4), as opposed to a local consensus of editors who happened to have shown up.
2. About Reaper Eternal's actions, the draft PD focuses on the need for a "clear and substantial" consensus. However, finding of fact (1) draws attention to the fact that Eric Corbett did not request the appeal, implicitly indicating that the appeal should not have been closed with a decision to unblock because it was not requested by the blocked editor, which is also what principle (7) says. If this is the case, the second finding of fact should explicitly reflect it; if not, the first finding of fact should leave it out. And it's vague about the ground rules for that "clear and substantial" consensus. Was the 60/40 split not "substantial" enough?

I'm expecting that there will be future cases, and that editors will be looking for ways to parse this decision to support whatever those editors are predisposed to do. As a result, I think it's important that the final decision leave no room for Wikilawyering, and that requires specificity. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:I have modified the two points you mention; are they clearer now, in your opinion? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

::Yes, thank you very much. I'm glad that my comments were useful, and I think it is much clearer now. My only remaining suggestion would be a minor tweak for easier reading. At the end, in the quote about "the clear and substantial consensus of [...] (b) uninvolved editors at AN", you might as well delete "(b)", because it could be contained within the elipsis. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)