Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 83 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Infobox image

(Initiated 54 days ago on 7 September 2024) Survey responses have died down in past couple of weeks. CNC (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 43 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Assassin's_Creed_Shadows#RfC:Should_Assassin's_Creed_Shadows_include_the_Re-enactment_flag_controversy_and_Japanese_reaction?

(Initiated 37 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	0	8	0	8
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	15	0	15
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

Other types of closing requests

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 157 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Suga#Requested_move_21_October_2024

(Initiated 10 days ago on 21 October 2024) Could an uninvolved editor please close the discussion :) 52-whalien (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done by BD2412. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nasser Hospital mass graves#Merge proposal

(Initiated 191 days ago on 23 April 2024) Opened for more than six months now, no new comments. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Strange behaviour from several new accounts

There have been several throwaway accounts recently—Yumakotori9, Samuelliam, Rozsateka, Vincemio9 and Antontimo2—that all follow the same editing pattern. Their edits almost exclusively consist of overlinking, adding redundant sentences and incorrectly italicising titles. Is this disruptive enough to warrant blocking? I've been reverting them but the frequency of these edits seem to be increasing. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Found some more: Reidan29, Emmaava17, Usagi40, Zoeemily, Ethanliam69, Yumiko69, Masonadam25, Aliceella25, Misako94. Obviously a sockpuppet of some sort, but I can't work out what the intent is. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Similarly unsure about their actual edits, but an SPI might be a good idea. Sam Walton (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

They might be a class of students learning how to edit Wikipedia and told to start off with this kind of stuff. Or, they are all making a load of minor edits to get auto-confirmed and then go after their real goals which may or may not be legitimate ones. Voceditenore (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've not looked in a huge amount of detail but it seems like the edits are sequential, as if one person is moving from account to account. Sam Walton (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I raised something similar at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Strange concentration of new accounts on new, obscure article. Number 57 14:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about your examples, Number 57, but I left messages on the talk pages of all the ones named in this section asking them if this was a class assignment. This response indicates that maybe it is. But who knows? Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is possibly a continuation of the disruption first reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Suspicious activity at Kammavari Palem. One of the accounts was proven to be a sockpuppet of User:036386536a; a couple others made unprompted denials of being sockpuppets even though no one had accused them in the first place. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/036386536a/Archive#6 June 2015 and the following two sections.) All the accounts implausibly claimed that Wikipedia itself told them to edit certain articles after signing up for an account. My best theory so far is that User:036386536a is either running or taking an online course on Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Psychonaut:, @Lukeno94:, @WikiDan61:.

I'm not so sure it's implausible.

Presuming they claimed they were suggested to different articles, pretty sure it's entirely plausible. AFAIK Wikipedia:GettingStarted has been shown to all newly registered accounts after they complete registration for quite a while now. (Meta:Research:Onboarding new Wikipedians/Rollout suggests since 2014-02-11.) Definitely it was shown when I created a temp account just now to confirm it's still working.

As that page says you can add ?gettingStartedReturn=true to any page to see what's shown to new users. If they came from an editable article (and the software knows it), they'll be invited to edit the article they came from, but if they came from anywhere else (an uneditable article or something that isn't an article or the software doesn't know where they came from) except special pages, they'll be direct to something else to edit.

Now, if many accounts claim they were all suggested to the same article (which wasn't were they started from) in in a brief timespan, that seems implausible unless there's a bug or weirdness in the design of getting started, those details I'm lazy to check.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If someone creates a new account from the main page, it's plausible that they'd be redirected to edit a random page. Maybe that's a problem with the philosophy behind the GettingStarted extension, essentially making them edit an article where they're practically guaranteed to have nothing to contribute. If new editors make noise edits and get reverted and accused of disruption or puppetry, that certainly seems contrary to the intended purpose of the extension. The charts on Meta:Research:Onboarding new Wikipedians/Rollout are bizarre. At first glance, they seem to indicate that revert rates of new editors are declining, but if you actually look at them, they're just plotting data that has been pre-sorted into descending order. In any case, questioning the value of the extension seems more like a basis for an administrative request to get it uninstalled or at least maybe reviewed by someone without an interest in getting/keeping it installed. --Unready (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Where is Poland?

So, where's Poland? Is it in Eastern Europe or Central Europe? There was an RfC about this on Talk:Poland, which I closed today in favour of Eastern Europe (diff). Accordingly, I changed the article to say so. I've now been reverted, but the editor concerned has not explained himself on the article talk page or on mine.

Taking the most charitable interpretation of the revert, I'll assume that this editor wants to challenge my close but does not know how to do so. (I was half-expecting a challenge to my close in any case, because I went for a decision rather than a compromise.) Could I have an RfC close review please?—S Marshall T/C 18:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is primarily a question about how Europe should be divided, not specifically about Poland - perhaps you should try an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hi @Od Mishehu: and thanks for responding, but I do just wonder if you might have missed the point?—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that close, and decided not to say anything if users seemed to accept it, but now that users have clearly not accepted it, I'm afraid I have to say that I disagree with it. Sorry Stuart, no offense intended, I appreciate your effort and good intent, but to me, that close reads more like a supervote rather than an evaluation of the arguments. In terms of arguing users, we have for a Central/Eastern Europe compromise: Cordless Larry, Piotrus, OnlyInYourMind, OwenBlacker, and Yatzhek. For Eastern Europe we only have Samotny Wędrowiec (though he would also accept, and even proposed, a Central/Eastern compromise), and TheGnome, while for Central Europe: Xx236. Of course the actual arguments are more important than the count of supporters, but Samotny Wędrowiec, Piotrus, and Xx236 each presented multiple links with evidence for their sides. It's pretty clear that the consensus is for a Central/Eastern compromise. I know you wrote that you also took the opinions of other people discussing elsewhere on the page into account, but that hardly makes it more clear, since there we have Oliszydlowski, Boston9, and Student7 arguing against merely Eastern Europe, and in favor of a compromise of both. (And of course there's Powertranz, though they merely revert rather than argue, so it's hard to tell what their argument is, it's still pretty clear they don't agree.) A closer needs to be able to put their personal opinions aside; if they can't, or don't agree with the clear discussion consensus, and think it should be listed as in Eastern Europe, then they can say so, and participate in the discussion, but they shouldn't close it as a supervoter. --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of complicating matters further, I feel I should point out that this RfC appears not to have been properly carried out, and seems not to have served the purpose for which they are designed. The intention is to attract the opinions of outside contributors - and for that purpose, a template is provided, which ensures that the RfC is added to the appropriate lists. As it stands, I can see little evidence that the 'RfC' amounted to more than a rehashing of arguments by involved contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I'd agree that there were no outside contributors. There was what seems to be a correct RfC template on the article until Legobot removed it on 26th May (diff); I closed it more than three weeks after the template expired. I think the usual amount of effort had been made to attract outside contributors but none had showed up.
  
  GRuban's count is superficially accurate but I feel that to consider Yatzhek as "for a central/eastern europe compromise" is to disregard most of his posts on the talk page. Yatzhek hasn't been persuaded that Poland is in central/eastern europe, he's been exhausted into agreeing to it. I also don't agree with GRuban's apparent choice to disregard the IP posters.
  
  Until I read the RfC I didn't think much about this subject, but now that I've read it (and the linked sources), I really do think Poland's in Eastern Europe. Its eastern boundary is the eastern edge of the European Union, and also the eastern edge of NATO. Its language is Slavic and its people are, with minority exceptions, Slavs. However, I'm happy to be overturned if there's a consensus that I'm wrong.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for my earlier comment re the template - I thought I'd checked for it, but obviously missed it somehow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The 'location' of Poland has been an ongoing issue. Please see all of archive 2 (which includes an RM), and the majority of archive 3 (which includes an RfC) for the Galicia (Eastern Europe) article. Personally, I'm neutral as to whether Poland is described as a Central European country or not... but I've also been worn out by the proposal to define Poland as being in Central Europe from as many different fronts as possible. In fact, I've been so far put off the subject by what can only be described as FORUMSHOPPING raising its head every six months or so, that I've started to believe the hype. I agree with S Marshal's evaluation of the RfC. While I was involved with the Galician disambiguation issue as a matter of compromise, I truly see this as something that can only be neutrally assessed via a crossroads talk page where a far more diverse group of editors can !vote and discuss the COMMONNAME for the region in Europe English language sources agree on. To be honest, Eastern Europe has been treated as an IDONTLIKEIT assignation which simply isn't reflected in the Anglophone world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the conflict over Galicia (Eastern Europe) of November 2013. Since 2003, the article has been titled Galicia (Central-Eastern Europe), Galicia (central Europe), Galicia (Central Europe), Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe), Galicia (East Central Europe), Galicia (East-Central Europe) and Galicia (Eastern and Central Europe). Let's just say that identifying countries in this entire geographic area has been a ongoing subject of dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It sure looks like there were outside contributors. This RfC was OnlyInYourMind (talk · contribs)'s only contribution to Poland related topics, and OwenBlacker (talk · contribs) specifically wrote he was here from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. Both were, of course, in favor of compromise. I strongly suspect that most other outside contributors would be too, because ... no offence to the participants ... to those without a dog in this fight, this likely just isn't worth arguing over. Please see Boris's view concisely expressed just below. Ahem.

As for S Marshall's arguments, they are just that arguments for the discussion. They are not conclusive (I suspect Austria or Canada or a dozen other countries could have issues with the concept that NATO borders defined Europe) or even appropriate, for the closing. The closer is supposed to evaluate the arguments made in the discussion, rather than decide based on their own views. Let's quote directly from Wikipedia:Closing discussions: "If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, he or she is expected to decide according to the consensus." With all due respect, it reads as if you have done the opposite. --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, certainly I have no strong feelings on the matter. From my perspective as someone brought up during the Cold War in Western Europe, I was taught that Poland was in Eastern Europe — but where that term was a transparent euphemism for the Warsaw Pact nations. Now I would describe anything between the Rhine and Poland's current eastern border as being Central Europe. But I'd understand either term and, as GRuban (talk · contribs) succinctly put it, I don't have a dog in this fight and don't really consider it worth arguing over ;o) Personally, I'm far more interested in a stable Wikipedia than whether the limits of Central or Eastern Europe are clearly defined. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, but why at Poland's Eastern border? To me that seems like a fairly arbitrary place to draw the line. Culturally, large parts of Belarus and Ukraine have a lot more in common with Poland than Russia. If you believe Poland and countries similar to it are in Central Europe, then why exclude Belarus and Ukraine? Would you include Germany with that definition? Linguistically it makes no sense, since as a native Polish speaker I can understand chunks of spoken Ukrainian and Belarusian without any prior learning of these languages (after learning the Cyrillic script I can also tell that their orthography is very similar to Polish despite of the difference in alphabets), the same applies to spoken and written Slovak and Czech (though reading that is even easier due to the similar alphabets), but I understand practically no spoken or written German despite of learning that language at school for 3 years. Even the political definition of Central Europe (nowadays often used as another term for Eastern European countries that are now allied with the US rather than Russia) shouldn't really end at Poland's Eastern border but about 3/4 into Ukraine. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Are we there yet? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Per GRuban, the closure statement does not reflect the consensus as presented, and should be reverted. The discussion does not seem to support the conclusion written by S Marshall. --Jayron32 03:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Not meaning to be disrespectful, most of the 'discussion' took place well before the stub-end posturing as an RfC. The protracted discussions prior that which is found in the 'RfC' have, to my mind, been considered and well represented by S Marshall. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to post here (as someone who has been trying to change things in this matter for over a year now), but if I am then here it is: for me personally the matter is clear - Poland is an Eastern European country through and through. The arguments I have provided over time and the amount of sources I linked to are enough proof that most of the world seems to agree on that. Central Europe is a concept that largely overlaps with the idea of Western and Eastern Europe. Time and time again we hear of Austria as either Western or Central Europe, whilst Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia are most often referred to as Eastern or East-Central Europe/Central and Eastern Europe (different wording, but essentially same thing).

The concept of Central Europe isn't that new, but it has always been mostly about the central parts of the Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary - a unique mix of cultures from the East and West. Calling Poland a Central European country is a much more recent idea and it seems ridiculous to me since present-day Poland has only very small parts of land that used to be under the control of the Austrians. Going by this, even countries geographically more to the East like Romania or Ukraine have more right to call themselves Central European. What disgusts me the most is that Eastern Europe, in the minds of many Eastern Europeans, is perceived as something objectively bad or something to be ashamed of. Pretty much half of the countries in Eastern Europe have a growing minority of loud people who argue that Eastern Europe starts to the East of their country. This results in some funny situations, where people from Poland, Latvia or Serbia argue that they are in Central or even Western Europe - both ideas are marginal at best. It's also annoying how people can't let go of the political connotations to Eastern Europe. The Eastern Bloc is gone, half of the Eastern European countries are now politically Western, but their cultures and history didn't change overnight in 1989 or 1991. And yes, whether they like it or not, influence of the Russian Empire and the USSR makes up a major part of the region's history.

Anyway, the only reason why I started arguing for a compromise is due to the fact that I became sick and tired of repeating myself. This turned into a frustration that has led me to take a break off Wikipedia by getting myself purposefully suspended. I came back (though I am still suspended on the Polish as I don't think it's worth appealing for the lifting of my suspension in that part of the online encyclopedia, because it is filled with POV-pushing and moderators abusing their powers) and realised that an inhuman amount of patience is required to see anything really change in the Poland article. So I just started taking it a bit less seriously and devoted less of my time to it. Eventually I started arguing for a compromise. But the same thing happens. I post countless arguments and sources supporting the change, yet all I get is lightning-fast reverts, vandalising of the talk page with personal attacks against me and so on. The only serious responses I was getting were from a very small number of mostly Polish Wikipedians who either replied by simply saying that they disagree, some of them occasionally posted a link to support their view.

So the main problem here is that, at the current moment in time, Wikipedia does not reflect the views of the world. It does not reflect how the UN or EU statistically group these countries, neither does it show what the majority of us actually think. The Poland article is strictly controlled by a group of Polish Wikipedians, some of them with connections to people with authority, who are destined to turn all things related to Poland on Wikipedia into the most biased travel guide available about a "country in the heart of Europe". One absolutely ridiculous example of this that I remember was when someone modified a quotation from Angela Merkel in the Poland article to say "Central and Eastern Europe" instead of "Eastern Europe" from the original source. Most of these people are unwilling to discuss anything related to this. They have had their way for so long and they probably will in the end also. The only reason why some progress actually started happening is due to users from the outside finally joining in. But it looks like it was very short-lived, because after the change we are now back to the same people repeatedly reverting any edits on the topic. In case anyone wasn't aware of this, Powertranz is the worst offender. He has been reverting these changes since February 2014 and he has NEVER taken part in the discussion about said changes. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm on the verge of self-reverting and reopening the discussion here. Another independent person's input would be very welcome to me at this point.—S Marshall T/C 19:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The wall of text above, with nothing but blatant soapboxing indicative of the more extreme parts of this whole affair, is not really acceptable at ANI. We are a community of (mostly anonymous) editors some of whom might have delusions of grandeur inflated to the level of accredited worldly politicians. Please note, Wikipedia is here to make use of internal links where applicable. Look at articles Central Europe and Eastern Europe. Where do you find Poland? Poland is "not" in Central Europe. Poland is in the article (!) Central Europe. Like OwenBlacker said above, Eastern Europe "was a transparent euphemism for the Warsaw Pact nations" during the Cold War. A Warsaw Pact would be a good i-link to use in article Poland according to WP:MOS, but Warsaw Pact doesn't exist anymore. Soviet Union doesn't exist neither ... understandably, the article Ukraine for instance would not have been written well if it began with: "Ukraine is a former republic of the Soviet Union." Instead, a sovereign state is the relevant i-link to use in introducing Ukraine to the reader according to WP:RS. Poeticbent talk 13:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I can't tell whether you're endorsing the close or not.—S Marshall T/C 00:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Saying that Eastern Europe is "a transparent euphemism for the Warsaw Pact nations" is an opinion, not fact. And if you really think that way and are from Eastern Europe, then you are stuck in the past. Many of the Eastern European nations are now in the EU and NATO. Furthermore, Eastern Europe has a much longer and richer history than just the Eastern Bloc. The "wall of text" you refer to also represents my point of view on this whole affair and more than anything else it represents my frustration. I've done my work, I've presented valid arguments and countless present-day sources that talk about Eastern Europe without making any mention of the Warsaw Pact. Feel free to look over one year's worth of content - me repeating the same things only to be completely ignored and endlessly reverted. But you didn't do so then, because you - just like most others who have continually opposed this change - are not interested in discussing any of this. You just show your disagreement and that's it, as if your position didn't need defending in an argument. Right now I just find it sickening that people like you are trying their best to completely wipe out any mention of Poland as an Eastern European country on Wikipedia. A process that has been happening for a long time now and it looks like you succeeded. Showing anything other than the marginal and fanatical point of view that Poland is "a country in the heart of Europe" is considered criminal on Wikipedia and an army of angry vandals is ready to fight you for attempting to show more than one perspective. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Poeticbent, but I have to agree with Samotny Wędrowiec regarding this issue. I tried to provide some background in terms of the Galicia (Eastern Europe) RfCs and RMs where a disambiguation using contemporary geopolitical sources was quickly dismissed and the focus shifted to other options for the disambiguation outside of invoking a compass point location in Europe. Arguments there (including my own) were sympathetic to Poland as being defined as Central Europe in principle, as well as on many personal (read as 'subjective') understandings, but were clear on the matter of the Anglophone world still using Eastern Europe consistently in the media, etc. as the descriptor. Even the UN defines Poland as being part of Eastern Europe.

Whatever the situation, the RfC which just took place wasn't publicised in time, and only the usual editors involved in these regions had the opportunity to present their arguments. Even now, by having had S Marshall's close challenged, it's reintroduced executive decisions made by other editors (even if in good faith) to disregard the closing comments: here an editor has only just changed the categories and content based on the premise that their personal interpretation of the !vote matters more than the RfC's closing evaluation. This is disruptive to the Nth degree in light of the number of times it has occurred over the years.

If S Marshall's evaluation is sincerely deemed to be erroneous in his closure, a new RfC needs to be held at a salient talk page where far broader Anglophone, NPOV editor interest will be attracted. It simply isn't a PAGEDECIDE matter, therefore presenting arguments to Anglophone-savvy contributors is the first priority. If this isn't being allowed to be recognised as being closed for a reasonable length of time (that is, until there is new information or an obvious change in Anglophone depiction of the location of Poland), it's going to continue to encourage disruptive, BATTLEGROUND tactics in the same manner that it has for years. To my mind, such practices cannot be understood to be anything other than GAMING, pure and simple. IDONTLIKEIT and plenty of scope for FORUMSHOPPING is not an option that should be left open at the end of an RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Having read the above I'm no longer on the verge of self-reverting. My confidence in my close is largely restored. Please will someone independent consider taking appropriate and proportionate measures to enforce it?—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I find your closure hard to justify and would definitely recommend reverting it. Your own statements here in this thread make it sound rather like an admin "supervote" ("I really do think Poland's in Eastern Europe"). It is pretty clear that the closure doesn't reflect predominant opinion expressed during the RfC itself, and looking over both the preceding debate (and discounting all statements on both sides that were arguing on the basis of personal ideological conviction and self-identification rather than on the basis of sources) I certainly do not see any consensus in line with your closure either. Both sides were citing valid sources (and a lot of invalid ones mixed in with them), and neither side provided even an attempt at a convincing demonstration that the sources they cited were representative of a clearly predominant stance in the literature, beyond simply asserting this was the case. (I also note that most of the sources cited in support of "Eastern" came from contexts where "Central" wasn't even a possible alternative as part of the underlying classificatory scheme; i.e. sources that divide Europe only into "north", "south", "west" and "east" to begin with – I have yet to see a source which, while operating with a concept of "Central Europe", states that Poland is not part of it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, you're overlooking the fact that local consensus is irrelevant where Wikipedia's policies override it. We don't use Asian sources to define the Anglophone world's geographical locations for Southeast Asia or other regions of the world. There could well be a plethora of sources from Asian countries, politico-economic organisations, etc. referring to it as Southwest Asia, but English language Wikipedia represents the Anglosphere's perception. Those involved with that localised RfC where either European or Europeans living in the Anglosphere and presented POV rationales. Please read this, and this, and this contemporary accounts, reflecting the Anglophone world's perceptions regarding what countries constitute Eastern Europe.

We know that Wikipedia's position is to reflect what mainstream secondary sources have to say on the matter, not to lead the way in OR in order to influence or create the position. If this is genuinely deemed to be something that needs to be examined, it needs to be examined in a venue that will attract those who don't deal specifically with Polish articles. S Marshall's summary and decision in based on NPOV, not an admin 'supervote'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement, the limits of WP:INVOLVED, and (inevitably) Eric Corbett

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note: I have reverted my close of this thread based on feedback received on my talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Last night I closed a WP:AE request about a topic ban breach by User:Eric Corbett. A number of editors had commented on it, all of whom seemed to agree that while it was a technical breach of the TB, it wasn't worth a serious sanction. I thus closed it in that way with no action. An hour later, arbitrator User:GorillaWarfare unilaterally blocked Eric for a month. There are a couple of issues here.

• Enforcement. I closed the report as "no action", but GorillaWarfare overrode it. Had it been the other way round (i.e. I'd blocked Eric and she had unblocked him without discussing it with me, or here) then it would almost certainly have resulted in a desysop. It seems wrong that AE decisions can be overridden in one direction but not the other. Why even bother having AE if admins can unilaterally ignore the discussion and the closing of them?
• Involvement. GorillaWarfare was one of the arbs that voted for Eric's topic ban in the first place. Whilst that would not normally meet any definition of involvement, she was also quite vocal in wanting Eric completely site-banned during that case (here is the PD page). I'm ... uneasy that it was GW who did the blocking. As I said on her talkpage, she should undo the block, and if another admin wants to re-block, that's their prerogative (but again, the above issue still applies).

AE blocks can be undone by a discussion here. Whether that is the outcome or not, I think the above issues need to be discussed. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock as out of process and against consensus. The AE request was filed at 21:45 UTC and Eric was blocked just before 04:00 UTC, during which time I was either reading articles or (mostly) asleep. A little over six hours is far too short a time to gain an accurate consensus; indeed, when I have entertained unblock proposals when coming across cases on CAT:UNBLOCK I have generally allowed 7 days as a suitable timeframe. I was very close to unblocking Eric myself, but I think a discussion here is a good idea - though one I fear will descend quickly into a mud slinging drama-fest :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • AE is not based on developing a new consensus each time. As long as there was a violation of an arbitration sanction, an administrator can enforce the sanction without any discussion. The discussion happened when the arbitration case is decided, and after that the case itself provides the consensus behind any enforcement actions. 2601:5C5:4000:B14F:90D1:11E:D24C:CBF7 (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock - After the AE discussion, this unilateral action looked to be a second bite of the apple. This is inconsistent with our goals and policy. If we are to ignore consensus, then why bother having AE. I'm also bothered by GW's comments about how there was only one admin among participants, which seemed to be a disrespectful jab at non-admin, indicating their input is less important than those of us with the bit. If it wasn't an Arb block, I would have simply unblocked him myself without asking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So a little over six hours is far too short a time to gain an accurate consensus with which you disagree, but fine for one with which you agree? Hal peridol (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that GorillaWarfare has already explained her comment about only one admin [1]. Amortias (T)(C) 11:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Insufficient. If her real concern was that the comments were simply off topic, she wouldn't have mentioned who had admin bits and who didn't, they aren't related. That might be her response, but it doesn't explain it. The words speak for themselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see where your coming from and I certainly agree that your entitled to your opinion even though I don't see it that way. I was mostly posting it so others could easily find the response to the statement that had already been given. Sufficient or not I will let individuals decide. Amortias (T)(C) 11:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, this was not an arb block. As for my comment about administrators and non-administrators, I certainly did not intend to disrespect non-administrators, and apologize if it came off as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support block Everytime Eric makes a comment he knows is likely to lead to a block he tends to be blocked. There is a surge of support for his unblocking. Eric returns continues to make comments that he is prohibited from making and ends up blocked. If you've been told dont do something and you carry on doing it the blame lies firmly with the person making the comments. My understanding of the process is that any uninvolved administrator can block with regards to arbitration sanctions they dont need to go via AE (please point me in the direction of something that says otherwise if it exists). Amortias (T)(C) 11:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, this is my point really. What is the function of AE if a consensus discussion can be overridden like this? Wikipedia functions on consensus, this just seems ... I don't know, out of place. If I close an AfD discussion as "Keep", an admin can't come along an hour later and delete the article anyway. This seems analogous. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, they can if the article meets one of the speedy deletion criteria. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I can think of several articles, most notoriously The Mariposa Trust, where I ignored previous consensus to delete, (deleted contribs here) and just went with what I thought was best for the encyclopedia. Which is what we should all do as priority. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• I think you know exactly what I meant. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Block Eric was placed on a discretionary sanction and understood what it was all about, he chose to violate that sanction not once, but repeatedly, and he's been repeatedly blocked for it. In fact, on his latest post he challenged an admin to block him, which as far as I'm concerned (and I'm also under a discretionary sanction, myself) is just asking for a block. I'd consider GorillaWarfare's actions to be more along the lines of WP:IAR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Clear consensus not to block at the enforcement page. Besides it is, as others have already said, a minor civilly-worded statement on his own talk page that supports treating genders equally. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block per KoshVorlon. This is a sensible block given it related to a clear violation of editing restrictions. The notion that blocks should only be implemented when there's a consensus which is being advanced above is nonsense, especially in the circumstances here (including those which Amortias notes). The "involvement" section of Black Kite's post above is also dubious at best given that GW made those comments in her official roles. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that she specifically says "Please note that this is not an arbitrator action. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)" immediately below the block template. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support block essentially same as KoshVorlon ChristopheT (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Black Kite and Ritchie333. Arbs blocking "along the lines of WP:IAR" should not be encouraged. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block per KoshVorlon and Amortias. To add: the AE case was closed far earlier than would have been closed by anyone without as many supporters of Eric. To suggest that Gorilla's block is improper is to suggest that anyone wanting to avoid sanction can do so by simply having a friendly admin quickly close the relevant AE. Kevin Gorman (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Black Kite, Ritchie333 and Dennis Brown. A pointless over-reaction on the part of GW, who should be considering their position. Nortonius (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Amortias. Obviously treating Eric like a child isn't working. Eric does not appear to be a threat to anyone nor is commentary on his own talk page disruptive; if he's saying things that are ill-informed - which I think he is - simply challenge him. Alakzi (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Block Clearly a breach and given his history of ignoring sanctions imposed on him, 1 month is actually less than he deserves. HOWEVER - given that it is impossible for any policy-following admin to block Eric due to the administrator community refusing to pay any attention to the civility pillar and relevant policies - I would like to propose all Eric Corbett reports are forwarded straight to arbcom in future. No AE. No community discussion at the drama boards. Let them sort it out - although judging by previous cases they dont particularly want to uphold community standards regarding him either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, 6 hours is apparently not enough time to block, but it is enough time to declare one of the most long-term violators of community standards to be given ANOTHER slap on the wrist? Meh double standards somewhat there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock – per Rictchie333. GorillaWarfare stuck two fingers up at the consensus which was quickly forming at AE and allowed her own personal prejudices to queer her decision to either block or unblock. I'm still waiting, incidentally, for her to respond with regards to her rational when it came to ignoring this consensus. But it appears she ignores such discussions when things get a bit tough! Cassianto^Talk 11:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to this comment, I'd ask you to note that 07:32 UTC is 3:32 AM in my time zone, and I do occasionally sleep. I've since replied. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock - I was determined to speak up at AE (which I normally try to avoid: about the pettiness of reporting someone for a comment on his own talk, a behaviour which we should not support by even reacting to it) and found this block which doesn't improve Wikipedia. Read my comments elsewhere, including a woman-to-woman talk to GorillaWarfare. - If I was in her position, I would unblock myself without waiting for more display of no consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment and probably unpopular opinion by totally uninvolved party: I have no opinion on the block (although it is pretty long, and that seems excessive). But I agree with this posted above: Everytime Eric makes a comment he knows is likely to lead to a block he tends to be blocked. There is a surge of support for his unblocking. Eric returns continues to make comments that he is prohibited from making and ends up blocked. If you've been told dont do something and you carry on doing it the blame lies firmly with the person making the comments. And baiting admins by saying stuff like "Callanecc can block me again for as long as he likes, for whatever reason takes his fancy", whilst apparently violating his topic ban, and then declaring he is forever done with Wikipedia when something of that nature actually occurs, is disruptive to the encyclopedia because it creates drama. To quote Floquenbeam (not sure if he meant it like I mean it): "What if they gave a drama and nobody came?" What if Eric served out his blocks without any protests from an army of fans (even if he was in the middle of an FAR)? Then he wouldn't feed on the drama/brinksmanship/defiance and create more of it. Softlavender (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What a shame you have to resort to such incivilty by referring to Eric's friends as "fans". Cassianto^Talk 11:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not sure how referring to someone who supports someone as a fan is uncivil?. Amortias (T)(C) 11:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't pretend to be stupid ignorant. You and I both know what the comment meant. Cassianto^Talk 12:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I know what the comment meant to me. If it means something else to someone else I seek clarification as I have done in my previous comment. I certainly don't expect to be referred to as pretending to be stupid for seeking clarification on someones opinion of something to allow me to better understand their opinion and therefore come to a more balanced understanding of the matter. If you'd be so kind as to strike that remark I would be grateful. Amortias (T)(C) 12:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe words like "supporters" or something would be more appropriate, don't you think? Cassianto^Talk 12:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Amortias, see my comment below Ritchie333's, timed at 11:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC). Nortonius (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Seen and understood. If they were referring to someones contributions or opinions being less worhtwhile than someones because they were a fan of something/one I can see where thats uncivil. I Just didnt see taht comment being made in the above statement, its possible thats just how I read into it. On a side note I'm going to suggest we hat this bit as its getting further and further off topic and this page will soon be TLDR without our help. Amortias (T)(C) 12:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a slightly different view, which is going one stage back. What if Eric said "I hate Jimbo, arbcom smells, all admins look at me funny yada yada" and everyone ignored it? Indeed, does our no personal attacks policy not say "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it"? Why don't we go back to square one with this and give that a go? I appreciate I am taking this personally, but that's because the last time this happened, Eric was in mid-review of Snake Pass and doing a good copyedit. Why should my attempts to improve the encyclopedia suffer? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, it wasn't a personal attack, it was daring admins to block him, while doing something blockworthy -- it was admin-baiting. And note that I covered the FAR issue in my comment. It is exactly because Eric and others feel he is indispensable that he feels he can get away with violating sanctions without getting blocked -- and he appears to feed off the thrill of the adulation, the feeling of indispensability, and the irrepressible urge to violate restrictions. That is just my observation from observing this time and again. I have no dog in this fight -- I have never worked with Eric (positive or negative) or had an FAR or anything. What if Eric's supporters, instead of protesting his blocks, urged him to be cautious and focus on building an encyclopedia rather than on defying admins/restrictions, even (especially!) if he is blocked in the middle of an FAR? Anytime someone is held up as potentially unblockable and outside the rules, that is bad for the encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A problem with your analysis, Softlavender, if I may, is that none of us is a mind reader, although, FWIW, I think you misjudge Eric Corbett's feeding habits. And, I'm pretty sure that he'd be unhesitatingly "uncivil" to anyone, "supporter" (I think something like "like-minded individual" would be better) or otherwise, who suggested he moderate his behaviour. My impression is that he regards this sort of dramah as the politics of the playground, and imposes his own rules, to which he strictly adheres come what may; whereas his contributions to the encyclopedia speak for themselves. I really dread the idea of WP becoming an anodyne province of the mediocre. Nortonius (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear, to both Cassianto and Ritchie333: dismissing the opinions of others as those of "fans" et al. is something that I find really offensive, yet people get away with it all the time. It's so inane and demeaning, besides being so sadly predictable. And I do have improvements to the encyclopedia in mind, for which I would ordinarily turn to Eric Corbett as a GA-meister. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The blocks are a series of escalating blocks hence the length. Amortias (T)(C) 11:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Appropriate block. Remember: the arbitration enforcement is not based on forming a consensus for each action. As long as there was an unambiguous violation of an arbitration decision, any administrator can enforce the appropriate sanction, even if a few other admins have said they will not enforce it. In this way, AE simply enforces decisions that were already made by the arbitration committee. In this case, the block seems to be well within the terms of the discretionary sanction, as EC acknowledged when he made the recent posts. Most of the comments in the closed AE thread were irrelevant to the process of enforcing an arbitration sanction. 2601:5C5:4000:B14F:90D1:11E:D24C:CBF7 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

... who's sock are you? Have you already commented elsewhere here? --Epipelagic (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I have not commented as any other user on this thread, or elsewhere, about this block. But it is somewhat sad to see supposedly experienced editors who don't understand how AE works, so I thought I would comment. This will be it for me, anyway - I'm out. 2601:5C5:4000:B14F:90D1:11E:D24C:CBF7 (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And by that I suppose you're referring to me? Cassianto^Talk 12:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock per Black Kite, Ritchie333 et al. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Questions: As this has been opened on the topic of WP:INVOLVED, let's discuss that. Do you, User:Black Kite, User:Ritchie333, User:Dennis Brown consider yourself WP:Invovled with respect to User:Eric Corbett? If not, how are you differently situated than User:Gorrilla Warfare - note she was acting in an administrative capacity in arbitration. Under Discretionary Sanctions, does or does not Gorrilla Warfare have discretion? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

As I stated on GorillaWarfare's page, yes I considered myself WP:INVOLVED for reasons stated there, which is one reason I have not unblocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)Do you agree that Gorilla Warfare was acting in an administrative capacity as an arbitrator in the arbitration statements that are being here used against her? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe it is permitted for any admin to lift a block that is imposed as part restrictions set by an arbitration case or a complaint brought before AE. The instructions there say Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee. The only way that Eric's block can be lifted is by action of the arbitration committee itself or a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard which is what is going on here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It was also not permitted under that ruling to unilaterally overturn (explicitly or in substance) Black Kite's administrative action of closing that AE discussion with the summary "General consensus amongst admins and others appears to be that there is no issue to pursue here." --Noren (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Black Kite was mistaken when that was written. If you look at the "Result concerning Eric Corbett" section you will see it is empty. It should not have been closed prior to a discussion as to if their was a violation. Chillum 02:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This does not address the point, as the 2010 Arbcom ruling under discussion does not provide an exception to allow a second administrator to act to take unilateral action to overturn the first administrator's decision even if that first action was wrong or a mistake. (Even if the mistake is that the first action isn't formatted in the way you prefer, if that's really what your objection is about...) Two wrongs do not make a right.--Noren (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of involved, I would suggest that an admin who commented on the side of EC during the GGTF case here might not have clean hands closing an AE request concerning EC at very short notice before other admins have discussed whether a TB violation has taken place. This defense of EC appears not to be an isolated case either... here & here. GWs block looks like a good one to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Except I'm not really talking about the block itself (there is no doubt that, technically, it was a violation of Eric's TB), more how it was made. Meanwhile as far as the AE goes, I was simply closing per consensus in the discussion, something which doesn't always happen at AE. If I'd simply said "no violation" with no discussion then you would certainly have a point. Black Kite (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you acknowledge a tban violation, why did you not block? These are not discretionary sanctions. It's a topic ban. When intentional unambiguous violations occur, there is no room for admin discretion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 12:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If there was no room for admin discretion, we have have a bot met out blocks. There is always room for discretion, after considering the totality of the circumstances and hearing from fellow editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So what we have is an arguably involved admin deciding not to enforce a clear tb vio in the face of no consensus on this complaining about another admin enforcing a clear tb vio. Hmmm.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What we have is incredibly bad judgement. Reopening the AE discussion would have been fine, since really it wasn't open long enough. Whether GW considers herself involved or not, she had to be aware that many people do after her calls to ban Eric, so GW had to know this would spark a controversy, so GW acted knowing it would produce a drama-fest. Reopening the AE would not have, and the regular process could have continued. Eric is no angel, trust that I know this, but you can't say "he is no exception to the rules" while you are treating him differently than any other AE participant and having someone who is on the record as wanting him banned (and has the power) acting unilaterally. My problem is with the process here. I've yet to comment on the merits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)User:Dennis Brown What do you mean you have not commented on the merits? Are your retracting your ivote above because you are involved? Are you showing bad judgement here? Do you think you are applying a double standard to GW? By your "many people do" standard are you involved? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether I'm involved or not is irrelevant as I haven't used the tools in this case. This isn't about me. This thread is just a little side show that doesn't address anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What? Overturn requires: "active consensus of uninvolved editors." So whether you're involved has to matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about whether the block was deserved or not, it was whether proper process was followed, so again, involved is meaningless. I will trust the editor that closes this to make their own determination. So again, this thread is distracting from the real issue, and attempt to discredit those that disagree with you, ie: a fancy version of ad hominem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No. There is no ad hominem. And your claim that it is entirely unsupported. You are arguing she is involved, and it appears by your standard you're involved. That's not ad hominem, that's addressing the logic of your argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

ad ho·mi·nem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. You are saying the three of us shouldn't have a say because you think we are involved (even though we haven't used our tools), and your line of questioning doesn't address the merits of our arguments just our "status". THAT is the very definition of ad hominem, trying to disqualify our comments because of your idea of who we are, not what we say. Now shoo fly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Entirely incorrect. The questions are for the purpose of analyzing your argument that she is involved. Involvement is the stated reason this was opened isn't it? It's also the standard for analysing overturn !votes. Did you just refer to me as a fly? Really? What was that talk about respect, you gave in your Overturn comment? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: If by "calls to ban Eric" you're referring to the proposed siteban, please note that I drafted the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

While I will concede that singular point, your initial silence and later comments and votes made your views clear [2]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and nowhere am I denying that I supported sitebanning Eric in that case—it was the "calls to ban" bit that made me sound a little more torches-and-pitchforks than I was. But your concern here would imply that you feel that arbitrators may not act as administrators in situations where they've been active in a related arbitration case, which historically has not been the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Under all circumstances, an Arb wants to not enforce something they enacted, to stay "uninvolved" as possible, particularly when it is isn't something that requires instant action. There are other admin to do that. In this case, if you know (and you should) that many people see you as "involved" when it comes to Eric, based on the entire GGTF case, the way you voted, and your obvious opinions on his perceptions. The appearance of being involved is no less important than being involved. Your better move would have been to simply reopen the AE discussion, something that no one could really have argued against considering how short it ran. It can be argued that closing an AE with no action is an admin action simply because you MUST have the admin bit to do it, non-admin can't do this. Your blocking after another admin closed without action does look like wheel warring. More importantly, there was no reason you HAD to act when you did, and your actions are what caused all this drama. Not Eric's actions, yours. If another admin had blocked him in AE, this would have stayed on Eric's talk page. I can't imagine you didn't know your actions would start this fire, and why you would want to. Please note, no where have I argued against blocking, only against your doing so while arguably involved and out of process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh? There was a very clear consensus not to block - not "no consensus". And I think you're deliberately misrepresenting this now. The more general questions I'm asking at the top of this section really do need answers, whether Eric's blocked, unblocked or fired into space on a big rocket. Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support block This Corbett character looks like a big boy to me and I'm sure he's familiar with the unblock request process. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block as filer of the AE. It was closed prematurely after only being commented on by people who follow Corbett's talk page and closed by an admin who has made clear his strong support of Corbett. There was an unambiguous breach of topic ban with a direct taunt to a previous blocking admin. All comments if the AE were either about me, about how wonderful Corbett is, out how stupid the tban is. None addressed the actual behavior. Performing arbcom duties and voting does not preclude any arb from performing admin duties and enforcing a tban that by definition was placed with majority support. The suggestion is absurd. The idea that any admin, regardless of their feelings for an individual user, would be either unwilling to fulfill their obligations to enact sanctions in the face of unambiguous violations or that they wish to subvert the arbitration means they are not fit to be an admin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 12:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  The fact that not everyone agrees with you indicates that there is ambiguity.--MONGO 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  @MONGO: I can't read all the comments on my phone at the moment but does anybody dispute that EC violated his topic ban? That's what I'm saying is unambiguous. And intentional to boot. People seem to be arguing the merit of the tban, the effect on the project, the past behaviors of EC, the appropriateness of the block, etc. But in the end, the edit was an intentional violation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  Obligations? Admins are volunteers just like everyone else. Nobody is obligated to "enforce" anything. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  If there is a place full I grey areas, that place is Wikipedia. I am troubled by this entire sequence of events and am having difficulty seeing any innocent parties.--MONGO 23:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  @EvergreenFir:, nobody disputes EC willingly and clearly violated his topic ban. The dispute is how it was handled. Look at this mess. Why? Why are you even watching EC's talkpage? There was no disruption and now there's this over a comment that in no way, shape or form was going have any effect on any editor here. For what? I think MONGO said it best below. Police don't shoot people for littering. It's a disproportionate response. Isn't the end game trying to reduce disruption? Nobody was edit warring or otherwise interfering with editing. Nobody was disrupting anything and now we have this shitstorm of a thread, which is succeeding in doing nothing more than creating more conflict, and a very real chance somebody could take GW to ArbCom. Another disproportionate response. But here we are. Capeo (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  @Capeo: MONGO's analogy is off. This is comparable to probation. EC already messed up, when before a group of judges, an was sentenced. Instead of being thrown in prison site banned, he was released on probation with the condition that he not do anything related to what got him in trouble. The most minor probation violation lands you in hot water. Your 5th violation lands you back in jail. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  @EvergreenFir: Okay, let's use your analogy. This is akin to violating your probation by being caught littering then. Technically a violation, yes, but I think most agree that going to jail for it is disproportionate. To me the spirit of a T-ban is to cease disruption despite the letter of the law. You see this regularly at ANI where violations are let slide because there was no actual disruption caused. Hence my point above. There was no disruption and now we have this and now GW is at ArbCom and now there's far more acrimony between editors and admins than the day before. There's a reason police turn a blind eye to minor infractions. It's literally not worth the effort of enforcement. If EC posted his comment at the GGTF I'd say through the book at him. That would be willfully trying to cause disruption. As it was that single comment wasn't going anywhere and I highly doubt any ensuing conversation would have effected anything beyond his talk page. So the question becomes is following the letter of the law worth it when it's likely only to serve in making things worse? I personally don't think so but I do understand your view as well. I'm sure you knew that AE report would cause some argument as everything stemming from the GGTF case does but there's no way you could have seen all this coming from it. Capeo (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm puzzled by the comments about acting in opposition to the consensus expressed by editors who offered statements in this complaint. AE doesn't operate by consensus, not by the consensus of the editors and not by consensus of admins. A single admin can choose to block when other admins state that a block is unwarranted. I agree that consensus is preferable but the consensus model is not how AE has operated in the time I've been active on Wikipedia. A solitary admin can choose to block an editor or close a case regardless of editors' opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Liz: I believe you're a bit off about this, as AE does work by consensus, but only the consensus of the admins participating in the "uninvolved admin" section. Of course, their views can be informed and shaped by the comments of other editors in the section above, and you're right in that it's never been about finding a consensus there, only about the views of the uninvolved admins. It is, after all, not a discussion board, but an enforcement board, which is why those who can actually perform the enforcement get to decide whether an ArbCom decision has been violated or not. You and I, the rank-and-file editors, and involved admins get to be the peanut gallery, but that's about it. BMK (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, a "solitary admin" deemed it not worth blocking, then another "solitary admin" who has a known angst deemed that it was worth blocking. Can't have it both ways, especially with first-mover advantage in play. Go take a look at GW's RfA: it makes interesting reading. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Unblock per Black Kite, Ritchie333 and Dennis Brown - He should never have been blocked in the first place, What's the point of Arbcom if admins can just do what the fuck they like regardless of the comments/consensus?, As I said on Erics TP - If this isn't a punitive block then I honestly don't know what is!. –Davey2010^Talk 12:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Unblock, no harm in the comments, the only harm being done is unilateral action by an Arb that made it clear in the first case her first preference was to ban EC. I can certainly point to several examples of several questionable actions she has done. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock. The block disregarded consensus, and it was inappropriate. Everyking (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• What Black Kite is saying is that he believes he has a better understanding of ArbCom's intent than one of the active arbitrators on the case. I think it is a very bad idea to unblock, and a perfectly reasonable idea to ask on the AE page for clarification of the rationale, with input from other arbs. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Don't put words into my mouth please Guy. I'm actually doing the same as you, asking for clarification on how this should work. There seems to be no consistency. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock I think it's clear that this isn't going to work and ends up causing extra time wasting and hostility. If there's disagreement within arb, what chance to the rest of us have? When the ruling is daft to begin with it's unlikely to do anybody any favours in blocking Eric for the sake of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone keeps mentioning how terrible the ruling was but no one has appealed the tban or addressed it on AE. But the tban exists and you can't just ignore it because you dislike it. It was passed by a majority so it clearly wasn't terrible to everyone. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You see, it is this obsession with due process that leads to so many problems here. We're building an encyclopaedia, not some sort of fascist state. Common sense has a role to play in enforcement, not merely strict application of the "law". Blimey, I've even seen common sense applied for 3RR, which *is* supposedly a bright-line rule. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My concern, as an administrator (if that needs to be pointed out), is that the AE request was closed as no action and then a block was made. As mentioned earlier, if this had happened the other way around - the AE request closed recommending a block and another admin came around and unblocked - the unblocking admin would be desysopped for wheel warring. Why does it only work one way? Whether or not I as an administrator agree with whether a block should have been made should not matter if the AE request has already been closed, i.e., another administrator has taken an admin action (closing the request) in relation to that particular issue. If closing an AE request as no action is NOT considered an admin action - and thus shouldn't be overturned as wheel warring - then AE is simply a venue to wait for the one, possibly the only, admin who thinks it is block worthy - regardless of consensus - to come around and make a block. That disturbs me greatly. We're essentially allowing the most easily offended, the one who may have a grudge, the one who does not not the backstory (take your pick, depending on the request) to take action. Regardless of the outcome of this particular incident, we need to decide if this is what is best for the project, and the AE process. I do not think it is. Karanacs (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, one way this could have been avoided is if there was an actual discussion at the underlying AE. There was no actual discussion. There were statements made but the very section for actual discussion is and was left entirely blank. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There have been cases where there WAS discussion, where consensus was that there should be no action, and then another admin came along and blocked. AE request closed, we're done, no one can overturn the block. The key point is that an administrator made a decision. That decision was overturned. How is that not wheel warring? Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

For as long as I have been here, an "administrative action" means using the tools. So wheel warring is using the tools to overrule someone else's use of tools without discussion. You might call this a supervote if you like, but I wouldn't support characterizing this as wheel warring. Resolute 14:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolute, "admin action" in my reading morphed from "use of tools" to including stuff like discussion closures at least 5 years ago. You seem to be saying that if an admin closes a contested AfD as "keep" (no use of tools), another admin can come along afterwards and unilaterally delete the article without it being a tool misuse. I don't think it works that way. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing an AfD is not an admin action, deleting a page is. Chillum 02:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's odd, I grant you that an administrator "who may be involved" closes without any discussion and then complains about the other for "involvement" when they did not agree that there was an actual discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Closing an WP:AE request can only be done by an admin, and thus is essentially a use of a person's administrative rights, even though there is no actual tool use. What I have not seen is a clear statement from @GorillaWarfare: as to whether she was aware of the AE close prior to making the block. Obviously must trust GorillaWarfare's answer, but I think it is incredibly important to the procedural posture of this case, and has not been clearly stated anywhere. If GorillaWarfare did not know of the close, then its just a question of whether we support the block, and not a serious breach of protocol. Monty₈₄₅ 14:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Her statement here [3] seems to indicate that she was aware of the discussion but chose to block outside of it, as she believed the participation was low quality and had too few admin, which is an odd thing to say in itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree your reading is the most likely, but I think there is enough room in the language that it could be a post-hock analysis to justify not undoing it as a result of being informed. As its in my view an important question, I'd rather see a clear statement than read into that one. Monty₈₄₅ 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I was aware of the AE close. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support block. Yes, Eric has numerous enablers that will defend him at every turn for every action in an attempt to lock any community forum into paralysis. Even despite that, the whole "this is so trivial, it was on his talk page, etc., etc." excuses might have some merit if not for the fact that this is already thefifth time he's breached his sanctions. To be perfectly blunt, almost anyone else breaching arbitration sanctions with such frequency would be looking at a site ban at this point. Resolute 14:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block. Eric intentionally violated the arbitration sanctions to see if another block would ensue, and it did. Arbitration sanctions do not require community consensus. Sitting on the arbitration committee that enacted the restriction does not make the blocking admin involved. Recall please that previous attempts to rein in Eric's inappropriate behavior have led to highly disruptive wheel wars and an incredible level of disruption. It has to stop, for the good of the wiki. I realize that means we could lose Eric Corbett as an editor. But his actions have to have consequences, so sorry -- Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Eric intentionally violated the arbitration sanctions to see if another block would ensue: yeah, well... Nortonius (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my opinion. I think it's the latest in a series of intentional disruptive breaches of his restrictions. I think the block should stand. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And you're perfectly entitled to it, thanks for the response. The trouble is, to my mind, that the idea of "intentional disruptive breaches" depends on a lot of assumptions about EC's motivations, and indeed his character.[4] Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

More comments (not directed at you specifically, I just want to keep all my remarks in one place): I don't usually agree with Sandstein, but I agree with what he said here; I also agree with Jytdog's remarks here. To sum up my further thoughts: Black Kite's close was based purely on a head count, and none of the people commented on whether or not a violation had actually occurred (it had). Eric is a popular guy, and if we base blocks purely on his popularity, he becomes an unblockable, a different higher class of editor, and can therefore do whatever he pleases. That's been the status quo for many years, and that's what needs to change. (2) The user himself must appeal the block, and that has not been done. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Procedural note As far as I'm aware, arbitration enforcement blocks may only be appealed by the blocked party (as per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications, which is the appeal process noted in the block template GW used: "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction."). Eric Corbett has not expressed the desire to appeal this sanction - in fact, has indicated that he very much will not appeal it and is done with all of this - which would mean that this entire conversation is moot unless and until he does. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not quite. Per the modification procedure, one admin may modify another admin's action but needs consensus first.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Is reversing a block a "modification"? I would have assumed that a modification was something like changing the length, whereas completely undoing was an appeal. But then, as noted in my comment below, DS procedures are best understood while sitting on a mushroom and smoking questionable substances. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems a bit leftfield, in relation to Black Kite's opening statement...? Nortonius (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In what sense? BK noted that "AE blocks can be undone by a discussion here," which is an accurate statement except for missing the part where the appeal apparently has to be initiated by the person under sanction. AE/DS policy is ridiculously complex, so it's not surprising that it would take a couple people to piece together exactly how this all works (and honestly, I won't be shocked if someone else is like "Yes but this completely separate policy page says something that clearly indicates you're misunderstanding this, ya dumb sandwich"). If BK simply wants the AE workflow/closure processes reviewed - as opposed to his appealing the AE block of someone else - that would be one thing, though it would make more sense to me to ask for an Arbcom clarification rather than just getting people to support/oppose "process approved/disapproved" on AN. But people here are voting on lifting a block BK doesn't have the standing to appeal. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In the sense that you just explained, Fluffernutter, thank you! Yes it's all very complex and I confess that I don't plan to start studying it now. But as I understand it people here aren't voting on an appeal of the block, but on whether it's a valid or, perhaps more importantly, useful and appropriate block in the first place. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock, per my comment here. Eric was unilaterally blocked by an admin who has been quite involved with this topic. The AE case should be reopened and left open until multiple uninvolved admins formally review the case. The generally disorderly mob that is ANI is not fit to this very borderline issue, in my opinion. --Biblioworm 14:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock: Echoing Ritchie333 way up the page and Biblioworm in the comment just above mine. I agree with the suggestion of a formal review of this unruly action. Fylbecatulous talk 15:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Block was forbidden - Black Kite took an administrative action pursuant to an active arbitration remedy, closing the discussion at AE as no result. Quoting from the relevant rule, "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy". By the rules set out by the full Arbcom in 2010, GorillaWarfare was prohibited from overturning the substance of Black Kite's administrative action unilaterally. --Noren (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• No real comment on the block/unblock other than to say being on ARBCOM and having voted on a case involving a use would seem to fall under "purely in an administrative role" and thus INVOLVED does not apply IMO. I would also say that I'd suggest when you have someone with as many supporters as Eric has, it would be wise to leave things open for a bit longer as his supporters are likely the ones that will show up in the first 6 hours as they will see this the soonest. All that said, BK closed the discussion per the discussion and I don't think it was wise of GW to block afterwards. No one looks real good here IMO. So, as with most things that touch on EC and our enforcement, the outcome is clusterfuck. Hobit (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Aside from all other considerations simply on procedural grounds. The premise of the block was AE. Another admin had already made a AE determination on the incident in closing without action. GW blocking after that point is no different then her unblocking if a different admin had applied a block first. That would have been an instant loss of the bit. That shouldn't happen here, as that's extreme, but she should perform the unblock herself. As far as the other considerations? The idea that discretion should not be applied to AE is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Why not make a bot that looks for particular words posted by a user and blocks automatically? Everyday at AE users are let off the hook though they technically violated some ruling. Admins are, hopefully, here to minimize disruption through judicious application of common sense. There was no disruption until this block was performed. A user posted an opinion on their talk page, an undoubted technical violation, that would have amounted to nothing if people weren't constantly hawking his page for anything to pounce on. The situation was diffused then an hour later blown up into this debacle. For what purpose? To make a point? To follow the letter of the law regardless of result? Or worse the continuation of a grudge? Either way the result is just increased acrimony and less content. A result anyone could have foreseen and avoided if that was their ultimate goal. Capeo (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2015
• Support unblock. (procedural). The block was perfectly apt and appropriate in so far as the clear and unambiguous AE infringement is concerned. The discussion never mentioned the AE and was rapidly closed while it was still being claimed that it was simply a case of hounding Corbett, which is another topic. I am only voting to unblock because there is sufficient argument to suggest that GorillaWarfare may have acted in good faith but out of process. And that's also another topic. And then we will know for the next time a user steps out of line in a similar situation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• weakly support block If you are going to invalidate GW for being involved, you should also invalidate the AE "consensus" for being comprised of Eric's known supporters (and mostly non-admins). Is the block overly severe? maybe, but its his Nth violation. If you yell "Pig" at the cops, while intentionally jaywalking in front of their car, you should expect a ticket, even though jaywalking might not be a big deal. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Punitive block by an ax(e)-grinding administrator. Sorry Gorilla, but this has gone too far. Yes, the letter of the law blah blah, we've heard all that before. Next up, Eric's comment on what even I, a card-carrrying anti-essentialist yet still French-inflected feminist consider to be hooey, is driving all new editors away. Yes, those "long-suffering Gender Gap list members" must have been totally butt-hurt when they saw Eric's comment. (Seriously, we give grants for that kind of stuff? Can I get one? I got an article coming out on teaching a text about a woman who defeats not one but two patriarchies--how much is that worth?) I'm tempted to unblock him and then y'all can simply have my bit (I think GW's bit should be yanked), which is hardly a badge of honor anyway, but that would only contribute to the shit storm, and I do not wish to let the blocking admin and her supporters have yet another opportunity to sit back, popcorn and all, and say, "see? I told you!" Congratulations. I'll check back in later, like in a week or so, to see if there's any article writers left. Ritchie, it's up to you, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  This is one of the most patronising things I've ever read. If that's how you intend to behave, I can't speak for the IEG programme on grants, but as an individual I'll give you $50 and a coupon to retire. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  @Drmies: we're friends, but Eric deliberately flouted the edit restrictions placed on him, and not for the first time. The amount of content is not worth the disruption he deliberately causes. A block was incredibly justified in this case. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  I'm forced to ask, what disruption? In fact there was no disruption until someone brought him to AE over an opinion on his talkpage that effected nobody and would have gone unnoticed if not for folks watching his page waiting to pounce on every minor indiscretion. Capeo (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, are you talking about the people who refuse to dispute Eric's comments because they'll be castigated by him and his talk page watchers? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Eh. This kind of stuff right here is why I quit AE. It's not worth the hassle. As soon as a popular user is the subject of a sanction, all semblance of process breaks down into a shouting match and whoever shouts loudest wins, as usual. That's repugnant. I think it is commendable that in this case an arbitrator took it upon themselves to enforce the committee's decision, and perhaps that should be the norm from now on. On the merits, this appeal is invalid, because per WP:AC/DS, only the sanctioned user themselves may appeal an enforcement action, and it seems that they have chosen not to do so in this case. There is therefore no need for any further action or discussion whatsoever.  Sandstein  15:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedure above everything, Sandstein. Problem is, we're not dealing with a very popular user here but hey, we don't judge content, right? Drmies (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block as consistent with the Arbitration sanction. If a large portion of the community thinks that the blocks resulting from the sanction are hurting the encyclopedia, I recommend that they ask the ArbCom to amend its original ruling. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Unblock Bad block, bad adminning. Arkon (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block per KoshVorlon. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock I am profoundly discouraged to see this discussion. It troubles me to see editors I like and respect on both sides of this. I sort of get that expressing disgust with a blantantly sexist proposal is technically a violation of the topic ban, but we should be rallying to support his point, not driving him away. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Weakly support block i think gorilla warfare defended her block very clearly (and in a very civil manner in the face of some pretty uncivil comments) in this dif.
  • What she wrote there is that 9 people commented, and "Not a single comment addressed the content of Eric's edit, and whether it was a violation of his restriction from "making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed".
  • The block was for this comment by the way. If folks haven't read it, they should do.
  • The violation of the topic ban is very clear. As far as I can see the comment had nothing to do with Eric's content-creation work - it appears to be pure venting/soapboxing, in a new thread that he opened on his own Talk page, with no link to some prior discussion (in other words - not even something we could ~try~ to say arose in a heated argument) Apparently, very, very avoidable - the product of a lack of self-restraint.
  • But the thread had been closed by another admin...
  • Outcomes?
  • Because there were no comments on the issue of whether EC had violated the topic ban, Black Kite should be trouted for a bad close (which are meant to be on the merits, not on sheer votes). (sorry to say that Black Kite)
  • And GW deserves a trout for acting in a way that doesn't respect the community and that part of our process. The community-respecting thing for GW to do, would have been to have the close overturned before taking action. This speaks to those who are upset about way that action overtakes a decision to take no action and the disparity that causes (applying that principle here is false, however, because the facts of this case are not even a little ambiguous, with the topic ban that actually exists, however unjust it ~may~ be.). If the AE thread had been open (not closed) I would have given the block my complete support.
  • A lot of people I respect are unhappy about the block... my sense is that folks are unhappy with EC's topic ban (I don't know that much about what led to it) If so, I would suggest they try to get the topic ban changed. But the block itself was good under the topic ban that actually exists. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock: In all this strum und drang, no one noticed that, in fact, I did call Corbett on his remarks, he did not attack me for doing so, and in fact has not attacked me in the past for doing so, either. I frequently call him out when he goes over the top, but I do it in a way that doesn't belittle him or, as did the person who reported him, "go crying to the playground aide saying EC is a meanie." He just exhibited a lack of clue and poked the bear on his own talk page just to see if he could get a rise out of anyone... and he did. This is ridiculous and makes the place look more and more like it's being run like something out of Lord of the Flies. Unblock and admonish both GW and EF to quit playing "gotcha." In fact, I suggest that someone take a look at modifying Corbett's restriction so he can say whatever he damn well pleases on his own talk page so long as he doesn't post it anywhere else, subject only to the general guidelines that apply to all wikipedians (no threat of harm, no legal threats, yada, yada). Let's drop the torches and pitchforks. Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block: there are no de minimis violations of a topic ban. Either you violate it or you don't. The only exception is in urgent BLP cases, of which this is not. Eric knew he was violating his topic ban and this is rules lawyering in the extreme to keep one of the most unrepentant serial trolls on the encyclopedia because He Disagrees With Us A Lot And To Ban Him Would Be Censorship (i.e. Geek Social Fallacy #1. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Great: one of the most unrepentant serial trolls on the encyclopedia. A blatant personal attack, hypocritical because it is precisely the sort of thing that kicks off blethering dramas like this, besides being cobblers. Shouldn't something be done about it? Nortonius (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Great block, I've sat on the fence for a long time, but Eric's is content work does not equal the disruption he causes on a monthly basis. Also per every word written by Sceptre above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Block was procedurally Bad First, I think the close of the AE report was wrong, Eric did violate the topic ban, and so declining to enforce is an extraordinary result, that should not have occurred so quickly and without additional input. However once the close was made, an action on discretionary sanctions had been taken, and thus undoing that action by blocking Eric, knowing of the close, and without active consensus under the appeal rules, was a serious breach of policy. From a strictly procedural standpoint, we should undo the block, undo the AE close, and resume the discussion there. The problem is that it will likely result in a new block, and end up making the whole thing a bit WP:POINTY. That said, both admins should be seriously trouted, and AE/DS policy should be made clear on this point. Monty₈₄₅ 19:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Moot [5] The editor has stated clearly they do not intend to resume editing. This particular editor carries a lot of personal pride and I doubt they will go back on their stated word. As such the editor will never edit again. Thus, let the block stay and expire. Any issues with regard to the technicalities of the AE "bit" of the block can go to ARBCOM. Pedro :  Chat  19:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pedro: - you are aware he has retired in similar circumstances only to return, correct?

Really? How surprising. One would have thought an editor so concerned with their own intellectual honesty would never do such a thing. Pedro :  Chat  19:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess that it is in fact possible to be intellectually honest and occasionally change your mind. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Unblock The first mover was Black Kite who closed the thread as no consensus. The subsequent block performed by GorillaWarfare is out of process.--MONGO 19:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking. The edits in question to my mind are a clear violation of the topic ban. Making a comment about and linked to a post with "Gender Gap" promiment, is a violation of "making any edit about a process or discussion about the gender disparity among wikipedians" especially as this is to be broadly construed. Given the part of the comment about blocking and mentioning the admin who had previously blocked him ref arbitration enforcement, this cannot be seen as accidental or a mistake. The original closure of the arbitration enforcement was bad as it made no attempt to look at whether the topic ban was broken, was much quicker done than usual and only after editors who are mainly friends with Eric had commented. Given the length of previous blocks a month is an appropriate block length so do not support lifting the block. Davewild (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block the comment was clearly in violation of the topic ban. This editor has a history of violating the sanction, and it's pretty clear that this comment was made for the purpose of testing boundaries, making a point, or annoying people. These aren't circumstances in which we should be giving the benefit of the doubt. You don't need consensus to block somebody, and a system in which you do would be completely unworkable. Nor does AE operate by just taking the opinions of the people who bother to show up there, and it shouldn't (these are likely to be friends or antagonists of the party). I have sometimes seen AE requests closed according to the consensus of the people who commented in the "uninvolved admins" section, but there weren't any here. Frankly the only reason we are even having this discussion is that this particular editor has a lot of sympathisers. Hut 8.5 20:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of sympathizers for all victims of unjust blocks, actually. One can feel that the subject has behaved like a buffoon (again) and still feel that this is a miserable, wheel-warring, super-vote by a thoroughly involved arbitrator that should have recused from the original case, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Unblock "Blocks should be preventative" This block has caused MUCH more disruption than it has prevented. "Blocks should not be punative" At this point, it would seem, the block may be punitive.

The REAL issue here is the damage this does to the WP:AE noticeboard. Which is why, I guess, a proposal to close the board has been made. TyTyMang (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support immediate unblock Said unblock should be made by the admin who imposed it, followed by an immediate and abject apology to the community. Additionally, the reporting user should be sanctioned for hounding - preferably with a long block. People need to stop wasting editors' time with this nonsense. Scr★pIron^IV 20:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Unblock per MONGO. I haven't decided on the merits of the underlying AE report, but I agree that it was improper to impose a block once another admin had closed the thread. The decision to block should not be more powerful than the decision not to block.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Immediate unblock for the reasons stated by me at WP:AE and User talk:Eric Corbett. Concur here with Dennis Brown, Cassianto, Davey2010, Hell in a bucket, Noren, Akron, and many others. Support sanctions against GW for wheelwarring. GregJackP Boomer! 22:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Unblock - Once again, miserable judgment by Gorilla Warfare on this topic. I'd be interested to hear if she was the recipient of email asking to engage in countermanding (ahem) "non-ArbCom" action... Lousy judgment, again... Carrite (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Block Wikipedia is a big place as I have found out over the last few weeks. If Eric is unblocked then it sets a bad example for all of the other editors who are topic banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Unblock. This is a process failure, a waste of time, and a distraction from the larger gender-gap issue. Incidentally, the fact that there have been multiple previous controversial blocks for trivial "violations" is certainly evidence of something, but I don't think it's evidence for the things people are citing it for. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Block - What I believe everyone is missing here is that the out-of-process precipitous event was not Gorilla Warfare's block, but Black Kite's closing of the AE thread before there was any admin discussion about it. I've never seen that happen before - and I've been a regular reader of the page for years. There has always been some admin discussion in the "uninvolved admin" section, even if it's nominal, before an action is taken. I've seen what look like a strong consensus get turned around by the input of another admin, I've seen a single admin's opinion sit there for a while with no additional comment before the admin decided to carry out their opinion, I've seen the discussion section almost die for lack of participation, but I've never seen a thread be closed on the basis of the consensus of the commentators, without any uninvolved admin input at all. I'm sure Black Kite felt what he did was warranted, but it was also unprecedented, and he shouldn't have been surprised to find it being overruled.
  As for the block itself, it's clear blackletter law. Eric broke the topic ban, was almost certainly aware that he was breaking it when he did it, and may even have done it deliberately. Whether or not that's true, it was still a breach, and Gorilla Warfare's block was therefore appropriate. BMK (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  BMK has the analysis right. The first misstep was Black Kite's closure. There was no consensus, just EC's talk page followers commenting. When cases AEs routinely take days to close, 5 hours is laughable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support block The AE discussion should not have been closed prior to any admins commenting. A group of non-admins complaining that the arbitration decision should not be enforces is not a consensus for anything at AE, it is not for the community to decide if arbitration decisions should be enforced, it is up to us to determine if there was a violation and up to admins to decide on the action. There was a topic ban, the topic ban was violated and any admin would have been correct to block for it. Eric has been intentionally flaunting his restrictions and that deserves a response. Chillum 23:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Block - I wasn't going to comment on this, because I am sick of seeing the community drawn into this bullshit. But this is a simple case of Eric knowingly violating his topic ban. There can be no valid argument that's not the case. Period. Stating that GW is 'involved' is a red herring. You cannot stop Arb members from performing blocks simply because they have voted in the case that enforcement is necessary in. That should be obvious to any rational person. The fact that Black Kite, whom I respect and like, closed the AE so early, especially when he himself is "WP:INVOLVED", is the real problem here. That also should be obvious. The block should have been non-controversial, because the violation was so obvious. The AE should not have been closed, especially by Black Kite. Now close this stupidity and move the fuck on. Dave Dial (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Per Bibioworm, and DrKiernan's "a minor civilly-worded statement on his own talk page that supports treating genders equally". GW didn't demonstrate any clear violation, but has uniformly attempted to thrust the burden onto others to prove a negative. Add to that an obvious residual bias against EC's very existence on WP, and ... this is no way WP s/b treating a top contributor. IHTS (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Unblock and this time, allow uninvolved administrators to comment at the AE Report-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to close the arbitration enforcement noticeboard

The last time Eric Corbett was taken to the WP:AE noticeboard, in January 2015, there was a strong consensus for no action, which on that occasion included a strong admin consensus, but Sandstein cast a supervote and blocked anyway.[6] This time GorillaWarfare blocked after the discussion had been closed as consensus not to block. Why do we have this noticeboard? As Black Kite puts it in his updated close note today: "General consensus amongst admins and others appeared to be that there is no issue to pursue here. However, another admin (and arbitrator) has gone ahead and unilaterally blocked Eric after this AE report was closed. The purpose of this page (and indeed any concept of consensus on it) now therefore appears to be unclear." Yes, the purpose is unclear, to put it mildly. Commenting on it is a waste of time, for admins and other users; at any point in time, a single admin can ignore consensus and unilaterally place the very strongest kind of block, which is an arbitration enforcement block. Those blocks may not be overturned by a second admin, on pain of desysopping: see the pink "Important information" box at the top of WP:AE, specifically the "Information for administrators processing requests". There is a First Mover Advantage carved in stone for AE blocks. (Unlike ordinary blocks, which have a much less strong Second Mover Advantage — see WP:WHEEL.) That is to say, only the first move to block has that advantage. The first, second, third, etc admin movers have no advantage at all if they move not to block the user; not-blocking is quite disadvantaged; nobody gets desysopped if they overturn that. On the contrary, people who overturn not-blockings place themselves in an invincible position. In January, the first three movers (not-blocking admins) were me, HJ Mitchell, and NuclearWarfare, and our non-blocks got overturned by Sandstein. This time the not-blocking admin was Black Kite (who not-blocked per the consensus of the discussion as a whole), and he got overturned by GorillaWarfare.

I don't understand why we have a noticeboard that works like that. The amount of time wasted by non-admin users on it is even greater. When I block persistent POV-pushers and talkpage trolls, I sometimes point out that wasting the time of the community is very disruptive. A noticeboard that wastes our time by drawing us in to uselessly give our opinion, non-admins and admins alike, is disruptive. I suggest we close it per WP:TNT. People who want to draw admins' attention to AE violations can do it on ANI.

• Support as proposer. Bishonen | talk 15:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC).
• I was pinged by something in the above. My view is that the discussion is moot: the AE noticeboard exists because of Arbitration Committee decisions that provide that it be used, and accordingly the community cannot discontinue it, because it can't overrule Committee decisions. That's a proposal to make at WP:ARCA, if at all.  Sandstein  15:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sure the community can overrule ArbCom. ArbCom is the servant of the community. Trying to push this into an obscure corner won't profit you, Sandstein. As for what proposals I'm allowed to make "at all", meh to you. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

The process for the community over ruling Arbcom on a matter like this by changing the arbitration policy is in place, but there are some significant hoops to jump through. Monty₈₄₅ 15:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd actually agree in a limited way, but for the opposite reason. I think AE noticeboard gets to be a way for a popular user to avoid a sanction because of vote stacking. And I'm not just talking about EC here. I'm not sure ANI would be better, but it would attract a wider audience (at the price of likely more drama for situations that really don't need it). However, I think Sandstein is correct and this isn't the place to hold that discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Nope The arbitration enforcement page is there to enforce arbitration decisions. The arbitration committee is there for situations the community is unable or unwilling to solve. We need a place where facts are considered and the person being discussed cannot benefit from a group of cheerleaders who wish to disregard facts in favour of their desired outcome. We all know that enforcement on ANI has a lot to do with a popularity contest, we need a venue where fan clubs can be put aside and facts considered instead. Chillum 15:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And that place is AE? The place where an admin can act unilaterally against consensus? Look at this situation. You have an admin who views an editor favorably closing without action then an admin who views the editor unfavorably blocking. And look at the above. Admins, all of which could have acted unilaterally, on complete opposite sides of how the procedure should have played out. Seems just as broken as AN/I to me. Capeo (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think consensus is needed to enforce an arbitration decision? Nobody disputed there was a violation. People complaining that they don't think the topic ban should be enforced are in the wrong place, arbcom already decided it should be enforced. Chillum 02:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Bluntly, I struggle to view this as anything but a bad faith proposal. Resolute 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Theoretically Bishonen is quite right. However, the AE page should stay and simply serve in the same way as AIV with its mini template closures: for those without tools to bring an issue to a place where it will be noticed by the first admin who comes along to enact if there is a clear infringement. The AE page should not be a venue for deciding to let a user off just because they are a prolific content provider or because their block log is already long enough. The process should certainly not be moved to ANI - the amount of time wasted there by non-admin users on it is even greater still. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• AE was set up because it was observed that bans and the like were not being enforced. In controversial topics there is still a distressing lack of active administrators willing to rein in irresponsible editors. AE continues to provide a focal point for drawing attention to arbitration rulings that need to be enforced. It isn't intended to and indeed does not preempt the actions of administrators enforcing arbitration rulings individually. If more administrators were willing to do so we wouldn't have created the board. All administrator actions can be reversed either on review by another administrator or on appeal. This is the way it works, folks. It's the way it's supposed to work. --TS 16:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Its Arbitration ENFORCEMENT. Not Arbitration Second-guessing. Discussion at AE is for two purposes: 1)Has editor breached their restrictions. 2)Having identified they have violated them, what is the appropriate response? AE is *not* there to say 'well they have but we dont agree with it so we are not going to do anything.' Most admins who contribute there realise this which is why lame reports generally result with a 'no block, dont do it again' warning. Eric has had the 'dont do it again' warnings multiple times. If any other editor had that many warnings and blocks, they would have been indeffed by now. Any new editor who did that would have just been blocked out of hand by any number of admins. I would submit that closing that report as 'no action' is an abuse of admin tools (if you accept the argument that taking no action at AE is an 'administrative action') - its a clear breach, it was intentional and in full knowledge it violated it, and the editor has been warned/blocked for violating his restrictions before. Refusing to take *any* action shows that the administrator's judgement cannot be trusted. It merited at least a 'Look eric, seriously now, stop fucking about, this is your last chance really this time. No I mean it. Stop laughing at me.' warning. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is one of the supremely rare occasions on which I agree with Tony Sidaway. Arbitration Enforcement is not made to enforce remedies only when there is a consensus for it. In principle the remedies are supposed to always be enforced when a sanction has been breached. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with those who are saying that the purpose of AE is enforcement, not debate. But, if there is a disputed case like this, then there seems to be an easy way to resolve it — refer the matter to Arbcom for a quick ruling on what ought to happen in this case. It seems that all concerned agreed that there had been a technical violation and so the arbs just need to indicate the length of block which they consider appropriate (including zero and indefinite). Such feedback will then provide guidance in any further cases of this kind. Andrew D. (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• The matter is now before Arbcom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Enforcement_of_previous_ArbCom_decisions. The discussions here should therefore be closed now. Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Bish, you note here the super-strong 1st mover advantage at AE vs. the default of the less strong 2nd mover advantage. And I think that is the heart of the problem above in this case about EC. However, I don't think AE is the thing you should be targeting here. The thing to target is the nature of discretionary sanctions and arbcom sanctions in general. Even without AE we'd *still* have a strong 1st mover advantage for blocking admins, because that is the nature of WP:ACDS (see "Modifications by administrators"). "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without..." – that is the 1st mover advantage. It's DS, not AE. Getting rid of AE won't change the 1st mover advantage. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Hooray and I can't believe it took that long, well yes I can someone has actually addressed the problem that I posted about above, not a surprise that it was Bish. The AE noticeboard needs to be closed until the community addreses the problem that any random admin can block someone on their whim and not be overturned without coming here. If this is to be a community noticeboard there absolutely needs to be a consensus to block, whether that be a consensus of unnvolved admins, any admins, or any editors. At the moment it's subject to the IRC or other off-wiki crew (witness recent blocks of Corbett, for example) and is frankly a disgrace. It needs to be changed so that no-one can be blocked without a proper consensus, whether that be of admins, editors, or other. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Do you really expect a big discussion for every last block we do? Blocks can be reviewed, if there is consensus against it then it is reverted. What you describe would make it impossible to do our jobs. Chillum 07:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Far better that, than certain sdmins parachuting themselves in and blocking regardless of the discussion taking place (this is not a comment on the Corbett block, incidentally, it's been going on for a long time). Yes, some AE complaints are obvious, flagrant violations and no-one is going to complain when they're closed quickly (think WP:CSD) but an equally large amount aren't (think WP:AFD). Black Kite (talk)

• • The problem DS and, by extension, AE are meant to tackle is that, frequently, when an issue or an editor become controversial, it's possible for the members of the community on the two sides to deadlock any discussion of that issue or editor into a no-consensus close; for that, ArbCom have given any administrator the right to enforce DS without having to wait for a consensus to do so, but requiring a consensus to undo such actions instead, knowing however that admins misusing DS can be sanctioned, up to and including a desysop.

    Now, when admins disagree at AE, best practices suggest that the admin who intends to close the report take the opinions of his colleagues into account, but in the end he's not bound by consensus (though it would be a good idea if consensus is against a block not to impose it).

    Finally, there is doubt as to what constitutes an admin action for the purposes of the "don't revert on pain of desysopping" provision of the DS policy, but, for what it's worth, I believe that closing an AE thread with no action counts as an admin action, as opposed to simply saying "I don't think a block is warranted here" (and I have the feeling I have already said this, though at the moment I can't find where). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • What Salvio said. The purpose of Arbcom is to deal with the shit that the community cant. Do you really think, Black Kite, that it makes sense to reduce a board dedicated to enforcing violations of those same issues the community has proven unable to deal with subject to the whim of the community? In that case, yes, you might as well just close down the board. Personally, I would like to know why you felt an editor's fifth noted violation of an arbcom sanction in six months warranted no action. Was it just because a bunch of his supporters rushed to the AE page upon seeing the notification on his talk page? I would suggest that what happened here is precisely why arbitration enforcement shouldn't be left to community consensus. Whether it should be handled directly by the arbs and/or their clerks is another discussion, however. Resolute 19:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • This isn't a Corbett issue, it's an AE-in-general issue. Your point would be perfectly fine if ArbCom was capable of always creating enforcements that were black and white. But, inevitably, the cases that end up at AE are the ones of the "this is skating close to a violation, is it one?" type, where it's not immediately obvious. Then what ends up happening is a load of people opine on the issue, followed by an admin blocking (or not blocking) based not on the discussion, but their opinion. This shouldn't be how it works. Black Kite (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh please, @Black Kite:. Of course this is a Corbett issue. You think anyone bats an eye if random editor x gets blocked for a month for a fifth violation of an arbcom levied topic ban in six months? And as far as "this shouldn't be how it works", I would suggest that rush closing an AE request on an obvious violation because a bunch of Eric's friends quickly showed up with "I like Eric so leave him alone" responses that failed to address the fact that he is continually ignoring his sanction is not how it should work either. You are quick to judge others, but slow to recognize your own errors that helped create this latest situation. Resolute 15:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Maybe I was wrong, Maybe I wasn't. But no, this isn't an EC issue, even if this event has highlighted it. Have a look back through the AE archives, especially at the (many) GamerGate related requests. Black Kite (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Classic kneejerk drama and not thought through. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Question: In the cases we are discussing, is/was there a consensus that there was a violation but no consensus regarding what to do about it? If so a single admin deciding to block seems to me to be correct. Or Is/was there no consensus that there was a violation? If so a single admin deciding to block would appear to me to not be justified. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There was no dispute in the AE thread that a violation had occurred. There was very strong support in the thread amongst non-admins, that a block was not justified. As AE closes are based on uninvolved admin comments, the clear consensus of the non-admin commentators (with an admin comment in the regular statements area, not the admin discussion) is not necessarily dispositive. With no comments in the admin section, the thread was closed no action by an admin. Eric was then blocked by another admin, who was aware of the close prior to blocking. Monty₈₄₅ 19:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Part of the problem was there was no discussion at the AE in the section for discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Question So what's stopping any admin with an axe to grind from going back through AE threads closed as "no action" and blocking, following the example given by an arbitrator here? MLauba ^(Talk) 20:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Question What happens if there are no uninvolved admins? Eric's "fans" (supporters) are clearly not uninvolved; many would say that if an admin had blocked Eric in the past, he/she is involved (although that's contrary to policy). Is anyone left? Can an editor who has offended all admins be blocked? I specifically decline comment as to whether it was a good block, as I admit having been personally attacked by Eric, and hence involved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  I've been in arguments with Eric in the past myself, but as a veteran law enforcement officer and long time security manager, I know that justice isn't served by shooting people for littering.--MONGO 21:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• SUPPORT The only way to appropriately handle these issues is to sit down, shut up, and mind your own business. AN/I handles incidents, AIV handles the vandals. AE is only there for the POV pushers, the activists, and the perpetually offended to whine about other editors, to try and get an upper hand in their arguments. Scr★pIron^IV 21:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @ScrapIronIV: I apologise for what will be a brusque statement; this post (and your comment in the section above) shows you really don't know what you're talking about. I'd suggest you focus on something else, as you're adding no value whatsoever to this discussion. Sorry, I appreciate this sounds a bit rude, but honestly I think you're out of your depth and you would be well advised to have a little more tenure and experience before commenting on complex issues like these. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Pedro: If you need to apologize in advance, you probably shouldn't say it at all. Those are appropriate words from someone who sailed through RfA back eight years ago, when you had the same level of contributions I have now. In the last five years, you have not contributed as much as I have in the last six months. You would be well advised to try your hand at actually writing an article in the current environment. Things are not the same as they once were. And THAT is why Admins should be forced to go through RfA again, after a couple of years. You spend your time on Wikipedia pages and Talk pages, and don't have to actually deal with work in this new environment. Go ahead and try to edit an actual article without the tools behind you, and see if you can survive it. That was one of the most arrogant and condescending statements I have heard from an admin on this site, and that is saying a LOT considering what I have seen. Cheers? No, I don't drink with those who insult me. Scr★pIron^IV 21:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Bishonen, I'm not unsympathetic to your point of view. As you note, I have been in Black Kite's position before. I agree with your opinion that GorillaWarfare's block was an out of process reversal of an discretionary sanction (full disclosure: a particularly sharp editor will find a few examples somewhere in my history where I argued the opposite). But I can't agree with your proposed remedy. Look at how much of a madhouse this thread is. Yes, part of that is because it is Eric, but part of it is because this is the 11th most watched Wikipedia-space page. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change showed me how unworkable community discussion pages are without some structure, rules, and enforcement authority. Yes, AE could use with some reform and oversight by ArbCom, but I don't think that need extend to closing the page. NW (Talk) 21:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think Bishonen is proposing this specifically because it is Eric. What better way to protect a friend/ally than to shut down one of the few forums where she and Eric's other allies can't lock the process into perpetual paralysis? Resolute 22:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support shutting down AE, per Bish. GregJackP Boomer! 22:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Shutting down AE, which is little more than a haven for tattletales and power-trippers... Carrite (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Enormous respect for Bishonen, but I can't support this. BMK (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose AE is a containment board (to borrow a phrase from another site). Removing it would release all the evils of the world back to ANI. Bosstopher (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• As has been pointed out, this is literally an impossible decision to make here in the first place since arbcom decisions' require the utilization of the board, unless we want to set a precedent that ANI consensus can overrule arbcom, which would literallly defeat the entire purpose arbco was created for. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. It causes nothing but damage to the project. Everyking (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Can the community handle this?

It doesn't appear that an outcome that is satisfying to all parties will be achieved here. Does the community think it should be moved to formal proceedings? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, but we already had formal proceedings, and they were just enforced. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The ed17, I'm sorry, I looked at that and didn't see where it addressed one admin overturning another admin's decision. I may have missed it though. Could you provide a diff for that? Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 23:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ed I'm sorry I'd feed you but we have a rule about that sort of thing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• There's clearly a problem with AE that needs to be resolved here and I don't think AN is going to solve it. To me, it's obvious that if one sysop closes a discussion as "not-block" and another one overturns that decision an hour later, then there needs to be a referee: someone who can step in and knock heads together and restore order. I don't think I've ever seen a clearer demonstration of Wikipedia's need for someone who can custodiet the custodies.—S Marshall T/C 23:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to limit arbitrators from undertaking arbitration enforcement

Following on from the proposal to close the AE process, if that doesn't pass/is veto'd by the Arbitration Committee themselves, I'd like to float the following simple addition to the rules.

I'm interested to hear from the community if they think arbitrators should be restricted from undertaking any arbitration enforcement actions concerning those users and cases where they were sitting arbitrators (whether or not they were directly responsible for imposing topic bans and discretionary sanctions).

I believe it can be seen to be inappropriate and unfair for Arbitrators to be able to propose, individually, various sanctions during the Arbitration case proper, for the committee as an entity to take a different course of action and for individual arbitrators to be able to pursue their original intentions (or to appear to do so, accidentally) through the Arbitration Enforcement system.

If the situation was reversed and the Arbitrator had taken administrative action prior to the Arbitration Case, it would be likely that the Arbitrator would recuse themselves from hearing/participating with the case. There's a strong record of Arbitrators doing this, and it is to be commended.

In this case, we have a situation where GorillaWarfare supported the indefinite block of Eric Corbett, before returning to the Arbitration Enforcement pages and imposing a one month block. I have to assume good faith and trust this was solely an attempt to deal with the situation, especially as it's not something explicitly prevented by the current policies. I think it would be helpful for all involved, including the Arbitration Committee to restrict them from undertaking any form of Arbitration Enforcement themselves. Nick (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• If Eric had not violated his sanction - that passed by consensus - then Gorilla would not have been able to block him for a month. She wasn't arbitrarily enforcing what she thought the outcome of the decision should have been, she was enforcing what the outcome of the decision actually was. Eric didn't accidentally violate his sanction; he did so intentionally, presumably to see if he would actually have the decision enforced, perhaps because he simply wanted to laugh at the drama, or maybe he wanted to take a month vacation anyway. Eric has had formal ways to appeal the sanction since it was passed if he disagreed with it - he has not done so. Eric has formal ways to appeal this block if he disagrees with it - he has not done so. There is no need to get all Andrew Jackson like and ban the arbs from enforcing their own decisions. Their power is limited externally by elections and internally by hearing cases en banc rather than one at a time. This suggestion would make some degree of sense if Gorilla had arbitrarily edited the GGTF decision after it passed to ban Eric unilaterallly after the idea had been rejected by others. She did not. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• I was thinking half-formed ideas towards the opposite -- that AE decisions should be made by Arbs on behalf of the committee, in the process of enforcing the decisions, sanctions and remedies they themselves voted on and agreed upon. If ArbCom sanctions are decisions solely voted upon by ArbCom members, the enforcement of these sanctions might be better off not left up to the judgement of administrators. Of course, that runs contrary to the views of many (including my own) that the community should be more involved in policing themselves than ArbCom should, but... I dunno. I'm just rambling I guess. Since people are throwing ideas left and right anyways... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that's a good idea. It would encourage more thoughtful decisions. If they have to deal with their own mess it will likely be a cleaner case...hopefully. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely agree with Salvidrim!'s idea. I likened this to probation above. EC was brought before a panel of judges and sentenced to probation (instead of being site banned which would be akin to jail). That probation has conditions (tbans and ibans in most cases). Probation violations usually get you put back in front of the same judge. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• • That would mean a tiny group of people who handle all the enforcement with no possible oversight. That undermines WP:ADMINACCT and a host of other policies, and is extremely dangerous. Their job is to make the call, only when the community can't, and that is all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • And I think ArbCom have enough on their plate already, hence in part many of the delays that occur. All this could have been avoided with a touch of humility ... - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I assume you mean from Eric. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • You assume incorrectly. I think you quite probably (along with Kevin) also incorrectly assume that I do not think Eric should be blocked. but I'm used to snarks from the likes of you. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
          • I have been snarking a bit as of late, but I was serious there. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Excepting emergencies, my understanding is that most Arbs won't do this anyway. So yes, this makes sense. Many Arbs won't get involved in ANI cases for the same reason, they may have to hear the case at Arb so they don't want to be involved. Not sure if we have the authority here or how to word it, but it should be (and I thought it was) common for Arbs to keep an arm's length in enforcing cases they have previously adjudicated. This case with GW is one of the most obvious examples of why they shouldn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Eh? Kevin, have you ever heard of the concept of separation of powers? - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Separation of powers doesn't mean what you think it does, at least in the US. I guarantee if you piss off a judge enough, you'll promptly be escorted to jail by a bailiff on the judge's authority. Hell, arrest warrants are literally issued by judges in general. Unless you're speaking of a different country, you're just off. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The law-making body does not enforce the law. That's what I mean. Maybe the US is even more screwed up than I thought, although I vaguely recall the concept being stated in de Tocqueville's Democracy in America or some such. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Law-making bodies do enforce laws. In the United States, jurisprudence is granted the weight of law (though less than black letter law, and judges are the people who issue arrest warrants, writs to enforce the law etc. By ignoring the Supreme Court decision's in Worcester, and thus continuing to deprive tribes of limited internal sovereignty, most people credit Andrew Jackson with the Trail of Tears which isn't exactly generally thought of in glorious terms. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin, I worked in the judicial system, and appalled by your lack of understanding here. Judges authorize the request of the executive and adjudicate, but it is the executive branch that executes (and the legislative that creates), which is why every court has a bailiff, a peace officer, when it is needed. Wikipedia isn't the US govt, so the direct comparison doesn't work anyway. This whole Andrew Jackson comparison is such hyperbole as to be laughable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

While you're correct that I slipped up by not pointing out that bailiffs are in fact peace officers and part of the executive branch - and you're quite right that we're on Wikipedia so the whole analogy is rather silly - the court system absolutely creates laws unless you're in a civil law or similar jurisdiction (and even then in Louisiana, they kind of still do.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to second Dennis Brown's comments. The lack of understanding of the political system as to the executive, legislative, and judicial systems, is appalling. You clearly do not understand the concept of separation of powers, of jurisprudence, or of black letter law. GregJackP Boomer! 02:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Having someone second scolding me on a rather minor error on an almost totally irrelevant subthread of an Eric subthread has to be the most ENWPian moment ever ;). I do not lack understanding of the concept of separation of powers, of jurisprudence, or of black letter law. Although I misspoke in not pointing out that court peace officers are members of the executive branch, my original post pretty much stands. Common-law judges both enforce and create law, inarguably. I also should have contraposed jurisprudence against statutory law rather than black letter law, but the original point pretty much stands. Judges in most of the western world, inarguably, both enforce and create law. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose they don't need neutered this is just a COI not over reach of arb power. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I don't normally use strong, but there it is. Of course arbs should be able to enforce their decisions. If hey had no reason to recuse themselves in the case then the act of participating in the case does not make them biased. Chillum 01:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Chillum. Gamaliel (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Obvious oppose per above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Chillum. BMK (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose making this a rule, but it is bad practice for arbitrators to be regularly involved in arbitration enforcement, because... well, we can see the controversy it started. --Rschen7754 03:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose basically per Chillum, not to mention the fact that such a major change to policy should be made through a properly considered discussion and not in response to any particular issue. I'd also note that part of the issue here is that because admins who take what should be uncontroversial actions against EC get badgered to a truly extraordinary extent (as this whole series of threads shows) it's appropriate for arbs to get involved in routine AE-related admin actions in cases such as this (made with or without their arb-specific hat on, as appropriate) because many admins are unwilling to get involved due to the amount of misery this will cause for themselves. Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Chillum and Nick-D, but note the valid point that arbitrators taking AE action risk appearing involved (or at least having to explain why they aren't) when/if the AE action is subsequently relevant to a case. Arbitrators don't suddenly cease to be admins, and are free to carry out any routine admin duties in addition to being on the committee. Good practice suggests they should make clear which actions are done in which capacity when they do so. This would make clear how on what evidence the action was based, and how it can be reviewed. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is largely irrelevant whether the action is taken as a member of the Arbitration Committee or as an individual administrator, any Arbitration Enforcement action is still performed under the protection of the Arbitration Committee, the body that any Arbitrator taking action as a regular administrator remains a member of. The remaining members of the Arbitration Committee shouldn't be placed in the situation (whether or not it exists in this specific case) of having to then deal with the consequences of an action taken by one of their colleagues. This is as much about being seen to be doing the right thing as actually doing the right thing, removing any suggestion or appearance of bias, involvement or hidden agendas, and I believe it would be as beneficial for the Arbitration Committee as it would for the rest of the community to stop the same group of users both making imposing restrictions and then deciding how to enforce them if and when they're broken.

The community, unfortunately, doesn't have an enormous amount of trust in the Arbitration Committee, and in recent years, they've become disinterested in elections, leaving our Arbitrators to be elected with relatively low numbers of votes and low support percentages. It's fairly clear that the entire Arbitration Enforcement system needs to be rethought, it shouldn't ever be the case that the first administrator to review an enforcement request gets to make an action which can't easily be reversed (either taking action or refusing to do so) as that's something that quite obviously can (and almost certainly is) gamed on a regular basis. The whole process has become so over-complicated that I hear former arbitrators and current functionaries complaining of the rules seemingly changing on a daily basis. The discretionary sanctions system is similarly dis-functional and worthy of a mention here, at a recent Arbitration Case, I saw one user legitimately claim that although they were aware of the Discretionary Sanctions concerning a topic that they were editing, as they had not formally been issued a Discretionary Sanction warning, as logged through the edit filter system, they couldn't be treated as being bound by those Discretionary Sanctions.

There are too many loopholes, booby-traps and far too much potential for confusion due to the way the current Arbitration Enforcement and Discretionary Sanctions system is set out. The thread above, arguing for Eric to be unblocked because of a potential conflict of interest involving GorillaWarfare is one such issue. In this case, I'd like to see Arbitrators explicitly banned from undertaking Arbitration Enforcement when they sat on the committee and heard the original case(s), but for practical reasons, I wouldn't be opposed to an equally explicit policy amendment that specifically states that Arbitrators may undertake Enforcement without it being regarded as a conflict of interest, and no unblock should be considered on that basis.

We are eventually going to come across a case where Arbitration Enforcement really doesn't work in the way it is intended, and a significant amount of disruption is going to result, purely because the system isn't fit for purpose. It might be this case already, who knows until we look back in retrospect, but there's a lot of people unhappy with the current Arbitration Enforcement system, as witnessed up above, and something does need to be done to significantly improve it. Nick (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• This too is a moot proposal because the community cannot change Committee-made arbitration procedure. However, on the merits, I'm of the opposite view as the proposer. This case shows, as have previous ones with some of the same protagonists, that where AE intersects with powerful wikipolitical fault lines or social networks, enforcement of Committee decisions can be substantially hampered by what amounts to harassment campaigns against those who take enforcement actions, merely because large groups of Wikipedians disagree with the sanction that is to be enforced. Under these circumstances, only the Committee itself has the authority and the institutional capacity to give its decisions the binding force they are supposed to have. That this is not a conflict of interest should be obvious: the Committee is not a party to the conflict but its deciding authority. Arbitration procedure should therefore explicitly provide for mechanisms to allow enforcement decisions to be made by arbitrators, individually or collectively, in all or some cases.  Sandstein  08:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The community can amend Arbitration Policy, which could have the effect of changing committee made policy. Note that the process for amending Arbitration policy is that either the committee must propose the change, or an amendment petition must be signed by 100 editors. After which, there is a vote, and a minimum of 100 support and a majority are required to ratify the policy change. While this discussion can't make a binding change on committee made policy, the community could if it really wanted to. Monty₈₄₅ 14:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I noted above, the purpose of arbcom is to handle the cases the community can't resolve. Stripping arbitrators of the ability to handle the cases the community can't resolve is a step backwards. Resolute 15:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Dare I say that Sandstein has it right? ArbCom creates the ArbCom-generated restrictions. It should be up to ArbCom to enforce them. As it stands now, we have a tattle tale board in which, by GW's precedent, any administrator can flout so long as they are blocking. A complaint plus any one random administrator agreeing with the complaint = unreversable block. It is clearly a defective system. Push it back to ArbCom and maybe they won't be so cavalier with their vague topic bans... Carrite (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Closure Review

This is a request to review the close at Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V#Merger_proposal to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion.

The closure appears to have been made based on the opinion of the editor that closed it rather than the actual consensus. As I said when talking to the editor that closed it, I am aware that consensus is not determined simply by counting heads but there are significantly more editors in support of the merger than against it, and neither side cited any rules. Mainline421 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Overturn and merge as per consensus - and I will tell you for why: The closer concentrated mainly on sourcing/notability of the re-release, however that was addressed clearly by the support voters. Demonstrated notability means that a subject *can* have its own article, not that it *should* have one. In this case the support merge group clearly demonstrated that a re-release of the game for a later console can easily be incorporated into the original article. Its just not that different a product *its the same game*. There are differences but if we had different articles for re-releases of all media.... At best it merits two paragraphs with a list of the major changes and its reception. Secondly a number of the oppose votes are along the lines of 'otherstuffexists' which is not a valid reason for not merging. Lots of other stuff exists. Often those articles have their own reasons, or often, no one has got around to propose merging/deleting them. On the whole, the support merge group had both stronger arguments and none that are against policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not the place for this. As I previously stated, the closure isn't something I made based on my own opinion. If you look again, another editor did cite that the re-release meets WP:GNG, and WP:Article size was also brought up (even if indirectly). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures this is exactly the place to bring a challenge, I'm not making an opinion on the close but just pointing that out. Kharkiv07 (T) 13:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Snuggums, as a general rule, whenever someone makes a claim like "ANI is not the place for this", they should specify where they think the right place is. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures says "If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard". I am also a bit uncomfortable with the claim you made at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion that "one compelling reason can override multiple weaker reasons". While technically true, and often invoked when there are a lot of "I llke it/don't like it" !votes, in this case it appears that those who opposed the merge were well aware of the "compelling reason" and did not find it compelling, even if you did. In such cases the opinion of the majority should not be disregarded. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd endorse that, because the only real alternative is "overturn to no consensus", and "no consensus" means the status quo ante should continue, so it has exactly the same effect as endorsing the close. I can't see any way to get to "overturn to merge" based on that discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia:Freedom of Panorama 2015

I'd like to bring the above issue to the general attention of admins since it involves the site-wide notification. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following motion has passed and been enacted:

1. Technical 13's indefinite block is converted to an indefinite ban imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Technical 13 may appeal this ban at any time to the Arbitration Committee if he wishes to return to editing.
2. Technical 13 is limited to one account, and may not edit through any account other than "Technical 13". He is explicitly denied the right to any sort of clean start.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13 closed

Possible suicide threat by an IP

Would an admin consider revdeleting this? I know it's borderline but I didn't want to take any chances. And I did already email emergency@wikimedia.org. (I also know that WP:SUICIDE instructs to contact an admin privately, but, well, which admin would I choose?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

IMHO - this was a user hyperbolically complaining and leaving, not an actual threat of self harm, but let's just leave it for emergency@wikimedia.org to review and decide what to do. If they don't act I don't want to delete this person's parting comment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

An option (if you have it) is to go !admin in the Irc channel and youll tend to have a load available who you can message privatley. Amortias (T)(C) 09:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

We have a Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests; what some people do is look through the recent changes feed to see which of these are actively editing at the time the incident occurs. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockmaster seems to be out of the drawer

Would an admin please put a stop to this? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? He is appealing to other sockmasters to stop because he may have led to collateral damage and it has been his one and only post. I would hope that he is regretful and that it may influence others that socking isn't such a good idea. We've got it under control.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ, if a sockmaster is free to post, then he or she is not "under control." An indef block for block evasion would get the situation "under control". We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to probe into the psychology of people who deliberate cause disruption, or to help them play their little games. Can we please get an admin to block the admitted block-evading sock-master User:Message to you all? BMK (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm confused; are you asking for a block on yourself? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)