Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

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 by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

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).

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic.

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, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Courcelles ( talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Etiquette

2) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Courcelles ( talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sanctions and circumstances

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

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Courcelles ( talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

4) The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are often thereafter subject to ongoing special enforcement arrangements, such as discretionary sanctions. From time to time the committee may revisit these enforcement systems – in order to, for example, clarify ambiguities or to evaluate whether they remain necessary.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Courcelles ( talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Enforcement of decisions

5) The Arbitration Committee relies on the community to enforce its decisions. Administrators do not have to get involved in enforcement, if they do not wish to; however, they are expected to refrain from hindering the enforcement of arbitration decisions.

Administrators whose actions have the effect of interfering with the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decisions may have their administrative status revoked.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Though I wish the statement that admins "do not have to" get involved with AE work was significantly stronger. Courcelles ( talk) 22:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Scope of restrictions

6) Apart from the standard exceptions to limited bans, all restrictions apply to every edit made to the English language Wikipedia, explicitly including the ones made to one's own talk page or to Jimbo Wales' talk page.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. pretty obvious -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. if an editor's restrictions prevent them from communicating on Jimbo's talk page they may ask for an exemption, either from the community or from Jimbo himself (off-wiki). Thryduulf ( talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. L Faraone 16:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. There aren't any special "zones". Topic banned means banned from the topic on all pages, period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. With the notable exception that one may use his talk page to make an appeal to Jimbo; as long as their editing privileges are not temporarily or indefinitely revoked via a block or a siteban. Courcelles ( talk) 22:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Jimbo Wales decides the rules for his talk page. This is traditional practice here, and people rely on that. If he wishes that changed, we can oblige him. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Casting aspersions

7) Editors must not accuse others of misconduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Courcelles ( talk) 22:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Reinstating a sanction reversed out of process

8) The unilateral reinstatement of an enforcement action, which has been reversed out of process, does not constitute wheel warring, where the reversion has resulted in sanctions for the reversing administrator.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. For clarity. L Faraone 18:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Courcelles ( talk) 22:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

At wit's end

9) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt exceptional measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Courcelles ( talk) 22:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Equality and respect

10) Wikipedia editors and readers are culturally diverse by virtue of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender or sexual orientation. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions. Harassment of other editors for any reason will not be tolerated and is also grounds for blocking or other sanctions.

Support:

1. Suggested on the talk page and seems useful here -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. As Doug states I wish it were a little stronger, but nonetheless support. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Rewording to support. Doug Weller ( talk) 12:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. I would prefer the stronger wording DGG suggests ("will not") but I support this version ("should not") as a second preference. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. L Faraone 17:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'd like it to be a bit stronger and mention harassment, maybe with the words "will not be tolerated". Doug Weller ( talk) 21:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Support change to "will not be tolerated" "should not" is a recommendation, "will not" is unambiguous. And there is no need for the "also" later in that sentence. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Background

1) During the Interactions at GGTF case, in lieu of a full site ban, the Arbitration Committee imposed a set of restrictions on Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs), on account of his demonstrated history of making valuable editorial contributions to the project, bringing over 50 articles to featured article status, and participating in hundreds of featured article and good article reviews.

One of those restrictions was the prohibition from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Courcelles ( talk) 02:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Background (continued)

2) Since the imposition of his restrictions, Eric Corbett has been blocked multiple times for their violation

25 January, 48 hours

27 February, 72 hours

27 May, 1 week

29 May, extension of previous block to 2 weeks

26 June, 1 month, block lifted by Reaper Eternal on 28 June, on which see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement

20 July, initial block 1 month, subsequently shortened to 3 days.

The enforcement of Eric's restrictions has frequently been contentious and accompanied by significant drama, during the various Arbitration Enforcement discussions, on the blocking admins' talk page ( 1, 2, 3), on the administrators' noticeboard ( 1 and 2), and has directly led to the first Arbitration enforcement case.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. As factual background. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Courcelles ( talk) 02:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The Atlantic article

3) On 21 October 2015, The Atlantic published an article written by Emma Paling, which focused, among other things, on the Lightbreather case. The article included mentions of Eric Corbett.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Courcelles ( talk) 02:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion following The Atlantic article

4) The Atlantic article was discussed on Jimbo Wales's talk page, where some of the article's inaccuracies were pointed out. Eric explicitly acknowledged that participating in such a discussion could violate his restriction, but decided to take part in it anyway, to reply to the claims the article made regarding him, and indeed made various comments addressing said claims ( 1, 2 and 3). No sanction was imposed for these comments.

Eric, however, made two further comments ( 1 and 2), which could be reasonably construed as violating his topic ban. As a result, in light of his previous violations, he was blocked for a month by Kirill Lokshin ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

The block was subsequently unilaterally lifted by Yngvadottir ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. The distinction between the comments Eric was sanctioned for and the ones he wasn't is important. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. I agree it's important to note that Eric was not sanctioned for pointing out factual inaccuracies in something that specifically mentioned him. If that's not in the letter of BANEX, it certainly is in the spirit of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Agreed with Seraphimblade here, the initial comments were not sanctionable. Courcelles ( talk) 02:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Per Seraphimblade. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Kirill Lokshin's block

5) Having reviewed Kirill Lokshin's explanation for his block of Eric Corbett, the Arbitration Committee concludes that it was a reasonable exercise of discretion.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. The question is not "Would I make the same block?" or "Do I agree with the block?"; the question is "Could a reasonable person come to this this decision?". The answer is yes. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Uninvolved admins have never been required to use AE, and to criticize Kirill for not using it would be against that idea. In isolation, the block was excessive, but in light of the standard escalating blocks enforcement provision, it was a reasonable exercise of discretion. The finding doesn't say optimal, I don't think it was, it says "reasonable exercise of discretion". Courcelles ( talk) 02:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. While noting that reasonable administrative discretion also includes the option to do nothing.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Reasonable enough. But not prudent. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. It was not reasonable. The violation was too minor for a substantial penalty regardless of what had previous occurred. It was technically justifiable, but it was poor judgment. Better judgment would have been a short ban to make the point. An admin ought not take action which will inevitably inflame a situation. That's what discretion is for. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. After some thought, I can't support this. It would have been far better to bring this to AE, and actually let a discussion take place, than for one administrator to act unilaterally. There was a technical violation, but it was not so bad that it required immediate action, even though that is in theory allowable. I think this was done with good intentions, but the blowup was foreseeable and at least partially avoidable. That being said, I also would not support a finding (if it were proposed here) stating that the action was unreasonable, but I think it could've been done better. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Seraphimblade's comments convince me. I can't see a good reason not to bring this to AE, there was no urgency and the outcome of the block pretty obvious (although hindsight is a fine thing, etc). Doug Weller ( talk) 16:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose by principle only per NativeForeigner. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. After much thought I agree with Seraphimblade and Doug. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm torn here. A block was certainly a course of action permitted by Eric's sanctions, and the length of the block was also permitted. However I agree that a block of that length for what was not a very serious breach of the restrictions, particularly given the drama that surrounds Eric, was not good judgement. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@ DGG:, not only was it technically justifiable, it was in fact specified as such. Per the standard 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.

While Eric's civility restriction has an explicit, in-line enforcement procedure, his topic ban does not. In absence of any specific enforcement provisions, the standard enforcement language applies. So following those provisions (with a one-month block) is certainly within administrator discretion. L Faraone 17:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree it was permitted, and well-intentionned (and I should have said well-intentioned in the first place--my apologies to Kiril). It was however an act which made the situation worse. Doing something that unintentionally makes a situation worse is poor judgment. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC) . reply

Was it within his authority? Yes. Could a reasonable admin arrive at that conclusoin? I believe so. If I was in that position and the goal was to limit disruption and act equitably I would certainly not have imposed the block. Notwithstanding my certainty, that is only my opinion. Does this make it reasonable? Largely a semantic distinction. NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Yngvadottir's unblock

6) Yngvadottir's unblock of Eric Corbett was out of process and violated the standard procedure for appeals and modifications of sanctions. For that breach of the standards of conduct expected of administrators, she was desysopped.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. I hear DGG's arguments, but I did not at the time and still do not see anything that excuses or justifies the deliberate out of process reversal of an arbitration enforcement action. The first arbitration enforcement case made it explicit that all AE actions are valid until withdrawn by the person who made the action or there is a clear and substantial consensus that it was not valid. I also feel that the procedure used for the desysop was valid - when an administrator deliberately misuses their tools, particularly in a way that causes and/or fuel drama, it is important that the tools be removed as a fire-fighting action, whether or not the tools are returned later. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Correct - this is what happened. Probably it was inevitable. She did it knowing the likely consequences. I still wish we'd allowed more time for discussion. Minor point, some editors think she came out of retirement for the unblock (as did I at first), but she didn't. She wrote about retiring but didn't retire and fortunately is still with us as an editor. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

5. True finding of fact, but I think that the usage of emergency procedures was unnececessary. I never saw anything which to me indicated there would be further abuse. The desysop here seemed reactive rather than thought out. Regardless of whether or not this was a fire-fighting action, which I don't really believe to be the case, I think the ends result was a net-negative. NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Whatever the merits of an initial AE action, reversing it unilaterally is not permitted. That's a crucial part of the AE process. If Yngvadottir thought the action should be reversed, there are established means of challenging them. And if Eric chooses never to appeal, that's his business, but the option remains open to him. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. It is never within admin discretion to undo an AE block without a clear and substantial consensus at AN or AE (or the blocking admin's permission). Yngvadottir knew she didn't have that consensus or permission, and did it anyway. That this would lead to a desysop should have caught no one off-guard. Courcelles ( talk) 02:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Per NativeForeigner. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Though a correct statement of the facts as far as it goes , it omits a key element (which I discuss below) and I therefore oppose it. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC): reply
2. As DGG and NativeForeigner have noted, this is literally correct but did not require emergency action. I think that given more time we might have at least found a way to implement a possible return of the tools. It also omits the wider context in which this took place. Thus I can't support it as a complete statement of facts. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. I don't think this required emergency action either and an opposing on that basis alone.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

It was out of process and does justify a desysop, but the desysop was made over-hastily using emergency procedures. There was no emergency, and if more thought had been given, we might have concluded it was better discretion not to take the action. Though within our powers, it represents a misjudgment by the committee which it ought to correct. (I recognize the vote was unanimous among those active, except that I had not seen it in time to vote & would have voted against it.) I am of course very reluctant to make a public statement that everyone else was wrong and I was right, but after thinking it over since the time I remain of that opinion, and I think it my obligation to say so. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Black Kite

7) During the first Arbitration enforcement case, Black Kite ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s conduct in relation to the enforcement of Eric's restriction was found suboptimal (see the relevant finding of fact).

In this case, after Eric's block, Black Kite cast aspersions against, and made personal attacks on other users ( 1, 2, and 3; see also his preliminary statement).

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. And this does, to be clear, need to stop. One can disagree without being disagreeable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Absolutely unacceptable conduct. Courcelles ( talk) 02:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
9. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Giano

8) Giano ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly cast aspersions against, and made personal attacks on editors and administrators involved in enforcing Eric's restrictions ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; see also his preliminary statement and this evidence submission).

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Courcelles ( talk) 02:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanctions

1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but takes over their enforcement.

Support:

1. First choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. L Faraone 18:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. First choice. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. We need to take responsibility for our own actions. I'd rather do it in a general discussion. But this would be a start. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. There is a limit to how far one can bend over backwards to keep someone on the project; a motion per AE block is past my limit -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. I can't support this. It would set a precedent that would allow the community to avoid responsibility by getting us to take over other editors' sanctions, and I want to see us doing less and the community doing more. We don't have the time to enforce sanctions regimes on editors and in any case we aren't the solution to everything. On the other hand, if this behavior continues - both Eric's and blocking/unblocking Admins, that will be a signal it's time for a ban and I will almost certainly vote for one. Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 14 November 2015 {UTC} Evidently I need to clarify this. When I wrote "time for a ban" I was thinking of Eric, not anyone else. And looking at what I wrote again, the mention of Administrators is probably not necessary anyway. Eric has to adhere to his restrictions. Doug Weller ( talk) 19:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Concerned this opens a can of worms, and that Arbcom isn't a particularly effective enforcement mechanism, especially for day to day infractions. Plus, are we willing to go to these lengths for other editors? When I agreed to the compromise that kept Corbett here I did so because I was very convinced by the arguments Newyorkbrad made, almost a year ago on the matter. Anyone who wishes to understand why I voted as I did need only read Brad's comments. But I think, to me, the series of violations has led to a point where I am convinced we took all the reasonable actions we could. Alas he has continued to violate the restriction (even excluding this last case which I believe may have been the straw which brought this mess to arbcom, but is not to me something he ought to have been blocked for). We can try to follow our wikihearts and save him, or do what is in my mind the right thing, ban him, and close this saga of good intent leading to bad action. I'm not sure I'm necessarily convinced that Corbett's actions have by themselves discouraged woman participation to the extent that some claim. But he's nonetheless been highly disruptive, the fallout over the enforcement of these sanctions has been significantly, and his continued participation does not outweigh these negatives. The militarization of the discussion regarding his blocks and unblocks was highly disruptive. I agree that sometimes we need to have open and sometimes combative discourse to solve problems, but the battleground mentality exhibited by those on both sides, to me, has prevented core gender issues from being addressed. Corbett is neither a sacred cow nor a persecuted dissident. Hopefully the conflict which has raged over how best to deal with corbett can be channeled into other matters. I disagree with some of the blocks imposed on corbett, I disagree with some of the unblocks. But with there being so much grey area (at the time I was concerned about scoping, these concerns turned out to be valid), I don't think the sanctions as they stand are enforceable in a way which isn't destructive to the project, either if taken on by the committee or by a required 24 hours of drama at AE. NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Absolutely not. We should not be both imposing and enforcing sanctions, and we certainly shouldn't be solely responsible for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. My colleagues have clearly stated the issue with this remedy. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Per Seraphimblade,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanctions (alternative)

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

Support:

1. Second choice. L Faraone 18:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. second choice -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   only choice. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

4. This is much preferable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Again, I find myself agreeing with Seraphimblade.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice to remedy 1, above. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. To require all enforcement to go to AE, that is where I stumble here. Otherwise I agree. I get the community has issues dealing with the enforcement of EC's sanctions, but this sets a dangerous standard IMHO that drama will always need to ensue at the relative noticeboard. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Rethought this after reading Gatoclass's comments and rereading the votes here. Bad precedent and perhaps not workable. However, Gatoclass's suggestion that concerning appeals at AE requiring a supermajority to overturn sounds worth looking at, although I'd want to discuss what kind of majority would be required. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Not going to block this, but I don't think it'll be effectual. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

We do need to make a decision. I'd support this with amendments: enforcement only at AE with at least 24 hours as suggested, amend the sanctions to allow flexible block times and an automatic reblock by us if he's unblocked without consensus but without a desysop - we don't want any more martyrs. If he does decide to treat the blocks as a fine he could afford, and I'm not convinced he will, then of course we'd have to reconsider. The amendment should also say that if he doesn't get blocked in the next 6 months there will be an automatic review of his topic ban. Doug Weller ( talk) 21:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanctions (alternative 2)

1.2) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case as amended, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours. If an Administrator reverts at block placed at AE by consensus there, the block will be replaced but the Admin will not be desysopped. Any Admin unblocking a second time may face sanctions. If Eric is not blocked during any six month period there will be an automatic review of his topic ban.

Support:

1. The reason for this remedy is to prevent Admins making martyrs of themselves by making unblocks pointless. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. "If an Administrator reverts at block placed at AE by consensus there, the block will be replaced but the Admin will not be desysopped." Absolutely not, for reasons that should be self-explanatory. Courcelles ( talk) 20:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
2. per Courcelles -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 21:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
3. If an administrator reverts an AE action out of process, then that action should indeed be remade without need for discussion. Whether the administrator should be desysopped needs to be judged on the individual circumstance - e.g. it may be the admin's account has been compromised, or the security of the account may be unclear, and we should not enact any remedy that restricts or potentially restricts our ability to desysop in those circumstances. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
4. A license to wheel war. L Faraone 22:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Novel approach but I'm concerned it would lead to even more overblown rhetoric. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

At wit's end, remember? And no, the reasons to oppose are not self-explanatory. Why would anyone unblock when they know that it would be overturned? I can think of only one reason, as a symbolic protest. We do not need to desysop someone for an action that they know will have no effect. To argue that desysopping for a symbolic action is more important than ending the disruption is not, I believe, in the interests of the encyclopedia. Doug Weller ( talk) 05:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Eric Corbett banned

2) For his repeated violations of policy and of the restrictions imposed on him, Eric Corbett is banned. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Support:

1. Distant second choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Third choice. L Faraone 18:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. first choice -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Equal choice with 2.1 -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   NativeForeigner ^Talk 14:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not over something as minor as this DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Eric's own actions in this do not justify a ban, and he cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. L Faraone 16:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. But this isn't a free pass or a suggestion that 'minor infractions' will be ignored next time. Doug Weller ( talk) 09:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. What happened here does not justify a site ban. The previous infractions were already dealt with. If they called for a ban, either we or the community should've been proposing it at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Per below comments. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

For the benefit of my most learned and wise colleagues, I'll just point out that a ban is not being proposed for this minor infraction, but for this plus the previous six infractions. How many infractions are required to speak of a pattern, rather than a minor infraction which can be nonchalantly brushed aside, is left as an exercise for the reader. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I've done the sums - my answer is 1. I'd probably vote now though for a ban from anything but article space. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Not necessarily just, and the action taken by Eric that led to the block was extremely defensible, I would certainly have not blocked him for it. But while this is on the table I think this is probably the best course of action to limit disruption. I hate to make the reference, but his may be the Gordian knot cutting remedy. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply

To clarify, I think it's probably the most likely to solve this mess given the case but several days have convinced me that although this is the case, the evidence and FoF don't back this up. Also in this particular case Corbett didn't create a huge amount of this drama, it was otehr parties which he doesn't have control over. Regardless, I think an all or nothing approach is the most likely to work here. (or perhaps, a topic ban only from GGTF pages, he hasn't seemed that keen to comment.) I'll probably oppose all remedies but I don't know where that leaves us. Still most likely to solve it in my mind, of remedies presented at this time. NativeForeigner ^Talk 14:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Eric Corbett reverse topic ban

2.1) For his continued violations of policy and of the restrictions imposed on him, Eric Corbett is reverse topic banned. He is prohibited from editing Wikipedia with the following exceptions:

• All articles
• All article talk pages
• All user talk pages
• His own userpage (including subpages)
• WP:FAC, WP:FLC, WP:GAN, and subpages of those pages
• If Eric wishes to make a statement in an ARCA or AE request regarding restrictions he is subject to, he may do so on his user talk page and any uninvolved editor may copy it at their discretion.
• If Eric wishes to initiate an amendment or clarification request regarding of one or more restriction he is subject to, he must email the Arbitration Committee who will advise how they wish to proceed.

He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter. This must be by email in the first instance.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

1. I have clarified that Eric's userpage includes subpages and added the two bullet points starting "If Eric wishes to" and the second sentence regarding reconsideration of the ban. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Equal choice with 2 -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I don't see this working in practice. Eric was already topic banned from the problem areas, he may either follow that, or not. I also don't like the requirement that appeals must be made privately; those should be public except when they would contain sensitive and private information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. I am going to pull my support. I do not like some of the appeal options that have been modified in. It also makes me realize that this too is just going to be another unenforceable arm as we keep expanding the list of exceptions. Furthermore, there is no positive response from members of the community on this. If the community really thinks we shouldn't be doing this, then I'm willing to step out on what the community wishes for this case, and maybe find an alternative solution if there is one. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
3. The attempt to define areas in this way is an invitation to wikilawering. (all topic bans , direct or reverse, do tend to do that). it seems we can't agree on saying something more direct and straightforward, but even so, we shouldn't try things like this. DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Amanda's withdrawn her support for a remedy she suggested, I can't see any reason to think that this would solve the problem and I agree that private appeals would be undesirable here, so I oppose this. Doug Weller ( talk) 11:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
5. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposal was made by another Arbitrator on the mailing list, but discussion had died out. So I have taken the liberty of posting it for formal consideration. For full clarity, the first three bullet points are their respective namespace. (Aka NS0, NS1, and NS3) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

In all cases where Eric must contact the committee by email, I anticipate the committee will either decide the matter by email (most likely if it's a very simple request), copy Eric's comments to an on-wiki process and/or grant a limited exception to comment on a specific on-wiki request, depending on what is best in any given circumstance. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@ DGG, Doug Weller, and DeltaQuad: I added the last two provisions as appeals and clarifications were completely undefined in the first version (which imho is just asking for a future clarification request) - I'm entirely open to replacing them with an allowance that Eric and comment on and initiate appeals and clarifications related to his restrictions without being required to contact us first if that would lead to your support. I have not had chance to read all the community comments regarding this yet though. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Black Kite admonished

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Black Kite points out that he was not actually admonished, so I'm changing my vote. As this admonishment is comes relatively shortly after he was told in an earlier case that his conduct was suboptimal, I hope he won't be coming back here in the future. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. per BK's comment on my talk page -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 21:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Per not having been formally admonished, I suppose, though "told your conduct is suboptimal" is, by at least the reasonable definition of the word, an admonishment. I support at least this, though I'm still considering whether this conduct is compatible with remaining an admin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Per my comments below in the desysop vote. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

He has been admonished before for his conduct. Why do we expect that another admonishment to change anything? -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Per Guerillero. An admonishment is already a final warning, we should not be giving one twice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Admonishments lose their impact if they are repeated. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

1. Too weak. Courcelles ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Black Kite desysopped

3.1) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is desysopped.

Support:

1. His actions in this and the previous case are not commensurate with the standards of behaviour required of administrators. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. per above -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Confirming my support -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. The only acceptable remedy after this level of misconduct. Courcelles ( talk) 02:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I can't bring myself to support this. I'll walk you through my reasoning. Was Black Kite's actions in AE1 suboptimal? Yes. Did they break any rule of AE by closing the thread early? Unless I'm super blind, no. Did it ever repeat itself? Not in evidence that's been presented. Is Black Kite maybe a little too attached to Eric Corbett enforcement? Maybe. Are their casting asperations appropriate? No. Has it been significantly disruptive? No, though it has been disruptive. So should we desysop someone for sub-optimal conduct that hasn't repeated and some casting of aspersions? I think we can do a lot better than that. Right now the admonishment for the new behavior seems sufficient. That said, if we see further issues, depending on what they are, I could see a desysop down the road. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   I don't get this reasoning at all. They know full well their conduct at AE was poor, the fact an amnesty was granted doesn't change what we all know, it just means no formal admonishment was passed. That leads us to this matter. "Serious accusations require serious evidence" is something we say so often it seems like a mantra; that anyone experienced enough on this project should know it (and it is common sense, anyway). I could see this logic had Black Kite even pretended to present the slightest veneer of evidence here. He didn't, it was a naked accusation, with no attempt whatsoever to provide evidence of his statements; indeed trying to make the accused party prove his allegation false rather than presenting evidence [1]. That's unacceptable from any editor, and admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard. It is alwo worth noting that the accusation was removed, with an edit summary speaking only of word limits. Courcelles ( talk) 21:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Amnesty or not, I am still in this section. (I'm still not convinced to this day that amnesty was the right option) Maybe I'm too much of a three strike or complete stupidity person to require a desysop. When I look at our admin policy, I see: However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Lets start with the seriousness factor. I don't see serious disruption as I noted above. While Black Kite knew that those aspersions were inappropriate, I only see a limited scope in which it happened, which fails the "egregiously" portion for me. Had it been outside the topic of EC also, then I could see egregiously. But temperaments are all too easily flared up in these situations. That said I don't excuse the conduct. Now lets move to the time factor. "consistently" and "sustained" don't read to me as 2 different situations. It's asking for a pattern. Let me compare with policing (not by the fact that we are wiki police, but to show consist/sustained). You knew your headlight was out on your car, and you drove it, and got pulled over. Cop says go get if fixed, and warns you. The second time around, he knows you knew it was wrong, so he gives you a ticket - maybe because you forgot or didn't have the time. This is the reminder that your acting stupid and to smarten up. If it comes around to a third time, then we see a pattern of an attempt to not follow the rules of the road, and more serious actions have to be taken to prevent you from being a hazard to other drivers. The fact that amnesty was granted only deepens my oppose, as we would then be desysoping on solely casting aspersions. Amnesty doesn't mean we can look back and still say "That was poor judgement", it means we have dismissed the issue and left it in the dust to get along with the case.

   I've also spent way too long writing the section above for without amnesty, so if you don't understand it, substitute it with "My gut just tells me this is not the action to take."

   @ Thryduulf: Given your comments on the original motion in regards to amnesty, I'm surprised to see your support for this. Could you explain more in detail why you support that, given your comments before? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   I must make one more point on this. If we are desysoping Black Kite for doing this, then we need to be ready to desysop GorillaWarfare for the next bad judgement call she makes in the AE area. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   That's an absolute straw-man argument. (And an inappropriate manner to bring up an editor who is not party to this case). We're not talking about a bad judgment call, we're talking about a willful, repeated accusation of severe misconduct without even a hand-wave towards evidence. This isn't a judgment call (good, shaky, or bad), this was clear misconduct under a principle we've passed dozens of times. Courcelles ( talk) 02:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   I apologize to @ GorillaWarfare: for bringing her up as such. But at this point we are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't argue that the conduct was bad, and I circled around my thoughts of the amnesty above, so just speaking of the current situation, I don't agree that the 3 diffs and a small section amount to enough for a desysop in this case. Like I said, it's mostly a gut feeling, and I've trusted my gut for years. I know the gut has no foundation in policy, but it's what I'm using here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Amanda had me convinced before I was reminded that Black Kite was granted an amnesty. Yes, we said their behavior was sub-optimal, but given the amnesty I'm unwilling to take that into account. Doug Weller ( talk) 19:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose "Suboptimal" (from the Finding of Fact) does not justify desysop. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Not in light of the previous amnesty,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. While (as indicated by the passing admonishment) their behaviour in this matter was poor, the previous amnesty precludes consideration of their conduct in the previous case. L Faraone 17:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Not at this point, based on both the amnesty and lack of formal admonishment. But please tone it down. I'd not like to see this be the result in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I'll have to think on this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Guerillero: Your comments above no longer coincide with your reasoning here. Could you update it please? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Giano topic banned

4) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors, Giano is topic banned from the following topics: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC) indenting temporarily, so I can think further. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

3. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Courcelles is right -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 21:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Support with pause. Giano's comments should have received blocks for what was in the FoF, but if this stops the comments from happening originally, then this is where "At wit's end" comes in. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This isn't backed by the FoF. See my comment below. Doug Weller ( talk) 21:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Per Doug. This area is already covered by DS, so if a topic ban is needed, it can be imposed readily. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Every time I reread what I wrote above, it sounds more and more stupid. Blocks are to be made as blocks, not this. Courcelles is right below that we need to address the issue, not run around it twice for it to come up in AE3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. I'd support a civility restriction (in particular relating to his Nazi-themed slurs and extravagant gender-themed rhetoric) but this is too broad.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Thinking similar to Roger's. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Why aren't we banning him simply from commenting on Eric? I supported no workshop, but didn't expect Giano to be brought up. I've seen evidence that would support a ban concerning Eric, and the "any process" topic would presumably cover this, but at the moment I haven't seen enough evidence on the various case pages to support banning from the first two topics. Since it's something I don't follow it may well be out there, but I can't vote for something without more knowledge. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

If the gender gap task force want a fight they can have one, no matter how many Admins attempt to revert and hush things up. I have kept very quiet up until now, but many here are sick to death of them and their Gestapo like posturing 1; Of course Victoria, it's nothing to do with women editors as a whole - the whole world knows that - they are as rational as the rest of mankind; it's to do with a small group of women who have formed a group, sucked in a few gullables (Eric, spell that for me can you? and are now playing the sexist card for their own peculiar ends 2; I have sat idly by for far too long while all this gender gap rubbish (yes, I said rubbish - get used to it, you'll be hearing it a lot more often from now on) 3; However, at the moment you and the "sisterhood" are looking all too transparent. 4. Enough? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

That's pretty bad, but it's all 9 months ago. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• What we need, either with or without this, is a tban from any discussion involving the conduct of Eric Corbett. Courcelles ( talk) 02:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Giano topic banned (2)

4.1) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors, Giano is topic banned from any discussion involving the conduct of Eric Corbett.

Support:

1. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I can see the thinking behind this, but I just don't see it being workable in practice. It also doesn't address the underlying issue, just one manifestation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
2. I agree. This won't work and so it won't help. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
3. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Enforcement of Giano's sanctions

5) The Arbitration Committee retains sole responsibility over the enforcement of Giano's sanctions.

Support:

1. Second choice. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Only choice. We need to take responsibility for our own actions. I'd rather do this in a general discussion, not one tied to a specific case, but this would be sa start. DGG 18:11, 6 December 2015‎ (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. this would be insane -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 03:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Obviously since I've opposed taking over Eric's and for the same reasons. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. We should not be both imposing and enforcing sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

I don't think we have any way to know what will work better here. In fact, I don't think we have every found a fair way of handling arbitration enforcement. Perhaps that's a reason to experiment, but I think it needs discussion out of the context of a particular case. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Enforcement of Giano's sanctions (alternative)

5.1) The Arbitration Committee mandates that all enforcement requests relating to Giano's sanctions be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

Support:

1. First choice, with the proviso that if the community are unable to handle this without drama then we will revisit this. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The standard should be ok -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 03:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. We should give the standard process a chance to work first (if sanctions should pass on Giano). If it doesn't, this could be amended later based on an actual record. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I don't think we have any way to know what will work better here. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Community reminded

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. I also encourage the community to reliably enforce the sanctions it imposes. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. This is more a finding of fact than a remedy, but should be said nonetheless. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Or even an encouragement as Thryduulf suggests. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

8. Per Seraphimblade,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Yes, although I will acknowledge attempts to enforce these have been rare, and oftentimes controversial. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I'm moving to change the scope of the topic ban which would make this remedy false. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Yngvadottir

7) As the temporary desysop of Yngvadottir no longer serves a useful purpose, it is rescinded and her sysop bit restored. This is without prejudice to possible future action on the matter.

as revised 17:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Support:

1. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Not entirely happy with the wording though it achieves the right result. My preference would be something along the lines of ... "As the temporary desysop of Yngvadottir no longer serves a useful purpose, it is rescinded. This is without prejudice etc. "   Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   I am quite willing to adopt Rogers wording; I think it better than mine--it's shorter, clearer, and more neutral with regard to the reasons. I've changed to it. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

3. support but prefer Roger's wording. Doug Weller ( talk) 09:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. I think this is probably a preferable outcome. It's frustrating they were desysoped in what in my mind was a misuse of procedure, but bygones be bygones. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I oppose this for several reasons:
   • I can think of few things more clearly incompatible with retaining administrative status than deliberately and knowingly reversing an arbitration or arbitration enforcement action out of process to make a point, doubly so while explicitly stating they expected to get desysopped for doing so.
   • Not enforcing our own explicit statement that taking such actions will lead to a desysopping will irrevocably undermine the entire point of having such a deterrent and will only lead to more drama and wheel warring in the future. Our job is to prevent drama, not to create it.
   • Restoring an admin's bits only to then initiate a motion to desysop them is pointless bureaucracy that benefits nobody
   • I do not believe that any user who has been desysopped for actions incompatible with the trust or other standards of behaviour expected of an administrator, regardless of what those actions are, should regain adminship without demonstrating they still hold the trust of the community - i.e. they must pass an RFA. The Arbitrtion Committee has moved away from automatic resysoppings as case remedies for a reason and we should not resurrect it here. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. My. Thryduulf said it better than I could have. I believe this motion is at best needlessly bureaucratic; a "level II" desysop is not emergency procedures (from the original motion text), it is used when an administrator's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions. If you want to put to a vote as to whether it is acceptable for an administrator to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by an out-of-process reversion of an arbitration enforcement decision, propose that finding of fact. The message that would send, however, would simply result in more disruption. L Faraone 02:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. I'm not going to waste my time restating what Thryduulf said. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Yngvadottir's action was undertaken with her full knowledge, by her own statement, that it would and should result in a desysop. I don't see how it came as a surprise to anyone when that subsequently happened. AE sanctions are not the final word, but there is, for good reason, a defined process for challenging them that must be followed. It is not new to anyone that a single admin is not permitted to unilaterally reverse them, and that admins who disregard that will no longer be admins. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Per the above. Courcelles ( talk) 02:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I have tried to word this so that those considering the desysop justified and done with good judgement might still consider this remedy appropriate, and those who do want to desysop her, could still start a procedure to do so. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

So is this restoring her sysop bit or just formally closing the process of desysopping but leaving her desysopped? I can read both DGG's and Roger's wording as meaning either of these opposite outcomes. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

This is text is sufficiently unclear that I cannot determine what it is designed to accomplish. L Faraone 16:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Neither can I, which leaves me surprised it has three support votes. Courcelles ( talk) 17:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC):: reply

I think Roger's wording better than mine--it's shorter, clearer, and more neutral with regard to the reasons. I've changed to it. But for either wording, it seems unambiguous to me that, when we rescind a desyop, the desysop is reversed and she has the bit. But since there is some confusion, I added a clause to say so DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@LFarone, we already have a vote in the FoF on whether it was a good idea; the way it was worded, I didn't support it, but if it had been worded merely to say it wasn't a good idea, I would have. I'm making this motion to indicate that though a poor idea, the specific circumstances do not really call for a desysop. And the "emergency procedure" wording of the proposal was indeed not quite right, and I changed it at Roger's suggestion. I suppose we can see what the community thinks at RfA, but I can understand it if she doesn't want to start another round of discussion that would re-litigate everything. On the more general question of our procedures, I expect to propose to the committee a modification of level II to call for the deliberations and vote to be open, with a reasonable time before closing. If the committee does not adopt it, I expect to propose to the community an appropriate amendment to Arbitration Policy that will have a similar effect. In the 12th century a thief caught with the goods in his hand could be hanged outright--only if there were more complicated circumstances did it need a trial. WP should get out of the Middle Ages. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@ DGG: the specific circumstances do not really call for a desysop. Please could you explain then under what circumstances would in your opinion call for a desysop. I'm having a hard time imagining something more worthy than the deliberate disruption of Wikipedia by out of process reversal of an arbitration enforcement sanction purely for the purposes of making a point. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

"Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope)" modified

8)

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
2. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 14:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
4. This is really the only thing I see working. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Sorry to jump on this at the last. That being said, this remedy is destroying the AE system. This case is far more about the scope of this remedy than any issues with the AE system as I see it. We're dragging edits which weren't part of the problem into the fight, and it's just not helping. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The solution really should be to just dismiss the case at this point, absolutely nothing useful is passing. This however, sets a terrible precedent, that if sanctions are violated enough, we'll just remove them. Courcelles ( talk) 21:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   If that is needed at this case thrn please suggest it. -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 23:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

2. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 21:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
3. per Courcelles' second sentence. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

A few comments about this. This remedy is purposefully meant to be short, sweet, and to the point. 1) I removed the extraneous text from the original motion. There isn't anything existing active sanctions that are affected by this, blocks are assumed, and the standard enforcement and such provisions stand irregardless of us saying they stand again.

2) I've gone through and looked at evidence presented in GGTF, particularly the proposed decision. The scope does not match what was set out in the findings of fact provided in that case. This new text supports it. I don't see any point in hanging on to sanctions that were not needed in the first place, and having more items under DS that don't need to be there. Many of us said we are willing to get rid of extraneous enforcement, in which case, this enforcement is costing the community more time/energy/crap/drama than is needed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

With respect to Courcelles' objection above, this sets the precedent that if sanction we impose turn out to have been unreasonable in terms of the problem, we weill remove them. Not saying this implies we will never make an error. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Guidance for uninvolved administrators

9) Arbitration Enforcement exists to process requests regarding the enforcement arm of the Arbitration Committee and it's cases. Uninvolved administrators enforcing sanctions issued by ArbCom or under discretionary sanctions are expected to:

1. Conduct themselves in a professional manner
2. Be prepared to explain an enforcement action reasonably
3. Keep in mind that the block duration should be appropriate for the prevention of further disruption, and that higher block times should be discussed first before implementing a block.
4. Arbitration Enforcement threads generally should remain open for a minimum of 24 hours to allow multiple administrators to comment, except:

   when it is obvious that there would be minimal objection to the enforcement (or lack thereof)

   the AE request was filed in bad faith

   or there is imminent risk of damage to the encyclopedia

5. follow procedures if they wish to reverse an enforcement action

Any administrator repeatedly or grossly showing bad judgement in regards to the guidance in this remedy may be subject to sanctions.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
2. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 14:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
3. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Per my comments below I don't see this a mandating AE at all, only mandating a timescale if AE is chosen, so I really don't no understand the opposition to requiring admins enforcing our remedies to act professionally and explain themselves when requested. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This comes far too close to demanding everything go through AE for my taste. That process is broken, and this just further breaks it. Arbitration enforcement (little e, distinct from WP:AE) is not meant to be ANI in a different format, and this makes the remedies laid out harder to enforce with greater bureaucracy. Courcelles ( talk) 20:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   The only really new thing here is #3. The rest is usually standard practice. For sake of getting this to work, would you support if #3 was removed? -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 00:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

2. We have never mandated AE before and I am not prepared to do so today. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 22:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   @ Guerillero: Then why do you support it above in the passing remedy? Also i dont know the Answer to this, but did Arbcom not create AE at all? -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 00:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   I am ok with mandating its use in a limited number of circumstances. However, AE exists to deal with edge cases, appeals and serves as a venue for non-admins and involved admins to report infractions of topic bans and DS issues. The "I am coated in Teflon because I have loud friends defense" is muted when admins enforce our decisions because they don't have to go get a consensus. What you are doing here is that rolling back and turning every dam action of a popular community member into a floor fight. If you were looking to create a reason for AE admins to say "dam it" and stop working there, you have pretty much found it. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

@ Guerillero: I'm unclear why you feel this is mandating AE? All I see above is (1) if you are enforcing an arbitration remedy (at AE or otherwise) you need to act professionally and be prepared to explain your actions and reasoning if required, including why you chose a particular block duration (which should be the case for every admin action really), (2) if a request is at AE, it needs to open for 24 hours unless there is a good reason for it to be closed sooner, (3) you must follow procedure if you want to reverse an enforcement action (whether made at AE or otherwise). Thryduulf ( talk) 13:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Looking at the wording again, I don't see this either. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Frankly not sure what the aim here was. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Escalating blocks provision

10)

Support:

1. Discretion of administrators should always be used when enforcing a block. Setting restrictive timings that don't take into account the circumstances of the disruption (ie from "I don't like so and so" to "You are a *******") makes the blocks punitive, rather than preventing the disruption. This also doesn't inhibit normal enforcement outside this remedy. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Point 2 makes no sense, you want blocks made under other policies, but logged at the GGTF case? I'm not a general fan of relaxing the sanctions, either. Courcelles ( talk) 20:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
2. @ DeltaQuad: This remedy isn't even at play in this case. What you should be looking at is the standard enforcement mechanism. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 22:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   What do you mean its not at play? -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 00:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   None of the evidence presented is about EC's civility restriction (Rem 3.3); it is all about his topic ban from the gender gap. This includes the increasing block lengths legislated under the enforcement provisions, not the special lengths prescribed in this remedy. If you want to actually deal with the "problem" that the block lengths for EC's topic ban infractions have increased, you need to go there. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

3. per Courcelles. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
4. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

Comments:

Special enforcement provisions

1) Exclusively in relation to the enforcement of the sanctions explicitly taken over by the Arbitration Committee, the following provisions replace both the standard enforcement provision and the standard appeals and modifications provision.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. IFF the relevant remedies pass. It would be stupid not to if the do pass. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Since one of them has passed. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Enforcement of restrictions

2) Should any user, the enforcement of whose sanctions is reserved to the Arbitration Committee, breach their restrictions, any user may report the violation to the Committee by filing a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Unfair balance, unless "any user" can also protest a sanction. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Per DGG. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Appeals and modifications

3) Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. They can only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

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

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 18:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I would be willing for the committee to entertain, at least in in exceptional cases, appeals made by others than the person sanctioned. I'm more interested in our correcting errors and adapting to changed circumstances, than to the details of procedure, especially details such as who is entitled to speak to the committee. We've discussed this several times within the committee, and I am increasing certain of my position here, tho I doubt anyone else on the present committee supports me. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 16 November 2015‎

Abstain:

Comments:

I support the first sentence, but I would like a scope clarification for sentence 2 before I vote. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

General

• I give up. This is a dispute that is so intractable that the body that exists to solve intractable disputes can't resolve it. We are dealing with internal community insider baseball issues, not Israel, Scientology, and GMOs. We have no idea what to do here and it shows. Do we need and ArbCom for ArbCom made up of people who have never edited the English Wikipedia before for these types of issues? Or maybe a jury of 100 community members, selected by lots, that are presented 3 options and can only vote up or down? Or even a future ban on ArbCom dealing with issues that do not relate to project space issues in some way? Since it feels like this decision is going to end in a way that makes this link, and maybe even this link, blue in 6 months, I'm tapping out for the week. Mark my word, none of the new proposals by DQ with do anything but hasten the day of the next case(s). -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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) 06:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot. reply

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	11	0	0		·
2	Etiquette	11	0	0		·
3	Sanctions and circumstances	11	0	0		·
4	Role of the Arbitration Committee	11	0	0		·
5	Enforcement of decisions	11	0	0		·
6	Scope of restrictions	10	1	0		·
7	Casting aspersions	11	0	0		·
8	Reinstating a sanction reversed out of process	11	0	0		·
9	At wit's end	11	0	0		·
10	Equality and respect	7	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Background	11	0	0		·
2	Background (continued)	11	0	0		·
3	The Atlantic article	11	0	0		·
4	Discussion following The Atlantic article	11	0	0		·
5	Kirill Lokshin's block	6	5	0		·
6	Yngvadottir's unblock	8	3	0		·
7	Black Kite	9	0	1		·
8	Giano	11	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanctions	4	6	0		Cannot pass
1.1	Enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanctions (alternative)	6	2	0		·	[1]
1.2	Enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanctions (alternative 2)	1	5	0		5
2	Eric Corbett banned	2	8	0		Cannot pass
2.1	Eric Corbett reverse topic ban	2	5	0		4
3	Black Kite admonished	10	1	0		·
3.1	Black Kite desysopped	4	7	0		Cannot pass
4	Giano topic banned	3	5	0		3
4.1	Giano topic banned (2)	4	3	0		2
5	Enforcement of Giano's sanctions	2	7	1		Cannot pass	[1]
5.1	Enforcement of Giano's sanctions (alternative)	1	7	1		Cannot pass
6	Community reminded	9	1	0		·
7	Yngvadottir	4	6	0		Cannot pass
8	"Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope)" modified	5	3	0		1
9	Guidance for uninvolved administrators	4	2	0		2
10	Escalating blocks provision	3	4	0		3
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		6	Passes by default
2	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		6	Passes by default
1	Special enforcement provisions	5	1	0		1
2	Enforcement of restrictions	3	3	0		3
3	Appeals and modifications	4	1	0		2

Notes

Vote

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 (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support

1. When Remedies 8, 9, and 10 are either passing or failing. We need to get this wrapped up, so that's why I have a conditional vote here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   Updated. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Either to close or to outright dismiss. This entire case was an utter waste of time, and it has become apparent should not have been accepted. Courcelles ( talk) 23:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
4. This fiasco needs to be put out of its misery. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Comments