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 Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
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 active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

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.

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.

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.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

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:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

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]

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. LFaraone 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]

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. LFaraone 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]
5. 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]

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]

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]

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7) 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. LFaraone 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]

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.

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. LFaraone 18:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 13 November 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.

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Oppose:

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

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 18:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. first choice --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 13 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. LFaraone 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]

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]

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

1. 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]

Abstain:

Comments:

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]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 18:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

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]

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]

Oppose:

1. this would be insane --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. LFaraone 03:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 03:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

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

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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]

Abstain:

Comments:

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. LFaraone 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:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

These notes were last updated by ***ADD SIGNATURE HERE***; the last edit to this page was on 15:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC) by Doug Weller.

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)

Principles: All

Findings: All

Remedies: All

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which have passed

Principles: None, yet

Findings: None, yet

Remedies: None, yet

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which cannot pass

Principles: None, yet

Findings: None, yet

Remedies: None, yet

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

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

Oppose

Comments