The Arbitration Committee is asked to open a case to consider user conduct issues at the GGTF.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikiproject on countering systemic bias, and the Gender Gap Task Force, are ongoing activities for the improvement of Wikipedia. The Gender Gap Task Force (GGTF) is being disrupted by disparaging comments by two editors (EC and TKOP) who are not participants in the task force who question the need to address the gender gap, and by hostility by one participant in the task force (SPECIFICO) to another participant in the task force (CM). The ANI was closed inconclusively. A full evidentiary case is needed to identify the issues more fully. It is requested that the ArbCom consider whether topic bans for disruptive editing or interaction bans are necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the task force has not been disrupted since the ANI thread was closed inconclusively, I am willing to withdraw this filing without prejudice and refile it in the future if the disruption resumes. (I am not optimistic, but I am willing to wait and see.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, the climate at WP:ANI is toxic. The hostility at GGTF hasn't really cleared, only gone to WP:ANI.
Second, I will note that Sitush wrote, at WP:ANI: "We've got the wrong target here and her [Carol Moore's\ behaviour will be going to ArbCom, IBAN or no IBAN." Since Sitush doesn't control whether a case goes to ArbCom, I assume that he means that her behavior should be going to ArbCom. I would suggest that he be added to the case as a party. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sitush: I wasn't suggesting that you be added as a party because of your conduct at GGTF, but because of your blustering against Carol Moore at WP:ANI. You apparently are implying that she needs to be taken to ArbCom. If you would prefer to file a separate case against her, you can, but a case against an editor is usually (not always) preceded by a User Conduct Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Eric Corbett
I can only assume, given ArbCom's predisposition to blame everyone and apportion blame across the board without bothering to look at the evidence, that this is a form of seppuku on Robert's part. EricCorbett 02:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Two kinds of pork
This request is premature and should be declined. There are problems, however these problems can be resolved if everyone examines their own behavior and makes some adjustments. Yes, there have been unwarranted accusations on the group talk page. Yes there is some incivility. I think all parties should bend over backwards to AGF. Don't assume someone has an agenda (other than wanting to close the GG). Don't make ad-hominem arguments. Don't try to look for a personal attack in every sentence, as it only fosters ill will. The arbitration guide says this is not to be a debate, so I won't address some points raised by some others that I naturally disagree with. I suggest an examination of the talk archives would give the arbitrators an unadulterated version on the background of this filing.
One of the problems that this project has is some of the participants seem to believe that the project should be owned by, run by, and for women only. No one believes (or should) that any project should be owned or run by one set of editors with specific traits. This project is not just supposed to benefit women, because closing the gender gap benefits everyone.
Example 1: Neotarf (talk·contribs) asked for clarification about whether a video could be used as a RS, I suggested they check RSN and the response was Why don't you present it to them yourself if you think they may be interested. I posted it here as an FYI for consideration by the women, in the context of their project.[4]
Example 2: Neotarf again makes ad-hominem attacks and continues to assert the project is owned by gender. That Cla68 is concerned about misogyny I find surprising--from the comments he has made off wiki I would have guessed the opposite. Likewise with the individuals who were previously interested in editing pornography articles and who are now engaging with the Gender Gap project--I can't seem to follow why they are unarchiving threads that were previously archived by the women as off-topic or disruptive.[5]
Could you imagine the hue raised if someone on another project made similar comments but replaced "by the women" with "by the white Protestants?" I'm willing to cut Neotarf a little slack because I recognize there is a gender gap, but the small minority that are claiming feminine ownership and making ad-hominem attacks are digging in their heels and show no signs of relenting.
Statement by SPECIFICO
I had no comment when this request was initially opened. Events since that time have made it clear that the community and nearly a dozen Admins have not been able to address things in a rational, orderly, or equitable manner. The credibility of fundamental WP processes is at stake. I now urge Arbcom to hear this case, possibly with revised or expanded definition as to its scope and involved parties. SPECIFICOtalk 00:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forum shopping, canvassing, and meat puppetry appear to have polluted community processes and exacerbated tensions among editors. SPECIFICOtalk 13:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Carolmooredc
I think this request is premature since the three parties who have been criticized as disruptive have not even been given a chance to prove they can work collaboratively. So I believe this request should be closed by the nominator.
Note that everything they've complained about has been individual opinions ignored too long on the main page, discussion points, poorly formed proposals, odd ball comments and annoyed reactions to their constant criticism and nitpicking. About the only thing accomplished since the project became more active again in early July is creation of a Draft Gender Gap Task Force Resources page, much of it from links posted at the Wikimedia Foundation-sponsored Gender Gap email list. Because of the disruption it has been impossible to discuss in a serious and collaborative fashion what we think the scope, goals and projects of the task force should be. However, one would like to think that editors would take the advice of the ANI closer.
@User:Rschen7754 and @User:The Devil's Advocate. First I believe I cannot talk about the past proceeding you mention. However, I believe I can say that as I have evidenced in the SPECIFICO section of the Disruption of a Wikiproject ANI, I have been under unrelenting Wikihounding from SPECIFICO for more than a year. See especially the April 1-September 3, 2014 Interaction Analyzers Results. Staying away from certain articles and ignoring his following me to to articles he's never edited before hasn't stopped it. Failing to respond at all often was difficult once his Wikihounding started at the Gender Gap task force. Thus I brought it up at ANI that SPECIFICO's motivation for disrupting the project seemed to be more animus of me personally (as others have noted in the ANI, on the GGTF talk page, on his talk page and even here). (Note I had intended to take other action regarding SPECIFICO on the Wikihounding issue, but this seemed the more pressing matter.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sitush wrote on User:Talk Jimbo Wales: The sooner the misconceived "Task Force" (why not "Project", instead of a military-inspired term that implies official status?) is disbanded, the sooner harmony will be restored. He still posts at the project. (Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias lists seven "task forces".) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Admins would just page ban the people opposed to and/or disrupting the project there would be no need for arbitration- but some people want it! (1), (2) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to go over 500: But except for some minor lingering echoes, problems at GGTF seem to be over, including because others brought ANIs regarding two editors posting there. Can’t we be allowed to return to editing now, please!!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Neotarf
I have no idea who has added me as a party to this case or why. According to a message on my talk page, my name was added by a clerk as proxy for an anonymous arbitrator. Let me know if I need to pay attention to this discussion. —Neotarf (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Noting that there are 11 active arbitrators for the purposes of this request (Beeblebrox and LFarone are inactive), so 6 is a majority. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Updated Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gender Gap Task Force Issues: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/4/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
It is essential that the Wikipedia community be able to discuss why women are drastically underrepresented among our editors, and what can or should be done about it, in a mature and sensible way. Formulating one's points in such a discussion will not always be easy; for example, how does one best discuss making Wikipedia more appealing to "female editors" without crossing the line into role-ascription or gender stereotyping? (This is not a concern unique to Wikipedia; it comes up time and again as all parts of society move toward true gender equality.) An interesting philosophical question (again with precedents extending well beyond Wikipedia) is whether a task force devoted to assessing how to solve a problem may properly move forward from the starting point that some form of problem exists, or put differently, whether questioning the existence or the nature of the problem represents participation in the task force's work or a derogation of it. And for us arbitrators, the main question presented by the request for arbitration is whether the petty bickering and feuding on the taskforce's talk page will stop soon without our involvement. I hope so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Noxious behavior on the wikiproject talkpage is continuing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC) And it has spread to other venues, and some of the user conduct is unacceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Gender Gap Task Force is, in my opinion, somewhat different from the other WikiProjects, in that, to some extent, it is political in nature (and I'm using the term "political" latu sensu): I mean, the members of the Task Force are considering changes aimed at increasing the number of women editing Wikipedia and, assuming they are successful in proposing feasible innovations, these will have an impact over Wikipedia in its entirety. Case in point, the proposal to make edits made by women harder to revert. For that reason, I can see how having someone criticising proposals and possibly presenting alternatives can be useful for the project and can also prevent the Task Force from becoming an echo chamber. Of course, there is a difference between criticism and disruption: if, after review, it turns out that a person's actions are disrupting the Task Force, then that person should be asked to leave – and, failing that, be topic banned from participating further. On the other hand, the other members of the Task Force should be open to criticism, when made in good faith, without confusing criticism with disruption and calling for sanctions merely because someone disagrees with them – and also, though this is just my unsolicited opinion, in general all participants should try to avoid letting their voice drown all the others, regardless of how strongly they feel about the issue at hand.
In this case, in my opinion, both sides have conducted themselves in a way that bears review, so I vote to accept the case. SalvioLet's talk about it! 09:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly problems with the Gender Gap on Wikipedia, one that was a key focus for the Foundation last year (or was it the year before?) As it's such a "big" issue, tying outside problems like societal bias and technical issues with behaviour on Wikipedia, I'm not sure it can ever be solved. However, the Gender Gap Task Force is there to try and good on them for doing so.
I've seen some "blue-sky thinking" on that task force, with "un-wiki" ideas such as requiring consensus of 2 editors to revert a female editor. "Blue-sky thinking" is all well and good, but many people don't understand that it's the first step in a process. After the ideas are created, however "out-there" they may be, they need to be criticised - it needs to be discussed what is wrong with these ideas. If there was nothing wrong with them, they would be happening or very easy to implement. From there, a pragmatic view should be taken on what realistic improvement can be made. Without these following steps, "blue-sky thinking" can actually be harmful - insulting those who are working hard on a project and demoralising those who cannot see these ideas come to fruition.
Whilst I'm very happy that the Gender Gap Task Force is trying to increase the number of women on Wikipedia, I'm not happy with the fact that a subset of that task force is complaining about the criticism that they are receiving. Similarly, I believe the level of criticism could be improved, actually explaining where the issues are are rather than stating that they won't work.
Overall, I don't believe this issues is ripe for arbitration, but I do think it's getting close. I'm leaning decline, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise. WormTT(talk) 10:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept I'm still not absolutely convinced that Arbitration is the best place for this, but the fact is that we've now had 2 or 3 more ANI threads. Matters haven't been handled as I'd hoped, and it's probably due to the nature of the topic and players involved. If that is the case, then the Arbitration Committee should look into the matter. So, I guess we better do so. WormTT(talk) 08:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that my comment about "wikt:blue-sky thinking" has rather confused some people - the term refers to a discussion method where constraints are initially ignored to come up with best case scenarios, and then the constraints are brought in and a pragmatic approach taken to get closer to the best case scenario. I was not suggesting that any "blue-sky" idea was endorsed by any individual or the task force as a whole. Fixating on the "2 editors to revert a female editor" and removing the context of the rest of my comment is in itself missing the point of my comment. I've struck the example so that perhaps the rest of my comment can be absorbed. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JMP EAX:, Arbitration is an intentionally slow process - it allows for calmer heads to prevail. That said, we've been at absolute majority for a week, so we should be starting the case up sooner rather than later. It's worth noting that there has been significant commentary since reaching the absolute majority and I believe arbitrators have been allowing time for this to sink in. WormTT(talk) 14:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm voting to decline at this point. I completely understand why this is such a fractious issue and where good faith on both sides isn't enough to bridge a fundamental divide between what the wider wiki community views as its goals and what the GGTF views as its goals. But one AN/I doesn't make this case within our remit as of yet. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like WTT, I'm leaning decline, but could be convinced otherwise. There's certainly a reason we say "ANI is not dispute resolution". That's not in any way intended as an endorsement of the conduct I see taking place here, and we may need to handle the issue via arbitration at some point if things continue down that road. I'm just not convinced the issue has reached the point of intractable and hopeless for community resolution at this time. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who thinks it is already at that point, and why. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, this shows all signs of becoming a very toxic situation, and developing events have convinced me they're not going to get any better at this point. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 00:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per David Fuchs.Carcharoth (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to accept to examine the conduct of all those involved here. There is plenty of poor conduct that has taken place here, with issues of baiting, over-reaction to criticism, incivility, forum shopping, battleground behaviour, and possibly canvassing as well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a decline from me too, per David, Roger Daviestalk 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cla68. Interesting idea but, no, ArbCom has nothing to do with RFA; it's an entirely community process. Roger Daviestalk 05:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Fuchs, and also broadly per the line of reasoning presented by TDA above. NativeForeignerTalk 01:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A bit concerned how this will be handled, but given it's being accepted I think this will be more about the users, than the project. NativeForeignerTalk 06:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Underrepresentation of women among Wikipedia editors is an important issue, and I agree with NYB that we must create an environment in which productive discussion can take place. The Arbitration Committee cannot solve the underrepresentation issue, but I do hope we will be able to help address the disruption that has been affecting this topic and harming the project as a whole. GorillaWarfare(talk) 04:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
Passed 12 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Non discrimination policy
2) The Wikimedia Foundation non-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination against users on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics.
Passed 12 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair criticism
3) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even facts and opinions demonstrating the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies that prohibit behavior such as personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanisms rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.
Passed 12 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Making allegations against other editors
4) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.
Passed 12 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sanctions and circumstances
5) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.
Passed 12 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Recidivism
6) Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.
Passed 12 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Disputes and biographical articles
7) An editor who is involved in a controversy or dispute with another individual, either on Wikipedia or off, should generally refrain from creating or editing the biographical article on that individual.
Passed 12 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of problems and issues
8) It is essential that Wikipedians be able to discuss issues affecting the project, including those that may arise from societal issues, in an intelligent, calm, and mature fashion. Editors may come to a given discussion with different views concerning what problem (if any) exists and what steps (if any) should be taken to try to address it. However, editors are expected to participate in such discussions in a collegial and constructive frame of mind. Those who fail to do so may be asked to step away from further participation.
1) The focus is interpersonal disputes among editors. Much of the misconduct has occurred on the Gender gap task force project, though issues have spilled over into other areas.
Passed 9 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
History of Gender Gap Task Force
2) A 2011 survey showed a large disparity between the numbers of male and female editors on all Wikimedia projects. This has led to a number of groups trying to redress the balance, as documented at meta:Gender Gap. On the English Wikipedia, the Gender Bias Task Force was set up in May 2013 to address the gender disparity on the project. It was subsequently renamed in July 2014 to the Gender Gap Task Force.
Passed 12 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Expletives
3) Although there are cultural differences in the use of certain expletives, there is rarely any need to use such language on Wikipedia and so they should be avoided. Editors who know, or are told, that a specific word usage is reasonably understood as offensive by other Wikipedians should refrain from using that word or usage, unless there is a specific and legitimate reason for doing so in a particular instance.
Passed 12 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Carolmooredc
4)
(A) During a previous Arbitration case, Carolmooredc has been found to make "certain insufficiently supported personal attacks on other editors"
(B) Carolmooredc has actively supported keeping articles[6][7][8] by in her words "playing the systemic bias card"
(C) Carolmooredc has made comments about other editors without basis[9] including accusations that editors who have never met are married.[10]
(D) Carolmooredc has made unnecessary comments about Sitush[11][12][13], despite agreeing that an interaction ban would be positive.[14]
Passed 11 to 1 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett
5)
(A) Eric Corbett has stated that the civility policy is "impossible to define and therefore to enforce".[15]
(B) During a previous Arbitration case, Eric Corbett was found to engage in "uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct"
(C) Eric Corbett has discussed matters on the Gender Gap Task Force in a non-constructive manner.[16][17][18][19]
(D) Eric Corbett has expressed the opinion that the members of the Gender Gap Task Force are pushing a "feminist agenda"[20] and are attempting to "alienate every male editor".[21]
Passed 7 to 2, with 3 abstentions, at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett (collegiality)
5A) Over an extended period of time, and in a variety of contexts, Eric Corbett has used on Wikipedia a particular term that many users find highly offensive. Although Eric Corbett contends that this word is not considered highly offensive in English usage in his region, many users have made clear that they do find it offensive, to the extent that Eric Corbett should in the interest of collegiality have eschewed its use. The result of his failure to do so has been a considerable amount of unnecessary disruption.
Passed 9 to 1, with 2 abstentions, at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Passed 8 to 2, with 2 abstentions, at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett's use of offensive terms
5C) Eric Corbett used, on multiple occasions, the term "cunt", despite repeatedly having been advised that this term is considered highly offensive in many cultures. In at least one instance, the use was directed as a personal attack against another editor. [29]
Passed 8 to 1, with 2 abstentions, at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Neotarf
6)
(A) Neotarf has regularly cast aspersions and argued from an ad hominem point of view, complaining about usernames,[30][31][32][33] or signatures,[34][35][36] without following normal dispute resolution on such matters.
(B) When accused of "passive-aggressive" behaviour, Neotarf complained of personal attacks regarding mental health, despite the two not being necessarily linked.[37]
(C) Neotarf has made unfounded accusations about other users[38][39] and otherwise demonstrated a battleground mentality.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]
Passed 10 to 0, with 2 abstentions, at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sitush
7) Sitush has a demonstrated history of working positively in controversial areas of the project, despite off-wiki harassment. However, Sitush created a biography on Carolmooredc whilst in dispute with her [47] (evidence of dispute [48][49]). He continued to edit the biography in his userspace but with the intention of moving it to article space, even after several editors counselled him that this was not a good idea given his dispute with Carolmooredc. The page was eventually nominated for deletion, resulting in a contentious MfD discussion that closed with a delete result. Sitush then accepted the result and did not pursue the matter further.
All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Scope of topic bans (rescinded)
1) Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.
Passed 11 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Rescinded and replaced by motion at 12:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
2.1) For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Passed 8 to 2, with 2 abstentions, at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Clerk note: A remedy of the Arbitration enforcement 2 case mandates that all enforcement requests relating to [these sanctions] be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.Passed at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Eric Corbett prohibited
3.3) Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.
If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
Passed 8 to 2, with 1 abstentions, at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Clerk note: A remedy of the Arbitration enforcement 2 case mandates that all enforcement requests relating to [these sanctions] be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.Passed at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Passed 7 to 3, with 1 abstentions, at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Neotarf banned
4.1) For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, Neotarf(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Passed 9 to 1, with 2 abstentions, at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
9) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.
Passed 11 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Rescinded and replaced by motion at 12:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The provisions in the "Scope of topic bans" remedy are rescinded and replaced with: "Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia 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. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply."
The terms of the "Discretionary sanctions" remedy are rescinded and replaced with: "Discretionary sanctions are 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 ."
All sanctions already issued under earlier versions of these provisions remain in force.
Passed 9 to 0, with 1 abstention, by motion at 12:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Motion: Manning naming dispute (February 2019)
To consolidate and clarify gender-related discretionary sanctions, the Arbitration Committee resolves that:
The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SexologyWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues""all edits about, and all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy" and associated persons remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the SexologyGamerGate case, not this one.
Clause 2 of the February 2015 motion at the Interactions at GGTF case is struck and rescinded. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.
The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all edits about, and all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the GamerGate case, not this one.
Passed 5 to 1 with 1 abstention by motion at 16:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Final clause of this motion is rescinded by motion at 23:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case (February 2021)
In order to promote consistency and reduce confusion, the arbitration clerks are directed to create a new arbitration case page under the name Gender and sexuality, with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy.
Clause (i) of Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Sanctions previously issued in accordance with Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case will from this time on be considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. This motion does not invalidate any action previously taken under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions authorization.
In order to preserve previous clarifications about the scope of these discretionary sanctions:
Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender.
Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force.
The index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to GamerGate need not be updated. The arbitration enforcement log, however, should be updated for the current year. For prior years, the new name should be noted along with the old one. The arbitration clerks are also directed to update templates and documentation pages with the new name as appropriate. This motion should be recorded on the case pages of the GamerGate case, the new Gender and sexuality case, the Manning naming dispute case, and the Interactions at GGTF case.
Passed 11 to 0 by motion at 23:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
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.
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.
Eric Corbett is blocked for a month for violating his gender gap topic ban, per this AE request. Sandstein 06:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Corbett is blocked for three months without talk page access, and his talk page is protected, for violating his civility restrictions, per the AE report. Sandstein 13:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I undid these enforcement actions after being made aware that a later decision required 24 hours of discussion at WP:AE, which had not yet elapsed. Sandstein 20:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, your WP:INVOLVED close was undone before that. The focus on the 24 hour thing is a red herring. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Corbett was blocked for 72 hours on 12 August, 2019 (apologies for not logging this action earlier). GoldenRing (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
