Revision as of 06:02, 15 November 2014

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
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 ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk 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 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.

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

Proposed motions

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

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. (Minor copyedit to third sentence.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Salvio 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Seraphimblade 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. True as a broad statement and certainly true as to gender. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Seraphimblade 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Salvio 18:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

See discussion on the talkpage regarding the wording. Do we want to edit to address the points there? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. (Minor copyedits.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Salvio 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Seraphimblade 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

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

Support:

1. This appears to be one of the most important principles in this case. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Per Worm That Turned, although if no one objects, let's substitute this version of the principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

   none from me, do you want to before other arbs vote? Worm(talk) 18:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

   I prefer the version Newyorkbrad suggested. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Either this or the one from AusEc are fine by me. Salvio 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Seraphimblade 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Replaced with Austrian Economics version. Worm(talk) 10:35, 13 November 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 Misplaced Pages do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Is there any need to mention "administrators" separately in this principle? Personally, I'd remove it. Salvio 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Seraphimblade 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Removed mention of administrators, revert if anyone disagrees. Worm(talk) 10:33, 13 November 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.

Support:

1. Noting a little overlap with principle 5, I believe these to be sufficiently independent to include both. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Although I would prefer to drop the reference to IAR, which when used properly (an important qualifier) is a positive action, not something to be excused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Salvio 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
5. (minor copyedit) Seraphimblade 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I've dropped the reference to IAR. Revert if disagree. Worm(talk) 10:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Disputes and biographical articles

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

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. This applies to both off-wiki and on-wiki controversies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Would support clarifying the principle to include Newyorkbrad's point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Salvio 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Even if someone's intentions are good, there's too much appearance of conflict of interest in this scenario. Seraphimblade 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support this, although I personally feel that "should generally refrain" should be replaced with "absolutely should not be". Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

   Historically this principle is drawn from a prior case that involved editing rather than creating the article, and "generally" was inserted to avoid condemning typo fixes or reversions of blatant vandalism. Here where the focus is more on the creation of an article "generally" is probably unneeded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Expanded to include off-wiki disputes, and changed title - revert if anyone has any issue. Worm(talk) 10:39, 13 November 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.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Salvio 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Seraphimblade 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

History of Gender Gap Task Force

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

Support:

1. Noting that there is some dispute over whether there is a gender bias in articles, I do not believe anyone disagrees that there is a disparity between the number of male and female editors. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. It might be better to change "gender bias" to "gender disparity" to address WTT's clarification. We need not take a position as to the reasons there are many more male than female editors, or whether this is the result in whole or part of invidious discrimination on-wiki rather than from broader societal or other causes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
3. The "gender disparity" phrasing is also fine by me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Yep, let's make it "gender disparity". Salvio 10:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Also prefer the "gender disparity" phrasing. Seraphimblade 15:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

changed "gender bias" to "gender disparity" Worm(talk) 10:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, made a couple more minor copyedits, not substantive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Expletives

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Carolmooredc

3)
(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 by in her words "playing the systemic bias card"
(C) Carolmooredc has made comments about other editors without basis including accusations that editors who have never met are married.
(D) Carolmooredc has made unnecessary comments about Sitush, despite agreeing that an interaction ban would be positive.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. I don't agree that each of the cited diffs was equally problematic, but overall there appears to be a clear trend of overpersonalizing disputes. I reach this conclusion utterly without regard to anyone's gender. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Salvio 10:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. The outing/opposition research ("are you married to...?") incident was especially problematic to me, even though its conclusions were incorrect. Site bans have been issued over that type of conduct. Seraphimblade 15:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I do not agree with part B of this finding. I would not blink an eye at any of the three comments Carolmooredc made on the deletion discussions, so I do not support using them to show wrongdoing on her part. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

   I understand why these comments might be criticized, but I can also see a good-faith interpretation of them. Thus, I agree they aren't misconduct at the ArbCom level, and I wouldn't mind dropping those diffs from the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Eric Corbett

4)
(A)Eric Corbett has stated that the civility policy is "impossible to define and therefore to enforce".
(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.
(D)Eric Corbett has expressed the opinion that the members of the Gender Gap Task Force are pushing a "feminist agenda" and are attempting to "alienate every male editor".

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Seraphimblade 05:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I've recused with respect to Eric in the past and will abstain here. I do not consider myself WP:INVOLVED from an administration point of view, I would just rather such decisions were made by arbitrators who'd had less interactions with him. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. I certainly do have an opinion here, but due past negative interactions (mostly several years ago) I am obligated to recuse from anything dealing directly with Eric. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

I'm considering this, but in the meantime, with respect to (A), the essence of the civility policy was defined by this Committee, long ago, in one sentence: "Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other." Few users would disagree that at some point, personal attacks become disruptive and must be stopped; the harder questions that has divided the project for years are matters of where the line should be drawn, and when the civility norm should be enforced by sanctions as opposed to moral suasion. See generally Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement; for a real-world analog, see In re Snyder. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett ("that word")

4A) Over an extended period of time, and in a variety of contexts, Eric Corbett has used on Misplaced Pages a particular term that many users find highly offensive. Although Eric Corbett contends that this word is not considered highly offensive in English usage in his region, many users have made clear that they do find it offensive, to the extent that Eric Corbett should in the interest of collegiality have eschewed its use. The result of his failure to do so has been a considerable amount of unnecessary disruption.

Support:

1. Very coy in its wording, but I suppose it gets the point across. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This is a finding of fact that dances around the fact. If we're going to say someone used an offensive term, we need to say what it was. That is not an insult to anyone. Seraphimblade 02:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Per above Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Eric Corbett's history

4B) Eric Corbett has a long history of incivility, as evidenced by his extensive block logs, admonishment in a previous arbitration case, and many discussions at various noticeboards.

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Seraphimblade 03:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per above Worm(talk) 09:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Eric Corbett's use of offensive terms

4C) 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.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade 02:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neotarf

5)
(A)Neotarf has regularly cast aspersions and argued from an ad hominem point of view, complaining about usernames, or signatures, 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.
(C)Neotarf has made unfounded accusations about other users and otherwise demonstrated a battleground mentality.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm holding off on voting for a couple of days based on this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I will hold off as well as I am interested to see what context could excuse all of those edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also holding for this reason. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush

6) 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 (evidence of dispute ). He continued to edit the biography in his userspace but with the intention of moving it to article space, even after several editors counselled him that this was not a good idea given his dispute with Carolmooredc. The page was eventually nominated for deletion, resulting in a contentious MfD discussion that closed with a delete result. Sitush then accepted the result and did not pursue the matter further.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
4. (minor copyedits) Sitush's contributions in other areas of the project are widely considered superior, but he erred in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Per Newyorkbrad. Seraphimblade 03:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

SPECIFICO

7) SPECIFICO's actions regarding Carolmooredc have led to a 1-way interaction ban imposed by the community following a noticeboard discussion.

Support:

1. Noting that the SPECIFICO's behaviour may have been more scrutinized had the community not already dealt with it. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. (Added a few words for clarification.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Salvio 10:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Seraphimblade 03:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

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.

Carolmooredc topic banned

1) Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the gender disparity between editors on Misplaced Pages, broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Second choice, and if she should be sitebanned this should certainly be a precondition for her return. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Seraphimblade 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Quousque tandem? Salvio 10:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
2. I can't support a topic ban this vague. Banning someone from the "Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages...broadly construed" is impossibly vague. Although presumably intended to restrict Carolmooredc from discussing the gender gap itself, it could be argued that this restricts her from discussing anything from gender- and sex-related articles, from feminism and anti-feminism and everything in between, from any article about a woman, from any article about a person/group of people/philosophy/religion/regime/power structure/what have you that affected the rights of a gender as a whole... even from any page in which she interacts with male editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Based on the clarification below, which as GorillaWarfare points out still leaves even more than the usual amount of vagueness, I don't think this remedy works. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

As observed on the talkpage, we ought to clarify what "topic banned from the Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages" means. If it means "banned from editing on the Gender Gap Task Force pages," I might support some or all of this series of remedies. If it means "topic-banned from any discussion of the gender disparity among editors anywhere on Misplaced Pages," I would be less likely to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was that it would be the latter - "topic-banned from any discussion of the gender disparity among editors anywhere on Misplaced Pages" - The GGTF is a small area where the issues can be most easily seen, but they are replicated across the project. Worm(talk) 10:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is too vague. I'll try to word something. Seraphimblade 03:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a shot at clearer wording, revert or reword if you disagree. Seraphimblade 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "gender disparity on Misplaced Pages" is more clear than "Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages". GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc banned

1.1) 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 Misplaced Pages. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. Salvio 10:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Within 6 months of being sanctioned within an Arbcom case, Carol has been doing exactly the same thing. I have no confidence that she wouldn't do the same at yet another area, and so I'd support a ban here. Worm(talk) 10:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Banning a user is never something we should want to do, but when someone has been sanctioned multiple times and continues to engage in disruptive behavior there comes a point where enough is enough and the project needs to show that person the door. Good contributions in other areas cannot be used as a lever to indefinitely excuse problematic behaviors. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. First choice. When it's already been necessary to topic ban an editor and they're back with additional misconduct, it's time to consider whether they should be participating here at all. Seraphimblade 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. On the harsh side for my taste, though I certainly understand why it's been proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Carolmooredc admonished

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

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. The Committee used to use a remedy called "civility parole" or "personal attack parole," or what Kirill later styled "a behavioral editing restriction." For various reasons that sort of remedy has dropped out of style, but it might be what makes sense here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Insufficient. Worm(talk) 09:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. This is ludicrously inadequate. She is an incredibly tendentious editor and Misplaced Pages needs her banned. Salvio 10:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Entirely insufficient. Seraphimblade 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Eric Corbett topic banned

2) Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender Gap on Misplaced Pages, broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Per my comments on the Carolmooredc topic ban. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Insufficient. Seraphimblade 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Per above. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Eric Corbett restriction

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

Support:

1. Second choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Seraphimblade 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per above. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

I'm still thinking about E.C.'s situation (and about whether, given prior interactions with E.C. particularly concerning RfA, I should vote on this at all)—but for reasons discussed on various talkpages, I'm not sure this is a workable remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett banned

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

Support:

1. First choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. First choice. I wish this weren't necessary, but even the most stellar writing work is not a license to treat other volunteers here abusively. I do not see any indication that any measure short of this will stop the abusive behavior. Seraphimblade 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per above Worm(talk) 09:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Neotarf topic banned

3) Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the gender disparity between editors on Misplaced Pages, broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary. Neotarf is also warned that complaints about usernames should be made through appropriate channels and that further accusations, as well as unnecessary antagonism, may result in sanctions.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Holding off per comments on the corresponding finding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, but also noting per my comment on remedy 1 that as clarified, the scope of the proposed topic-ban is too vague. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As remedy 1, clarified the wording, revert or reword if you disagree. Seraphimblade 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush

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

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. I am dismayed that we even have to tell a long-term user something that is so exceedingly obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
3. I can't say I expected to ever have to explicitly say this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Seraphimblade 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Certainly Sitush should not do this again, but I would like to think that he already has the message by now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush and Carolmooredc interaction ban

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

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Salvio 10:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Seraphimblade 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discretionary sanctions

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

Support:

1. Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
2. While this case has primarily dealt with the behavior of specific users, it is reasonable to believe that the topic may draw in similarly disruptive persons in the future. This seems like an application of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
3. This already seems clear enough. Seraphimblade 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Similar to my comments above, "relating to the Gender gap task force" is impossibly broad. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

   It's written differently and I think is much more clearly defined. "Relating to the Gender gap task force" is much narrower than "relating to the gender gap" and basically includes only the GGTF project and talk pages themselves. Please feel free, nay strongly encouraged, to suggest a clearer wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

   If that is the intention, why not explicitly limit the sanctions to the GGTF project and talk page? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

The task force is such a small area that I don't think DS will help. I'd support DS on the topic of "gender disparity on Misplaced Pages", where I think it could make a difference. Worm(talk) 09:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

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:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

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 until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass

{Passing principles}

{Passing findings}

{Passing remedies}

{Passing enforcement provisions}

Proposals which do not pass

{Failing principles}

{Failing findings}

{Failing remedies}

{Failing enforcement provisions}

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

Support

Oppose

Comments