Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2

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

Case clerks: Callanecc (Talk) & Liz (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Salvio giuliano (Talk)

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

Case opened on 01:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 02:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

Preliminary statements

Statement by Black Kite

On 21 October, the web news source Atlantic carried the following story. [1]. This was a story about issues in the Gender Gap in Wikipedia, involving certain previous (and now banned) editors. It was written based on interviews with certain Wikipedia editors, and was designed to show that (a) a certain female editor was unfairly banned (which they may well have been, and it is certain that she was sexually harrassed, but this is irrelevant here), and (b) that editor User: Eric Corbett (EC) was misogynist and/or anti-female. Much of the "evidence" of the article revolved round a single diff by EC which in fact did not show any such thing. Previous attempts by various parties to have EC blocked had been unsuccesful, yet this time, when EC protested his innocence, he was blocked by User:Kirill Lokshin for violation of a previous sanction. Kirill Lokshin had never been involved in the situation before, and indeed had not blocked any user since 2014. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kirill Lokshin: "The allegation that I was somehow induced to block Eric is mere aspersion, easily made and impossible to disprove". You're absolutely right. So it shouldn't be too difficult to explain exactly why you suddenly appeared in a venue, and with a block, that you hadn't been involved in before. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. So you didn't feel it necessary to get involved as an admin in any of the hundreds of issues on Jimbo's talkpage previously? Just this one. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find that unconvincing. And anyone who works in legal circles will know that "you can't prove that" rather than "I didn't do that" is an immediate giveaway. But thanks for your input. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Many people commenting; Too many of you are missing the point. Did EC break his topic ban? Yes, technically. Was it a situation in which common sense needed to be applied? Yes. Kirill blocked EC without discussion because he believes he's some sort of "white knight" admin defending the Wiki - exactly the same attitude as others have assigned to Yngvadottir (the irony of a female admin being desysopped for defending the admin that many are trying to paint as a sexist is immensely ironic). Common sense is NOT the same as IAR. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @GorillaWarfare:: how else would you characterise "...when someone has so frightened the admin corps that nobody else will step up to the plate."? Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GorillaWarfare:: Also, if you can confirm that the article is not based on an interview with you, I am quite happy to redact every sentence where I have said that. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yngvadottir

Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking ... I owe you all a statement. The nutshell version I posted at Kirill Lokshin's talk page; the committee received a somewhat longer version by e-mail.

Two things are being conflated by some: harassment and dissent. The former is obviously bad; seeking to stamp out the latter is corrosive to the community and at odds with our mission to write an encyclopedia. WP:NOTBATTLE, WP:NOTBURO. Forbidding an editor to discuss an aspect of the community because he disagrees with the popular interpretation of statistical research concerning the community, whether as a means of preserving control or as a proxy for banning him for harassment, damages the project in itself, without considering the effect of preventing his contributions. Our diversity is part of our strength. Isn't that the justification for all the work to combat entrenched bias? That was a decision that reached for the Solomonic and fell flat. And its wrongness was demonstrated by this situation, when the editor in question made measured and respectful responses after being pilloried on- and off-wiki. Blocking him for those responses was following the letter of the law to the detriment of the encyclopedia, and I was made an admin on the understanding I would protect it using my best judgement. In my judgement the committee has stopped thinking about that first principle cited at the head of every judgement, about the purpose of Wikipedia.

I entirely understood that I would be desysopped in consequence, and will not petition Arbcom to restore my bit. I said at my RfA that I would be open to recall, and this circumstance meets my definition of a recall motion.

I would also like to take issue with some of the interpretations of WP:CIVIL that have been raised. The essence of civility on the project is not avoiding a list of bad words, it is respect. In this instance it is Eric who has been treated uncivilly.

I do not know whether I want the committee to take this case. I share the concerns expressed by a couple of others that the committee will mess things up even worse. At the same time, I don't want to mess up the strategizing of the lawyers here. I would have participated in some recent Arbcom cases, including the one that led to this very bad decision. But—probably a defect in my education—I find this moot court environment almost impenetrable. And I wanted to respect my colleagues with whom I disagree over the desirability of the GGTF. But Eric's actions did not merit punishment that is appropriate to harassment. Liz paid me a humbling compliment back in March, saying that I was able to see in shades of grey, and that made me a good admin. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eric Corbett

Contrary to my normal practice, and previously stated intention, I would like to make a short statement, not in my own defence but that of Yngvadottir.

She made a decision that she felt was right, even though I'd already said that I didn't want anyone to unblock me, as I know what shitstorms tend to emanate from that. I would quite happily have sat out a one-month block, but nevertheless it wasn't morally right, and Yngvadottir ought not to be punished for correcting that. Eric Corbett 20:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

On 22 October, I blocked Eric Corbett for a period of 1 month in accordance with Remedy #3 of the Interactions at GGTF case. The block was prompted by Eric's comments here and here, which I deemed to breach points (ii) ["the gender disparity among Wikipedians"] and (iii) ["any process or discussion relating to these topics, broadly construed"] of the amended topic ban. The duration of the block was based on the guidance provided in the standard enforcement provision in the case, and the fact that shorter prior blocks for violation of this remedy had proven ineffective in eliciting compliance.

With regard to Eric having some hypothetical "right to reply" to the Atlantic article, which is being advocated by certain commenters here, such a right would necessarily have to be limited to replying to the claims the article makes regarding Eric himself. Prior to the pair of edits which resulted in his block, Eric made several additional comments which did directly address these claims ([2], [3], [4]). I note that he was not blocked for these comments. Rather, a block was imposed only when the subject of his comments became the existence of the gender gap itself.

The allegation that I was somehow induced to block Eric is mere aspersion, easily made and impossible to disprove. For the record, I had no communication with anyone regarding this block prior to having placed it. The suggestion that my lack of prior involvement makes my action suspect would seem to fly in the face of the Committee's own requirements, which stipulate that only administrators without such involvement may apply sanctions in the first place.

I ask the Committee to (a) reinstate the block on Eric Corbett for the original un-served duration (or an alternate duration that the Committee considers appropriate), and to (b) appropriately sanction Yngvadottir for deliberately violating the procedure for appeals of arbitration sanctions by unblocking Eric. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: I have Jimmy's talk page on my watchlist, saw a discussion about the Atlantic article (which I had read earlier that day), and saw Eric's comments when I was reading the discussion. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I don't do much admin work in general (as I'm sure you know). That doesn't mean I won't intervene when I see a need—for example, when someone has so frightened the admin corps that nobody else will step up to the plate. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: My conclusion is based primarily on the individual testimony of numerous administrators, who have personally told me on various occasions (the earliest being sometime in 2010, as I can recall) that they deliberately avoid intervening in incidents involving Eric for fear of harassment. While these accounts are necessarily anecdotal in nature, they are consistent with the patterns of behavior I’ve personally observed at times when such matters were brought to arbitration, both during my time on the Committee ([5], [6]) and afterwards ([7], [8]). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (8/0/1/1)

  • I have been participating in the discussion on Jimbo's talk page, and have cautioned one other participant (not listed as a party here) about using personal attacks in that discussion. I do not think this makes me involved enough to require recusal, but I will reconsider this if asked. That said, it is worth making clear from the outset that we have no influence over what was published by The Atlantic, and we will not be re-examining the Lightbreather case here (yes, she was sexually harassed, no, that was not why she was banned. She was banned for her own repeated serious violations of policy). Pretty much simultaneously with the opening of this case request, we asked Yngvadottir to contact us regarding her unblocking of Eric, and I'm unsure if there is anything beyond that for us to do here. My gut feeling is that if there is, it is more likely to be a motion than a case, but this may change. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Black Kite: What we choose to examine or not examine following a case request is wholly within the purview of the Arbitration Committee. Having a different opinion to you about that is not a reason for me (or any other arbitrator) to recuse. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is worth reminding everybody that as recently as August we passed a principle clarifying that "For the purpose of applying the special rules against modifying or overturning an enforcement action (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications), all enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper until an appeal is successful.". This applies regardless of whether you think it was right or wrong to impose it, and indeed it was made after the last drama regarding Eric Corbett. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. This is a mess, caused by the community, once again, collectively being incapable of acting in mature fashion regarding Eric Corbett, and it is up to us to clean up such messes. Thryduulf (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Newyorkbrad: Regardless of whether the block was good or bad, too long or too short, it was explicitly to be presumed valid until it was successfully appealed, and so the unblock was unquestionably out of process. AFAIAA Eric is the only person who declines to appeal any blocks (whether he feels them justified or not), so I do not think this offers any useful evidence about the appeals process. Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting for statements --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also waiting for statements. LFaraone 21:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, Yngvadottir has been desysopped (see here). Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was the motion deliberately worded to exclude that in this case, or was the wording just taken from a different context? No, I just used the boilerplate motion which we've been using for level II desysops for years. If Yngvadottir so desires, they can ask us to reconsider our decision. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • And now, for a bunch of random thoughts... During the GGTF case, we decided not to ban Eric, imposing instead a set of restrictions, in the hope that it would allow us to retain a prolific editor while, at the same time, minimising disruption. Well, we were wrong. Since that case was closed, Eric has been blocked 7 times for violating these restrictions, there has been far too much drama surrounding their enforcement, and his last block resulted in even another case, where, among other things, we clarified a. that admins are expected to ensure their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing ArbCom or obstructing the enforcement of our decisions and b. all enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper until an appeal is successful. I am painfully aware that all we've tried so far has not worked (and that Eric has candidly admitted he coudn't give a flying fuck about [his Arcom restrictions]) and that we need to change tack; however, for my money, the solution does not lie in making our decisions harder to enforce: arbcom restrictions are supposed to be enforced. And, if a sysop does not want to get involved in enforcement, that's perfectly fine, but he (or she) is nonetheless expected not to unilaterally interfere, once another has decided to act instead. So, accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Wehwalt: how can be certain that ArbCom taking over the enforcement of our own restrictions would solve the problem, when Eric has explicitly said that he doesn't give a fuck about them, there are users who constantly interfere with the enforcement of our sanctions and there even are admins willing to throw themselves on the metaphorical grenade for him? When Yngvadottir unblocked Eric, she did it because she thought the restrictions he was under (and not the block) were unfair: had the block been imposed by ArbCom, would that have stopped her?

          Also, I'm entirely willing to make allowances for the fact we all are humans and, occasionally, we may get angry or frustrated, and I'm entirely willing to make allowances for the fact that Eric creates a lot of good content as well (and the fact that there are admins willing to give up their mop for him is evidence of how much respect they have for him), but making allowances only goes so far; at the end of the day, all those who edit Wikipedia have to accept that they are bound by the site's policies. All of them. Furthermore, treating Eric as a special case has, so far, not worked; what makes you think that treating him as even more of a special case would be the solution?

          Frankly, I don't know what the best course of action would be; I thought that the set of restrictions we passed in the GGTF case would be a good idea, but I was wrong, but we need to find a solution, because we can't go on like this. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recuse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably will accept, at this cursory stage I more or less agree with Brad. NativeForeigner Talk 13:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carrite: Only one minor correction, we can desysop near instantaneously. AE is messy and there's a reason I generally would really never touch it in my admin capacity in all but the most straightforward of cases. AE is a bit of a sledgehammer. NativeForeigner Talk 13:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find myself reasonably convinced by NYB on this matter. I'll go ahead and just say what I'm thinking. Banning Corbett, might on face value might cut the gordian knot here but I'm not convinced that's necessarily just, and given the edit that the latest block was for I'm not entirely comfortable. What happened with regards to Corbett in the previous case was a bit of a compromise in which neither side got what they wanted. I think it's worth noting this compromise and these draconian restrictions likely prevented a ban. But that being said in this particular case I don't think the block was proportionate, especially given context. The mandatory escalations were meant to prevent slaps on the wrist for poor conduct but by nature of them being so absolute they've led to a true mess of a situation. If the intent isn't to significantly modify Corbett's restrictions and/or ban Corbett I don't think a case will solve much. I'm not sure we're going to solve what the nature of Jimbo Wales' talk page is, and I'm not sure it would be wise at all for arbcom to directly take over enforcement. Fundamentally I think Eric should have some sort of right of reply, but the narrow wording of the prior restriction certainly doesn't codify that. NativeForeigner Talk 09:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jbhunley: Actually just finished a portion of [9]. Does tend to coincide with what you're saying, and I tend to agree, no matter how unfortunate it is. A bit of a more extreme interpretation of WP:NOJUSTICE but I think it has a lot of credence. NativeForeigner Talk 22:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as a final last comment, to all those saying "give up," you know, I'd really like to. But seeing as that's not what we were elected to do, I don't see that as an option. Perhaps it's because I'm masochistic and enjoy being called a total idiot or maggoty goat or likened to Idi Amin, or in this particular case being accused ot being grossly incompetent, but I'd like to actually fix this mess. I'm not sure a case here is the best way to do it, but simply giving up and saying the end is near is patently not an option. NativeForeigner Talk 22:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. It is our job to sort through such messes, what happened in last year's GGTF case is clearly doing absolutely nothing but increasing the drama all around. Courcelles (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept for arbitrator DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) per mailing list - "Accept per Thryduff's acceptance statement". L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Salvio and probably most of my colleagues, I don't know what the solution is to this, but a case is obviously inevitable and indeed is now accepted, so I may as well accept it also. Of course this isn't the best time to be holding this case. Doug Weller (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CarriteI've no idea what you think I meant, but I was referring to the fact that we have outgoing Arbs and an election coming up. That's all. Hopefully the timing won't be a problem. Doug Weller (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Etiquette

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement of decisions

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

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Scope of restrictions

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

Passed 10 to 1 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Reinstating a sanction reversed out of process

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

At wit's end

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Equality and respect

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

Passed 7 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Background

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

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Background (continued)

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

25 January, 48 hours
27 February, 72 hours
27 May, 1 week
29 May, extension of previous block to 2 weeks
26 June, 1 month, block lifted by Reaper Eternal on 28 June, on which see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement
20 July, initial block 1 month, subsequently shortened to 3 days.

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic article

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion following The Atlantic article

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

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

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin's block

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

Passed 6 to 5 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Yngvadottir's unblock

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

Passed 8 to 3 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite

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

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

Passed 9 to 0, with 1 abstention, at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Giano

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Remedies

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.

Enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanctions (alternative)

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

Passed 6 to 2, with 1 abstention, at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite admonished

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

Passed 10 to 1 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Community reminded

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

Passed 9 to 1 at 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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

0) Appeals and modifications

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

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

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

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2&oldid=1088498635"