This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) at 18:59, 12 November 2014 (→Casting aspersions: sure). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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 demonstratinge 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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Casting aspersions

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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sanctions and circumstances

5) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other 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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Recidivism

6) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules 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 is a positive action, not something to be excused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

On-wiki controversies and biographical articles

7) An editor who is involved in a controversy or dispute with another individual 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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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, and 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)

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 - documented at meta:Gender Gap. On, the English Misplaced Pages, the Gender Bias Task Force was set up in May 2013 to address gender bias on Misplaced Pages. 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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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)

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)

Oppose:

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:

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)

Comments:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

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:

Sitush

6) Sitush has a demonstrated history of working in positively in controversial areas of the project, despite off-wiki harassment. 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 accepted the result and did not pursue the matter further.

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

SPECIFICO

7) SPECIFICO's actions regarding Carolmooredc have lead to a 1-way interaction ban.

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)

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 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:

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

Oppose:

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:

Abstain:

1. Per above. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 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 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per above. Worm(talk) 15:10, 12 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 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. 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:

Sitush

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {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