Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Callanecc (talk | contribs) at 12:18, 7 February 2015 (→Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope): Motion enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct   21 October 2024 4/1/2
Marine 69-71   26 October 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Motion name Date posted
Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope) 7 February 2015
Motion: Two kinds of pork banned 6 February 2015

Motions


Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF is amended as follows:

  1. The provisions in the "Scope of topic bans" remedy are rescinded and replaced with: "Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply."
  2. The terms of the "Discretionary sanctions" remedy are rescinded and replaced with: "Discretionary sanctions are authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed ."
  3. All sanctions already issued under earlier versions of these provisions remain in force.

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. To sync the topic bans and discretionary sanctions, and to broaden the scope of the discretionary sanctions. Please copy-edit as necessary,  Roger Davies talk 01:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This should have been done months ago --Guerillero | My Talk 02:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I already made my argument for this over at ARCA. Courcelles 02:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved the "broadly construed" language out to cover all three clauses. Courcelles 02:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For discussion, I'm not entirely sure clause iii actually adds much not covered under i and ii, but no harm in making it explicit, either, I guess. Courcelles 02:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, the language should be the same DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 05:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Euryalus (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, the scopes of topic bans and sanctions in a case this large, needs to be standardized, and this does it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. I would prefer it if the availability of sanctions language (see discussion below) were retained, even if it is redundantly, to the extent that I am not comfortable supporting without it. However I do not oppose the substantive part of the motion and so will not stand in the way of it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (GGTF)

  • Given this is largely an internal-facing remedy, rather than one likely to be invoked for article content, wouldn't be a bad idea to state it explicitly here, even redundantly. Courcelles 17:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments (GGTF)

Motion: Two kinds of pork banned

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF is amended as follows:

  1. For egregious violation of civility, violation of their topic ban ([1][2]), and continued inability to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia ([3] (summary)), Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Support
  1. As proposer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 05:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This likely won't pass, but a very clear signal needs to be sent that [4] is totally unacceptable. I see way too much battleground/fighty conduct in this user, of which that diff is the shining example. His behaviour hasn't changed since the GGTF case, the same stuff the FoF commented on is still being done. So, even though I am afraid this motion is consigned to failure, I must land here, as I do think it is necessary. I'm a little disappointed the opposes seem to be more related to the process, rather than opposition to the end result. We've always retained full jurisdiction of all prior matters we've heard, this is even enshrined in the ArbPol. Courcelles 18:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the oppose votes are not merely related to the process, in my opinion. Taking mine, for instance, I'm following policy as I understand it and opposing on principle. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. ArbCom has historically not acted ex officio, but rather we have generally waited for someone to seize the committee before acting, unless private information is involved. I don't think we should be changing our approach here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Salvio. Two Kinds of Pork's behaviour is an egregious breach of his topic ban, and is not at all conducive to improving the encyclopaedia, but equally it is behaviour the community is perfectly capable of dealing with and is dealing with. In the absence of private information the community is not party to (and there is none at the present time) or a request from the community to handle this, we as a Committee have not standing to act. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Salvio and Thryduulf. The behavior needs to be dealt with, but the community should be handling it, not us. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per TParis. Egregious topic ban breach is right, but already addressed by the month-long ban. A repeat performance would presumably lead to a well-deserved and longer block. But no pressing need for committee involvement when the ban breach and offensive conduct have already been addressed. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per the above,  Roger Davies talk 12:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While we have jurisdiction over all previous cases, we also let the community normally enforce the case results, unless they bring it to us. I'd rather have them try working on it first, and then if they can't, and it's brought to us, we can look into it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. There is no need of us yet. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This has already been addressed by the community. While I certainly agree that the comment was egregiously unacceptable, I don't see any need for us to intervene further. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (TKOP)

Community comments (TKOP)

  • I'd also point out that apparently the box you know the big pink one in case you missed it states " not related to any existing case or request" is on this page, this is related to both so the venue is incorrect as well it would seem. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note: somewhat involved party, in the sense that I've commented on TKOP's interactions, and their response to one of my comments is actually a diff in the rationale for the motion. Not sure if that counts, but it seems worth noting just in case): I fully endorse this motion. There are essentially two possible ways to understand TKOP's recent behaviour around gender discussions and their response to the initial, one-month block; either they're simply trolling, at this point, in which case this is nothing more than disruption to prove a point and can't be expected to end when their existing block does, or they genuinely do not understand how a discussion about an experimental effort to help solve the gender gap relates to gender - in which case this is a competence issue. My money is on the former. Ironholds (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with TP. This seems like an over-reaction but time will tell. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • TKOP shouldn't be site-banned, as the 1-month block is enough. IMHO, his talkpage privillages should be restored. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was not only a blatant violation of the topic ban, it was an absolutely outrageous comment, and I can't imagine somebody using white supremacy in that example with an intent to do anything other than cause outrage. The one-month block is well deserved, and I reject the notion that either Keilana or GW are involved because of their participation on the gendergap list (the idea that discussing Wikipedia's much-discussed problem with attracting women editors would disqualify an admin from blocking for a comment that compared a women-only space to white supremacist website is as absurd as the example itself; it looks like a straightforward attempt to divert attention onto the admins who acted and away from the comment). Since the siteban is not going to pass, a middle ground could be for ArbCom to mandate a one-year block for any future violations or to mandate that the next blocking admin bring the matter to ARCA, where the committee can consider a siteban. While I certainly my have concerns about he way Lightbreather interacts with other editors, TKOP is going to need to drastically change his approach if he is to remain a part of this community for much longer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=646028114"