Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-08-26/Arbitration report
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reinforcing Arbitration
Back in December last year, one of the remedies in the Interactions at GGTF case was to have Eric Corbett topic-banned from the Gender gap task force (GGTF). This has resulted in his being blocked multiple times for violating the topic ban. A discussion following one of the blocks placed on him, however, has resulted in a decision to make amendments and clarifications to the text of both the Discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration enforcement pages.
Background
What first started the arbitration enforcement case was a comment made by Eric Corbett on his own talk page. This comment was discussed on WP:AE and was closed by Black Kite with no action taken. GorillaWarfare, however, blocked Eric Corbett for a month. This action was later taken up at the Arbitrator's noticeboard, with the discussion being closed by Reaper Eternal to have Eric Corbett unblocked and the consensus being seen as GorillaWarfare's block being seen as "a bit out of process". The case was later opened the next day, June 29.
The end result
After nearly two months of gathering evidence and much deliberation, on August 24 the case was closed. With the closure, two facts were agreed upon. The first being that Eric Corbett's comment was the cause of the dispute. The second, and more importantly, it was found that GorillaWarfare's actions "fell foul of the rules set out in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications and in Wikipedia:Administrators#Reversing another administrator's action, namely the expectation that administrative actions should not be reversed without [...] a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged." As well, the case found that Reaper Eternal violated Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications, which requires, "for an appeal to be successful, a request on the part of the sanctioned editor and the clear and substantial consensus of [...] uninvolved editors at AN."
Because of these findings, the remedy for solving the issues the case brought up was to delegate the drafters of the case to amend and clarify both WP:ACDS and WP:AE. What will that mean for the future of ArbCom? While nothing is certain for now, it is at least expected that the discretionary sanctions page will look completely different from its current state soon. Though it is possible more cases like this one will be brought up again. We'll just have to wait and see to figure out the impact this case will have.
Discuss this story