This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Callanecc ( Talk) & Liz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Salvio giuliano ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
→ Important notes for all contributors to this case
This case is contentious and has the ability to devolve very quickly. So, this is a heads-up on the procedures that have been adopted. First off, the clerks have been instructed to be very proactive in removing any inappropriate comments. These include:
Furthermore, the case will use a "single warning" system: clerks are authorised to issue an only warning to any editor who posts inappropriate comments; if the warning is not heeded, the editor may either be restricted from participating in this case or be blocked at the clerk's discretion. This applies to everyone, which includes the parties, involved onlookers, semi-involved onlookers, and people who wander in randomly (whether truly random or not). Finally, to prevent "drive-by" attacks and attempts to devolve this case, the case pages will be semi-protected and additional scrutiny will be paid to accounts that haven't participated in this dispute beforehand. If a new editor or an IP editor genuinely has something that needs to be said, they may ask a clerk to post it on their behalf. For the Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC) |
Sectioned discussion will be strictly enforced on all talk pages in this arbitration case. With the exception of clerks and arbitrators, all commenters must create a section for their statement in the form "[Username]'s section" and edit only within their own section. Threaded discussion may be refactored or removed by any clerk or arbitrator. Thanks, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 02:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC) |
I understand the committee's desire to focus the scope of this case to a minimalist set of editors, however such tunnel vision will not meet the goal stated on top of the evidence talk page: "Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision."
Meaning depends on context; this whole civility enforcement / gender gap / arb enforcement debacle has descended into
Pythonesque farce. Part of the fundamental problem is there is entirely too much focus by many editors on trying to make EC some sort of misogynistic villain. Although Wikipedia:: is
WP:NOJUSTICE Wikipedians have an inherent sense of, and desire for, justice, resulting in an acrimonious "not a villian" backlash, putting denizens of The Ninth Circle of Hell the arbitration committee in the middle. Volunteering for the committee has got to be the equivalent of the Monty Python "abuse" room.
In issuing the current "remove and escalating block" sanctions, the committee made a good faith attempt to "split the baby". That, in hindsight, we can see this hasn't worked doesn't imply fault on the committee, it implies it's time to do something else. Therefore, rather than "going moderate," I suggest the committee currently go big and go small.
Big: Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Evidence#The_word, EC should be significantly sanctioned, not for unproven personal attacks against anyone, but simply for WP:DISRUPT (drama mongering). I suggest something on the order of one to three month site ban. (The anticipated protests of "he'll leave forever!!!" should be met with "Not our problem.").
Small: Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Evidence#Admins_not_using_discretion, the ggtf sanction should be changed to "An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy; any editor reverting such a removal, except following a consensus of admins at WP:AE, may be blocked for up to 72 hours." NE Ent 15:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DGG:, @ LFaraone: Re [1], LFaraone is mistaken. There is a specific enforcement provision. "An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. ", which explicitly includes the less drama inducing provision of simply removing the comment. And you both should know that, given that you both voted for it. NE Ent 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.. L Faraone 02:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Given Etiquette finding, the Equality and respect finding logically is superfluous. Ya'll should consider exactly what you're trying to say by adding the second finding -- it is worse to treat another editor disrespectfully because of the listed attributes rather than because they're an IP, non an admin, part of the admin cabal or use the oxford comma? What about political affiliation? Is it okay to treat someone poorly because they are self-declared fascist?
Because I've learned original thought is highly overrated, and because she has more wiki-cred than I, I'll quote LilaTretikov (WMF) We need your support and your example of saying no to rudeness, disparagement and incivility when you come across it. Every culture is defined by the behavior it tolerates. We need you to unite in defense of our culture of collaboration. Without you WMF will not succeed. This is a critical time for public internet and with your support we can make it a better and more equitable place for all. ... emphasis on for all NE Ent 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Salvio giuliano For the "arbcom takes over" remedies, what would the proposed process be? ARCA? email? ping to committee at AE? Do individual committee members have the authority to act unilaterally (as previously individual admins did?) or does action require a passing motion?
Where those remedies overlap with DS (GGTF in general) is DS enforcement for the relevant individuals also reserved to the committee? If not it seems like another likely source of drama/lawyering.
If the answer above is "motion", the extra layers of BURO may cut down of frivolous sanctions, but I also fear that they will discourage legitimate action, especially as the committee can be somewhat slow to move. It seems like this will put a floor on sanctions (eg, its not worth dealing with something that will result in a 24/week block, if it took 2 weeks to get there). Perhaps that is the intent (to stop the snipers?), but I fear that will result in de-facto permission for low level drama. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way to avoid a repeat at what happened at Jimbo's talk-page? In my opinion as soon as Eric Corbett was mentioned along with something to do with the GGTF it should have been hatted, and CLOSED. Assuming good faith even if a newspaper or something of the like is brought to Jimbo's attention or anyone else's about Eric Corbett, and the GGTFsomething should be done about it as it is essentially going behind an editors back, and talking about them when they cant defend themselves. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I just want to say that if nothing in the form of remedies comes out of this case we are sure to see AE3. How many admin have to click the unblock button before the problem is realized that these blocks aren't sticking? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Seraphimblade: I saw your response to the topic ban. How much drama has occurred so far with regards to addressing anything Eric related publicly? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DD2K: I don't know.... I mean I haven't seen anyone try or mention double secret probation yet. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@ PamD: I don't know if you have noticed but Eric's talk-page is anything but "collegial". I agree that Eric is not the cause of the gender gap, but do not agree that this justifies or gives a free pass to bad behavior from editors. I said it before, and I will say it again the drama is caused by editors jumping on the dogpile. I will give an example: Someone posts on Eric's talkpage about how much they cant stand Jimbo. Editor x replies, then editor y then soon we have a full thread complete with the cherry on top images. Now you tell me, how does this accomplish anything other than getting others riled up? If the drama isn't about the gender gap, then it is about something else. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah... at this point I can see editors are starting to throw in things that are either out of scope, or hinting at a hidden agenda. When you arbs talk about the "community" do you mean the Wikipedia community as a whole? It would be great if there could be some more outside input rather than going with the community that has been following EC. My advice at this point is to close this talk-page, and keep the discussion limited to the arbs. After that, reopen the discussion here to chat. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why everyone is rushing to get this case closed, it is the holidays people do have plans I am sure. It is best to wait until after New Year's for anymore to really come out of this. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Some of these proposed findings and remedies are just laughable. "Having reviewed Kirill Lokshin's explanation for his block of Eric Corbett, the Arbitration Committee concludes that it was a reasonable exercise of discretion." Seriously? The only valid purpose of this case would be to desysop Kirill for abusing admin tools. Instead, the ArbCom excuses his outrageous misconduct and moves on to punish people who haven't done a thing wrong? Any of you voting in favor of this nonsense either haven't looked into the case before voting or lack the rational capacity to sit in judgment over others, and in either case you should resign. Everyking ( talk) 19:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Salvio giuliano: Without a workshop phase in this case it was difficult to get specific drafts and proposals on the table. Some people proposed stuff on the talk pages, and I tried proposing a solution in a subsection of my evidence but in both cases it was hard to discuss these proposals because of the talk page restriction that nobody can edit outside their own section. The specific remedy I proposed would probably look something like this:
GGTF Remedy 3.3 is amended in that block lengths for civility violations shall not exceed 72 hours.
The last time I proposed this it was not clear to what extent it was considered by the committee, so if it's the same to you, I would appreciate if this proposal could receive formal consideration this time. If it is to be rejected, that's fine, but I'd like to know it was at least considered by committee members. You are welcome to modify it however you like, but please consider adding something like this to the proposed remedies. ~ Awilley ( talk) 20:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
You are entirely correct that a modified 3.3 would not have prevented our current situation, though I would point out that the current situation demonstrates the problem with disproportionate blocks. I totally understand the need for escalating blocks, and I think they work well for stuff like vandalism, BLP, falsifying sources, trolling, etc. But I tend to view civility infractions as more of a petty crime (as opposed to a misdemeanor or felony). It's like parking illegally in a reserved space. It's certainly not a victimless crime, but the actual damage is small. In the real world if I park illegally I'll get a $60 ticket that is meant to prevent me from repeating that behavior. If I do it the next day, I'll get another $60 ticket. If you had rapidly escalating fines with, say, a $1000 ticket or jail time for Nth time offenders there would certainly be fewer repeat offenders, but you'd also have people publicly burning their parking tickets instead of paying them and clogging up the court system with appeals. Sure, if somebody is uncivil and they are also a troll, indef them, but when they are cranking out featured articles every couple of months it's different than if they're your average AN/I gadfly.
I don't deny that there would be some grumbling associated with each 72 hour block, but when I say "low-drama" I mean that no admin is going to sacrifice their bit to unblock, and the motivation to start and participate in one of the time-sucking AN/I threads will be substantially lower than if it were the three-month block required by 3.3. In terms of drama, 3.3 is a ratchet compared to this, and with this any drama wouldn't last more than about 72 hours.
I doubt that you have ever been blocked before, but I'll bet that if you ask an editor who has been blocked for 72 hours they'll say it's more than a slap on the wrist. For an otherwise productive contributor, it's more like a slap in the face.
I realize there's not consensus in our community on how to deal with civility violations from otherwise productive editors. But let me ask this: what message are you sending when you block a productive editor for 3 months for calling somebody a bad name? I agree civility is important, and I try to live by that, but is it more important than "building the encyclopedia"? (I credit User:Dennis Brown for that argument.) And is strictly enforcing the principle worth the disruption and collateral damage? Anyhow, I apologize for the length here, and I'm open to discussing this in some other forum if you wish. I realize this might not be the best place. Thanks for reading. ~ Awilley ( talk) 05:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Personal story for the interested |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Three years ago I came dangerously close to being blocked for 4RR. I had reverted twice on an article on May 30 and twice on June 1, and since nobody had made any edits on May 31 it looked like 4RR in the article history. A third party reported me, and the admin at AN3 didn't notice the mistake but decided not to block because I had been using the article's talk page. I was asleep when this all happened, so I would have woken up blocked if User:Nyttend had decided to simply enforce a rule without weighing other behavior. This incident greatly influenced the way I behave now as an admin. The (heavily refactored) AN3 report is here if anybody's interested. |
@ DeltaQuad: I'm glad that you and the other arbs are discussing possible alternatives, though at first glance I don't think the "reverse topic ban" is going to work as intended. I could imagine a situation where Corbett is mentioned or even pinged in some forum (one of our many noticeboards for instance) and is unable to respond. Or an article he's working on might be discussed at the NPOV or RS noticeboard and he wouldn't be able to participate. It doesn't solve any significant problem, it just makes it easier for him to slip up.
Anyway, if you're looking for ideas, you might consider opening the Workshop phase. There are lots of smart editors proposing decent remedies on this talk page, but given the low visibility and restricted format it's difficult for these proposals to receive the consideration they deserve. And I'm not just talking about my own idea above. I've seen the idea pop up several times that the gender gap topic ban should be significantly narrowed (for instance to WP:GGTF and its sub-pages), but I don't recall seeing any arbitrators giving this any serious consideration. ~ Awilley ( talk) 05:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This
project talk page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this
project talk page
has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{
in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was
last edited by
MalnadachBot (
talk |
contribs) 13 months ago. (
Update timer) |
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building the encyclopedia in a spirit of camaraderie and mutual respect.
Editors should treat each other with consideration and respect. 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.
Blocking is permitted when incivility causes serious disruption; however, administrators should use discretion when considering civility blocks. Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. Poorly considered civility blocks can worsen disputes and increase disruption. (See excerpts from current civility policy presented in evidence)
Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, in the sense that they are to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Escalating block lengths are typically used for serious and repeated violations of policy, and administrators are encouraged to use discretion in choosing block lengths. In general the length of the block should be proportionate to the amount of disruption caused by the user.
Since the civility and gender-gap-topic restrictions placed in the GGTF arbitration case, Eric Corbett's civility violations have decreased both in frequency and severity. However Eric Corbett has still been blocked frequently due to violations of the GGTF topic ban. (See relevant evidence presented by Worm That Turned and Awilley.)
Over the years Eric Corbett has frequently been unblocked, often out of process, and has on average served significantly less time than the original length of the blocks. The three times that Eric was blocked for 1 month all resulted in controversial unblocks. The first time resulted in the desysop of INeverCry, the second resulted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement, and the third resulted in the desysop of Yngvadottir. (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Evidence#Block_log_table_and_chart)
GGTF Remedy 3.3 is amended in that block lengths for civility violations should not exceed [insert value, suggest 72 hours]. Administrators are encouraged to use discretion in choosing what merits a block and what block lengths are reasonable and proportionate to the offense.
Remedies 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the GGTF arbitration case are amended in that the topic bans for Carolmooredc, Eric Corbett, Neotarf, and Two kinds of pork are narrowed to include only edits to and discussion about pages, talk pages, and sub-pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force.
I strongly support Knowledgekid87's comment, above, about the need to hat and close particular kinds of discussions on Wales' Talk page. Furthermore, I would like to see some possibility of a sanction applied to people who reverse the hatting and closing or attempt to open another section dealing with substantially the same material. Otherwise, one has a situation where gross violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPA take place under the excuse of tittle-tattle that has a disruptive tendency on wikipedia. I make no comment about any other proposed decisions in this case. I would also have liked to see some comment on the advisability of making statement's about particular named editors other than oneself to the media. DDStretch (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with NE Ent on a lot of points. This case myopically looks at the actions of a very small set of individuals and does nothing at all to address the root of the problems. Not even a finding or a principle which merely states "Editors and administrators should be able to open and enforce sanctions requests without harassment"? No topic bans or DS for raging against EC's sanctions, even for repeat harassers? What in these proposed remedies would prevent this matter from happening again exactly the same way with a different cast of characters?
That said, you're already getting a lot of heat for this, which was inevitable. I don't envy you folks your jobs right now. Gamaliel ( talk) 20:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian: "The only cases where the "fan club" raised a stink was when consensus at WP:AE was ignored or bypassed." Complete and total nonsense. I've was attacked and insulted by the "fan club" - and I still am on this page - for merely submitting a possible violation to WP:AE. There are plenty of other examples to disprove this absurd falsity. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In thinking about what Gamaliel just said directly above, it occurs to me that if ArbCom takes over the role of enforcing the sanctions, you could add to that remedy a statement about enforcing strict rules of conduct for editors who comment in those enforcements. I think that would be more manageable at this time than to try to topic ban some large but undefined population of editors. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 21:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I just want to say that, whatever else you decide to do or not to do here, the final decision needs to set a very clear line about reversing blocks that are issued as AE. I think that it's important that the community come out of this case with an unambiguous understanding of how not to have free-for-alls between administrators who disagree with each other. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I think proposed principle #8 answers my concern about the admin ready to throw himself under the bus. People are a lot less likely to do it for no purpose. You might want to clarify that "sanctions" includes a resignation of the bits.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Thryduulf, I don't understand your rationale on proposed principle #6. Can Jimbo override the committee's restrictions within his own userspace? Can anyone do that within their own? What's the basis for Jimbo being able to do that? He can't be acting on an appeal, since I see you have indicated there is no appeal to Jimbo (possibly because of his obvious involvement). It appears you are saying that Jimbo and his space are specially privileged in this regard, but the principle you voted for does not recognize any.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It's completely unclear from the proposed decision. You've weakened your own prior decisions, so it can't be intended to support administrators who do the AE dirty work. You've kicked out at one admin who's been "casting aspersions" while refusing to permit evidence against the multitude of administrators who've been aggressively supportive of Eric. You've modified your standing sanction against Eric so extensively that it has the effect of kicking one of the few admins willing to apply the sanctions (essentially saying "we guess this was within the rules, so we're going to change the rules so nobody else can ever actually apply sanctions against Eric again") - and your own decision pretty much falls in line with Giano's (far less diplomatic) position that admins are not doing it right. There are at least half a dozen other editors who were at least as offensive in voicing their opposition to Eric's block (the degree of misogyny and sexism in some of the statements and comments was truly mind-boggling, but this is not the first time Arbcom has been unable to recognize these problems) - so obviously offensiveness in respect of "gender gap" issues is not a factor in this decision. What, then, was arbcom's objective here? Because the posted PD comes across as "geez, maybe we shouldn't be so hard on Eric, but we're gonna whack anyone who says mean things about us". I can't see any problem having been solved here at all. Risker ( talk) 22:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
If I'm reading this proposal correctly -- and I see above (especially Risker) that I'm hardly alone in my mystification -- it contains a bill of attainder: one or two Wikipedians are to be subject to different laws than everyone else, and those rules are to be enforced through a separate (?but equal?) procedure.
Another interpretation of this proposal -- again, I may be misunderstanding its intended effect -- is that it creates an Order of Nobility, a class of Valuable Editors who are not subject to the whims of administrators and the caprice of the Community as other editors are, but who can only be sanctioned by bringing a complaint before The House Of Lords ArbCom.
This would, I admit, have the beneficial effect of regularizing the current situation, in which certain popular and influential editors are free to threaten, to be uncivil, or to take a stroll down mammary lane. Will other Unblockables eventually receive the same privilege of Direct Appeal To Caesar? How are they to apply for nobility?
One hazard -- doubtless overlooked -- is that editors having routine dealings with the Order Of Very Special Wikipedians ought to be reminded of their unique status, lest they (for example) inadvertently forget themselves in the heat of the moment and complain in the common courts of AN/I or AE. Perhaps ArbCom should also require persons subject to these Very Special provisions to indicate this in their signature -- “Baron Eric Corbett,” perhaps? Alternatively, the Unicode symbol ♔ might come in useful and save space. MarkBernstein ( talk) 00:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The proposed 3.1.10 reads "Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression." I agree with those wishing the clause were stronger and clearer. In addition, this sentence is impossible for two reasons:
Looking on from the sidelines with increasing dismay -- and you know that if my dismay about this mess is increasing, we’re talking about a whopping big pile of dismay -- it seems clear that you're stuck. Worse, some of you seem inclined to solve the problem by throwing out the original Gender Gap Task Force decision, either explicitly or by rendering its sanctions toothless. (No one is going to dare complain about anything the harassment posse undertakes if the harassers risk at most a 3-day break, and the complainants -- witness Lightbreather -- risk indefinite suspension with offsite harassment thrown into the bargain.)
Rather than nerfing Gender Gap and AE1 in a rush to get out the door, it might be in the interests of the project to schedule this entire case to be restarted from scratch by the incoming committee. MarkBernstein ( talk) 21:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Salvio Giuliano: - I see the diffs you just posted. One thing that confuses admins and others is the difference between excessive rhetoric and personal attacks or harassment. I've always held that the latter is sanction worthy, but the former isn't. Do you have any diffs of Giano that constitute a personal attack or harassment, rather than mere polemics against a perceived power structure? Do you have any diffs where people asked Giano to refactor such comments and he refused to do so? We have to be careful not to sanction people merely for dissenting, speaking truth to power. I agree that Giano's comments with respect to Eric's sanctions could be viewed as disruptive, and that it may be appropriate to limit him from commenting on discussions of Eric's sanction. But I don't see him Giano doing anything sufficiently bad to warrant a broad gender topic ban, one that will become a huge drama magnet. Jehochman Talk 15:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not a complete mess, which is something, I suppose, but the topic banning of more people from the Gender Gap Task Force is ridiculous. If the Gender Gap Task Force is to accomplish anything of value and use, it needs to hear from Eric and Giano. The entire Gender Gap Task Force is in danger of looking like it has been decided in advance what it will hear, from whom, and what the final outcomes will be. If that is the perception of more of the community, it will eventually die a slow, lingering death as people realise it's a waste of time - much like the Mediation Committee. Nick ( talk) 09:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I can instantly think of at least three powerful, strong women who were almost unknown until I created pages about them, they now rightly have very comprehensive pages. The best way to combat a gender gap is to research write pages and solve the problem ie: by hard work. Sitting on one's derriere, shouting about on talk pages, and crying foul every time anyone challenges a view on the gender gap is unlikely to do anything but worsen the problem and cause discontent. The Arbcom and certain editors connected with the Foundation are pursuing a political and wrongly perceived social agenda, and anyone who thinks this is for the benefit of the encyclopedia is very sadly mistaken. Giano (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Jehochman asks above "Why is Giano being topic banned from gender issues?.....I see no diffs showing Giano being disruptive on gender topic, no more so than people on the other side of the debate. We do not ban people merely for holding a contrarian political view.?" Besides Oh yes we do; the answer is simple; this Gender Gap cause has been hyped by Jimbo and Foundation and become a worthy cause to promote and publicly show Wikipedia's caring nature. However, its size and severity is poorly researched and practically unprovable and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Therefore, anyone daring to question it, is to be shut down. Josef Stalin would be proud of such actions. Unfortunately, this Arbcom is either taking its orders from above or too stupid to see the damage it's doing to what probably is a slight problem. Giano (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
So now we have another remedy being dreamt up to save the Arbcom's face [3] The case should never have been opened in the first place just to satisfy the blood lust of a few. Once you start dragging people in off the streets, it becomes even harder to justify, so the Arbcom is now dreaming up even more odd remedies, in the hope they can all agree on one, so that it doesn't look like the whole thing has been a monumental waste of time - which of course it is. Giano (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
This edit [4] by PamD is probably the most astute and sensible thing written since this case opened. I urge the Arbs and anyone professing to care about a Gender Gap to read it and take note. Giano (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This is all getting frightfully boring and very dull to even keep checking on, which I do as seldom as possible. Excluding the reference above, no one has said anything remotely interesting or relevant here for weeks and weeks; the Arbcom quite clearly have forgotten (if they ever knew) quite why they accepted the case in the first place. This is one of the problems which happen when one listens to the squeakings of the public gallery, a few pompous self-important Admins and Arbs-with-an-agenda, and then act on such squeaks. There's no resolution here which is ever going to work, any fool can see that. Whatever is passed: I for one will continue to pass comment on the Gender Gap as and when required - which to date has been hardly ever, so God knows why the silly motion to topic ban me was dreamt up - again listening to the squeakings of the ill informed I suppose. Whatever the dreary, failing outcome I shall continue to write content, help the odd, passing newbie and generally carry on as normal. I suggest this travesty which seems to have driven off the Devil personified (presumably that was the intention?) is quietly put to rest, before even more people start to question quite why this case was accepted! Giano (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll agree to that providing User:Kevin Gorman is given a similar ban. If he isn't, then you will find that this 'solution' is a cause for even more drama. The Foundation and its hirelings may be able to censor me and shut me up, but so many others too.....I don't think so. Giano (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm disappointed in this proposed decision. I was hoping it would succeed where the GGTF and GamerGate remedies have failed: helping to create an environment in which women and other minorities are welcomed and encouraged to participate. Instead it seems to be focusing on a few individuals, and even within that narrow scope imposing only more toothless remedies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Giano: I did not say that you said there was not a gender gap, I said that you argued there was not a gender issue on Wikipedia. Regarding your latest comment, where does the burden of proof fall? I'd be curious to see you show that the size and severity of the gender gap is a non-issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jbhunley on this. It's clear that the (unrecused portion of the) Arbitration Committee is unwilling to ban Eric Corbett, but the proposed alternatives are quite frankly useless. This is exactly what workshop phases are for. Despite the Arbitration Committee's current shortcomings, our clerks are fantastic, and I trust that they would have been more than capable of shutting down disruptive edits on workshop pages, which I assume was the concern that led to skipping that phase entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Man up boys
–
TheRedPenOfDoom
lol.
GorillaWarfare
(talk) 10:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DeltaQuad: Wow, that's incredibly disappointing. I was hoping this case would come up with a workable solution to Eric's disruption in the gender gap topic area and his supporters' disruption when he gets blocked. I was pessimistically assuming nothing would change. But I was not at all expecting that you would loosen the restrictions. He's had seven blocks in the ~year since the GGTF case. It takes at least a year of spotless editing for most sanctions we impose to be loosened or lifted, and even then it's iffy. You're suggesting that the Arbitration Committee should 1) reduce the maximum block length to what was formerly the minimum block length, 2) consider an exception to a normally bright-line rule (overturning an AE block against consensus results in a desysop), and 3) reduce the scope of the topic ban. And you want to do all of this after a year of more disruption?? Talk about special treatment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Dennis Brown: Modifying AE sanctions out of process generally results in a desysop. This is well known. It's not "torturing admins," it's handling tool misuse, Dennis. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
... that writing articles about women is a good way to close the gender gap. |
I am not disappointed by the proposed decision because it had to be expected. I said often enough that I think to hold a few individuals responsible for the gender gap is as easy as it is wrong. My proposal stands to better revert all bans and restrictions of the GGTF case, for a more amicable relation between individual editors of all genders which I believe to be possible in mutual respect. A motion for that, please, assume good faith. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I read below that it is a problem that Eric doesn't appeal. I understand his not appealing, for dignity. Consider "... a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader" ( The Trial). Appeal the inaccessible authority? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Today, I wrote several articles on the compositions by Jean Sibelius and a first about a woman in religion (the first of five, in a total of 122 on 15 Dec). How many decent articles could have been written with the skills put on this page? When saying that you write articles with about as many women as men is a violation of Something, that Something is wrong, and perhaps those who made it, and those who didn't challenge the making. Can someone tell me please how the restriction in question serves a reader? - I voted for people who don't forget the readers over following rulez and process. To desysop Yngvadottir in the name of closing the gender gap was the most absurd event I've seen in a while. - How about general amnesty - said so in August - and return to writing articles? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Giano, GorillaWarfare, et al.:
The gender gap, which is the ratio of men to women on Wikipedia, is a manifestation of gender bias. The real issue is the latter. Gender bias is the institutionalised behaviours and tendencies that hamper the participation of women or make it extremely unpleasant. It is undeniable truth - a truism - that women are systemically discriminated against by virtue of the fact that they are women. This does not mean that women are not discriminated in other ways, or that it's only women who are discriminated. If you admit that gender-based discrimination is real and that it does occur on Wikipedia (there's ample evidence to that effect), it may logically follow that women would be inhibited from participating in such an environment.
As for the sanctions (about to be) enacted, I'm convinced that they're counterproductive. Alienating those who do not appreciate a certain issue or disagree with us on a certain issue by imposing sanctions will not lead to their enlightenment; it will not lead to an understanding. What will happen is that the factionalism that's manifested around this issue will take root. Alakzi ( talk) 14:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
At first look, oh of course, the goddess forbid anyone should ever ban EC. Maybe we could schedule another one of these each month just to make it look like there's an ongoing process despite no resolution? </END SARCASM TAG>.
After 24 hour's of thought: Wikipedia bills itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but the whole behind the scenes structure of pillars, policies, guidelines, Admins, ANI, WP:BLP, WP:COI, WP:RS, etc, and Arbcom itself, demonstrates that isn't true. No-one can edit in any way they want. Despite the cheesy advertising those who stick around know & accept this. I'd like to see Arbcom stress the fact that - just as in content creation - there are rules about how we interact in any & all Talk spaces. This isn't a 'free speech' zone. Never was, never will be. End of story. The collective 'we' has rules on 'free speech' in articles just as we have them in Talk space.
I'd also suggest the more particular an editor is with their article work (content creation -such as to lauded GA standard) betrays the fact that this editor is more than able to hold their tongue in Talk space. They shouldn't be 'let off' but treated equally (I'm completely supportive of mitigating factors, including on & off wiki 'baiting' and abuse, they should be considered equally too).
If their content creation isn't trash then their Talk space contributions won't be either. If you have someone who produces wonderful content but regularly makes trash Talk page additions then you are looking at someone who is openly gaming the system. Their content work demonstrates their ability for self-control, they are just selectively choosing to ignore it. AnonNep ( talk) 12:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
So, election results are in & the current Arbcom retreated & retreated, then ground to a halt. *rolleyes* AnonNep ( talk) 14:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand you all had a very difficult decision to thread but AbrCom taking over the enforcement of Eric's and Giano's restriction is the worst decision you could possibly make. You entrench the idea that some editors are 'to-big-to-loose'. This is a system analogous to 'to-big-to-fail' and we all know how well that has worked out.
This decision, in trying to focus only on narrow issues, has both failed to deal adequately with the narrow issue and far, far worse has failed to address the split in the community that has led to this situation - editors who are considered to important/prolific/whatever to be able to manage when they misbehave and even worse the factions which both "protect" and "persecute" them. By trying to find a moderate, middle road this decision, which could have ultimately reduced the tension in the community, has just kicked the can down the road while. at the same time, has the potential to make ArbCom's decisions unenforceable and administrators' management of problematic long term editors even more problematic.
I am very disappointed that the Workshop phase was omitted here. Managing it might have been a pain in the ass but there would be more community buy in on the decision and that might have made the outcome better address the issues the community thinks are the problem here. My advice would have been to open up the Workshop and case participation more. There are huge rifts in the community and while a Workshop could have devolved into a shit-storm it is always easier to get buy-in in this type of situation after a good cathartic shit-storm. In this case none of the pressure has been let off and, if you vote to have special enforcement provisions of "vested contributors" as a class, and make no mistake once the precedent is made is will expand beyond Eric and this case, a huge amount of elasticity will be removed from the system and the community will shatter in some unknown way.
ArbCom is here to manage tough decisions and that means the easy answers are usually wrong and trying to take half measures will almost always result in long term problems and instability. Follow the rules and principles of the community not one or more factions of the community. In decisions likely to have far reaching effects stick to the projects ideals - one of which, for good or for bad, is that all editors should be treated the same. Be very, very careful before you enshrine a change in that principle and if you do you must make a bright line for who is and who is not in this new class. Autoconfirmed=10 edits, then we have the 500/30 editors now Vested contributor=what?. If you show you are simply unable to handle a single Curate's Egg editor and simply cut out an exception for him you have shown you are in fact unable to manage the role the community placed its trust in you to manage and that would be very sad for the project. There are ways to deal with this issue but this is not a very good one. Jbh Talk 15:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In AE 3 - The Gathering (shit) Storm I would strongly suggest that you 1) better define the case and 2) not restrict the parties and 3) make the hard decisions you have been elected to make - stop the minimalist tip-toeing, it does not work in this kind of situation. You should also read up in Protracted social conflicts and their resolution strategies - it takes a bit of imagination but several of Wikipedia's ongoing problems can be modeled as PSC's. Jbh Talk 15:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
One of my favourite articles on Wikipedia is Hannah_Primrose,_Countess_of_Rosebery. She was a fascinating woman about whom I would know nothing if it were not for this encyclopedia. You only need to examine this diff from 2006 [5] to see the sort of hard work that we should all be doing to reduce the Gender Gap on Wikipedia... Andrewdpcotton ( talk) 14:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
People seem to be using this talk page as a venue to air their complaints about the gender gap, the GGTF, etc. While that is the topic that precipitated this and other cases, it is not the subject. The subject is (1) the behavior of editors and (2) the enforcement of sanctions by other users. Given that, the scope and nature of the proposed decision seems reasonable enough.
Would I perhaps like harsher sanctions or position statements about the underlying topic of dispute, sure. But that's frankly beyond the rather clear purpose of this and related cases. This is a limitation of arbcom to an extent... unlike other political disputes that have arbitration decisions like Israel/Palestine or gun control, this topic is too ingrained into the community to expect topic-related restrictions to be enforced reasonably. Clearly even behavior-related restrictions related to the topic are too much.
It is fallacious to suggest that certain sanctions won't work because they have not in the past. The issue is not the sanction's content but the editors' reactions to them. If is perfectly reasonable to expect editors whose past behavior was disruptive who wish to continue with this project to alter their behavior in order to do so. Sanctions are a type of probation for problematic and disruptive users in lieu of outright bans. If they do not wish to continue with the project or cannot abide by the sanctions against them that allow them to, they should leave.
As was discussed in this case, the reason this problem as continued so long is not the ineffectiveness of the sanctions themselves but rather the ineffective enforcement of them because of the INVOLVED relationship with the disruptive users. Hopefully this decision will remedy that by removing this point of dysfunction. Hopefully it will work.
If you are commenting and only focusing on the topic, you are politicking. The topic is important but not the subject of this case. The subject is now and always has been the behavior of users. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Roger Davies: Given the lack of movement on most of the remedy proposals, perhaps proposing your own remedy regarding Giano would be useful? I think your opinion that civility should be the restriction, not the gender gap, is shared by other arbs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Also commenting to second Arthur Rubin's comment below. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Sitush I am not party to this case. My history with EC is well-documented through the arb com cases and AE. There's nothing more to it then that. You seem to be suggesting some conspiracy or something. I find it odd you select me out of all the commenters here to single out. Go cast your aspersions somewhere else. You might catch better fish there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 01:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: psst... you forgot to sign your comment in 1.1. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
So 3.3.8 makes the topic ban only about the GGTF, but now allows comments about the gender gap itself, right? This seems to be a step backwards. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc, Liz, Amortias - This talk page is getting it of hand with all the people who "can no longer keep silent" coming here to cast aspirations and users making nonsensical motions. I hope the clerks or committee will stop this nonsense so that discussion of the actual proposed decision can continue without this disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not the location of Eric's comments, it's their content. I'd venture to say most of the comments that led to sanctions took place within the spaces the reverse topic ban allows him to comment. This remedy does not address the actual problem. Not sure how restricting the location of edits on top of the other sanctions will change anything. He has proven to be perfectly capable of disruption within the spaces outlined. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I am confused how people can claim EC's topic ban was too broad. The recent American Politics 2 case was a broad topic ban. EC's is quite narrow: no gender gap stuff. Eric is fully capable of abiding by his topic ban but often chooses not to. It is disingenuous to suggest the topic ban itself is the problem. Kingsindian hit on the bigger problem: the inconsistent enforcement of the tban. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 02:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand this is not the most straight-forward case and that it's a contentious topic, but closure is needed. If there are discussions happening on the email lists, let the community know. Else we think you're just putting this off.
Currently the following items are still unresolved:
Section # | Section name | Arbs yet to vote |
---|---|---|
|
||
3.3.1.2 - Remedies #1.2 | Enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanctions (alternative 2) | |
3.3.3 - Remedies #2.1 | Eric Corbett reverse topic ban | |
3.3.5 - Remedy #4 | Giano topic banned | |
3.3.5.1 - Remedy #4.1 | Giano topic banned (2) | |
3.3.8 - Remedy #7 | Yngvadottir |
|
3.3.9 - Remedy #8 | "Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope)" modified | |
3.3.10 - Remedy #9 | Guidance for uninvolved administrators | |
3.3.11 - Remedy #10 | Escalating blocks provision |
|
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 15:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, the truth is whatever the ctte does people will cry foul. So, should something's fail? Like the weird enforcement procedure for one user? (IMO, yes, but in truth, even that weird thing will not much matter to the world). What does matter, is that most everyone should know that everything, everything they do here, as a User, is public, and open to public comment (Like by, The Atlantic magazine). Nonetheless, if one actually listens to other Users where they say (or even block) repeatedly in hopes of 'stop, don't, please,' you should do, ok.
As for Risker's comment, it's odd, when Risker presented no evidence, that she now says, 'but you should know, and care about what these other people said.' Refering to these "other" "misogynistic" and "sexist" comments without identifying them is just wrong. At any rate, this ctte is always pulled in two directions: 1) you should make broad philosopher-king like impact statements, or 2) you should focus narrowly on the parties before you, in the understanding that the future is guided, incrementally, by the past.
Good wishes to you, regardless (and perhaps, listen to the wisdom of: 'good enough, for non-Govcom work'). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 22:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Even were one to accept the decidedly unworkable concept, "minor" ban infraction, one still in reason blocks for "minor" infraction (which of course depends on the ad hoc personal predilections of individual admins POV of minor, or more corruptly, perhaps, personal favoritism or disfavoritism toward a user), so that "major" infractions do not occur in the future - thus protecting the pedia. You make it a game with this ad hoc "minor" bit, instead of what it should be and is in policy - no posts, means no posts. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 23:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
No, WJBscribe: The case-statement of the person you now want to drag through another discussion is more than clear: "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."
Meddling and dragging through other people's issues, when it is theirs to raise, is wrong in many, many ways. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
For all the hand wringing that goes on, it is useful to remember that Arbcom has one function: in accord with policy, bind users with respect to their exercise of rights on the project. The reason you have this binding power is because some entity on this project is chosen to corral the 'just do everything and anything' environment inherent in a wiki. Thus, the ctte can: 1) ban (incl. tban) any user; and 2) take away admin rights (or increase admin discretion)- that is all you do (warnings, etc are the thing that comes before those two). You cannot create special "other" categories of users.
Step back, and stop tying this up in knots. Follow and use procedure set up ahead of the individual case, that applies to everyone - that's fairness, and remember this is a website, you're a volunteer ctte, everyone must roughly get along --- most of all, do not invent one-offs. (And as an aside, thousands, upon thousands go without being banned, nor even blocked - it is not that hard) Alanscottwalker ( talk) 20:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
DeltaQuad: Sorry, I was simplifying. You can call it "editor restriction", if it suits you, it is still a form of ban, or removal of User rights (either the right to edit in an area, or in a certain way, or in performing a function). In order to have a restriction, it must be enforced and enforceable. That is where AE -- not the board, the act of enforcement -- comes in and, yes, you can fiddle with procedure again, and make it all more convoluted and decidedly unfair, by creating obstruction or applying it specially to one but not to all.
Take for example this 24hr after-the-fact procedure the ctte is now entertaining - every block done under that will be obstructed as "punitive" because it is 24 hours later. My message to the committee is you need to simplify and apply workable remedy procedure fairly for all. If you mean to restrict, restrict - don't then invent ways to confuse everyone. Your hope to solve this by being 'creative' does not change your basic tools, it will only make the ctte process more convoluted and unfair to all (editor restricted, and everyone else who needs to know who may, and who must not edit/act, and what happens when they do.) -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Gatoglass is correct. The new 9 and 10 are recipes for new drama with their vagueness and convolutedness. Moreover, this talk of "leadership" is a pride-filled canard. We don't have Arbcom to lead us, you are not GOVCOM (we have you to bind users, where consensus has failed to otherwise address the issues) and Admins are to just here to mop in accord with policy. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I was glad to see DGG opine and would prefer to see more of it. Personally, I think it is important to see where Arbs different in opinion and being in the minority should never be a bar to making a statement. I agree that while desysopping was a discussion worth having, doing it as an emergency measure seems overkill as there was no emergency, not even enough to revert the very action that led to the desysopping. This undercuts the "emergency" claim unless you really thought she was going to use the tools to do more actions. And if the majority disagree, fine. The consensus model requires that every reasonable position be heard. As for the outcome, one has to wonder if it was decided before the case started, so expressing an opinion about it seems pointless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Utterly ridiculous proposal designed to shame Eric off the website. I'm sorry, maybe the proposal was made in good faith or with good intent, but it comes across as so demeaning and cowardly that I can't sit and say nothing. You should be narrowing his topic ban to specific areas if you want to prevent disruption, but that would require admitting you went a little too far, and lord knows that isn't going to happen with the Arb of 2015. So far, the sanctions you've imposed this year have been so ill thought out, so broad and unenforceable that we shouldn't be shocked you are doubling down with this farcical proposal. All because of a few comments, mainly defending himself, on Jimbo's page, and an admin (for whatever reason) decided to jump in an overreact to what common sense says should have been a 0 to 72 hour block. If anything, Kirill has cause more drama than Eric in this case by his poor judgement, you can't even agree on that. It is sad that this incompetent ArbCom started a case where one wasn't needed, can't agree to a single remedy, so it picks the lowest hanging fruit: do something bad to Eric, just so it can say it did something. I am totally disgusted and ashamed of what we have become. I (used to) like many of you Arb individually, but as a Committee, you are one big, collective asshole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
We have to be careful to not create policy here. I know this isn't popular, but the original problem was on the gender related pages, after all, and it requires some guts to remedy that. Going so far in the topic ban looked like you were silencing dissent, even if that wasn't your intention. Here is how I see solutions:
Obviously some tweaking is needed, I'm not a drafting Arb, but the intent should be clear: We seek a workable solution, even if we don't like it. To me, this is a direction that doesn't excuse the minor offense (and it was an offense, and it was minor) but actually provides some leadership and a path moving forward. This isn't rewarding Eric, it is just leveling the playing field and giving him a fighting chance to comply. He has complied with the RFA sanctions, because they were narrow and simple. Let's learn from that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand Amanda, it is so frustrating, and I'm not at you personally, I'm mad you all collectively. Everyone here is. Being a older and more experienced guy, I can envision that that the Arb mail list is a mess of arguments and name calling over principles, when it needs to just focus on solutions. ALL ARBs need to realize that there is zero chance of coming up with a solution that anyone really likes. The best you can do is come up with something that is workable, and common sense say it is better to err on the less harsh side; you can always up the ante later. I didn't like the sanctions to begin with, but I respect you guys want them; Fine, then just make them easier to follow by narrowing, yet making it easier to give 72 hour blocks without requiring AE. Fix it so borderline blocks can be dealt with like regular issues, with no Arb baggage. Sometimes you have to give more than you want, but that is life, and that is leadership. Leadership doesn't mean getting your way, leading means blazing a trail that others will actually follow, even if a bit grudgingly. Scale it back, tighten it up, and for god's sake end this thing. All of you, please go read the two quotes on my user page. You might find something of use, and it's shorter than Brad's (worthwhile) essay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ DD2K Doug didn't propose anything, Amanda did. Amanda's proposals would not change the status of Yngvadottir. DGG proposed something last week but Amanda actually opposed it, so obviously that isn't the goal and these three new proposals won't affect Yngvadottir's status. I would note that the sanctions give in lieu of a ban aren't being removed, they are being narrowed in scope as to make them more enforceable. As it stands, if on his talk page Eric were to simply say "I like working with women at FA and wish there were more women editors to work with", some would say that is a blockable offense, even though there is nothing offensive about it. THAT is the problem. The change is simply preventing him from participating in the ONLY place the Finding of Fact showed he was being disruptive. Some see that as easing up, and maybe it is, but it is doing so to more properly match the FoF in the first case, and prevent unnecessary blocks where he isn't actually disrupting anything. It is an actual solution that still stops the disruption he caused in the first case, which is what it should have been limited to anyway, per the actual FoF. None of this is perfect. It never is at Arb. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@ DD2K, not a strawman, only an extreme example, and if you think there aren't some admin willing to block him for a comment like that, you are mistaken. The problem isn't about supporting the block, the problem is that if an admin made that block, it would have to go to ARCA to be appealed and probably another Arb case. So the advantage is to the admin giving a bad block, virtually encouraging it. Most importantly, a sanction is supposed to reflect the Finding of Fact, and in the previous case, it didn't. This is just Arb fixing their own error. If he goes over to the Gender Gap areas, he will be blocked, period. That hasn't changed. All this suggests is that we don't punish someone for politely disagreeing with Gender NewSpeak. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@ GorillaWarfare and DeltaQuad: GW, you are saying we need to desysop MORE admin as the solution? And we need to do MORE punishment to them? The stocks, perhaps? Indef block until they grovel at the feet of Arb? Instead of coming up with creative torture methods for admin and playing out our little vendettas, we need to grow up and and find solutions that cause fewer problems in the future by clarifying and narrowing the scope of existing sanctions, AND give guidance to admin. We can't solve this by simply being mean to people, Molly. [6] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@ GorillaWarfare Your comment "Maybe impose additional consequences if you think the desysops are ineffective." is mean and childish, period. You are saying we need more threats, I'm saying we need more solutions. You have lost all perspective here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Amanda, I forgot to address one point about Yngvadottir. If you think the emergency deysop was a mistake, then you have to decide what is more important, fixing that mistake and collectively admitting it was an innocent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless or 2) Worrying about appearances when an admin considers reversing an AE block. As admin already know they can be desysopped, and in this case, Yngvadottir said as much before the unblock, I don't see any value in that position: We already know that our bit is at stake if we reverse an AE decision, but we would expect it would be by a case so both sides can be heard, not based on a single email, in the heat of passion. The same is true with the original GG sanctions.
Every email I've received on this says the same thing, that this Arb can not give an inch and admit a simple error. It looks like pride over justice. Other ArbComs have fine tuned their previous sanctions before, this ArbCom seems unwilling or unable. To all of you, again I would say that you don't have to like the solution, it just has to be workable and clearer moving forward. It has been almost four days since Newyorkbrad has weighed in with a nugget of wisdom, yet nothing has happened on the public side, and we are over 3 weeks late even after skipping the workshop. It is time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Among the many glaring issues of the proposed decision so far is a complete lack of the ArbCom taking responsibility for the crucial role they have played in generating and nurturing this clusterfuck. Man up boys and show some clue that you understand what is going on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
5.2) Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. 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.
@ Doug Weller: You appear to be explicitly suggesting that if two admins disagree, to the extent of overriding each other's actions, about the legitimacy of a block on an editor, that editor should be banned. Is that your position? Burninthruthesky ( talk) 18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner How can you conscientiously vote for action you personally view as a "Not necessarily just" response to "extremely defensible" behaviour? No doubt it would be expedient to scapegoat Eric for disruption by others, but the WP:CIVILITY policy doesn't allow it. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 17:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It was mentioned in evidence that blocks should not be punitive, they must be preventative. I suggest the committee add this as a statement of principle, and determine how it applies to Kirill Lokshin's block. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 08:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
3.1.10 touches on the harassment policy. This policy also says:
Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project.
The prohibition against harassment applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to harass any other user.
Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor.
The committee must ensure policy is applied fairly to all. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 08:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
See also our own article on Workplace bullying#Forms:
Regulation bullying — where a serial bully forces their target to comply with rules, regulations, procedures or laws regardless of their appropriateness, applicability or necessity.
The sole basis for action against Eric appears to be the fact he made "two further comments ( 1 and 2), which could be reasonably construed as violating his topic ban." They could also be reasonably construed as within the spirit of BANEX, yet some are now calling for a site ban. How can this be viewed as appropriate and necessary? Burninthruthesky ( talk) 09:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yngvadottir chose to IGNORE the rules when unblocking a user she felt was being "treated uncivilly". Administrators have wide latitude to use their permissions to stop misconduct and damage to the encyclopedia. I commend the suggestions that have been made for the committee to consider offering her bit back. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 08:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I will confine my remarks to the topic of arbitration enforcement which people have completely forgotten, including, in one instance, I am sorry to say, the committee itself.
If Giano's conduct regarding EC is bad why is he being banned from gender topics? Just ban him from participating in AE cases regarding Corbett instead of extending the broken remedy even further.
Now to the larger point. When will the cttee affirm that ggtf is special because it is explicitly political (and a good thing too) A political issue especially an emotional issue like this cannot be solved by muzzling people expressing opinions. Concentrate on DISRUPTION instead. How exactly is EC disrupting WP by simply mentioning gender on his or jimbo's talk page ?
How many desysops and disillusionments will it take for the cttee to realize that the fault lay in the remedy itself? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
If the topic ban scope is to be changed, the committee should also consider the option of narrowing the scope instead of broadening it. The advantage of this approach is that one does not need to think up convoluted remedies like "reverse topic ban". Just ban Corbett from the GGTF page, as should have been done in the original case - which was called "interactions at GGTF" for a reason. A few arbitrators including Newyorkbrad and NativeForeigner even indicated their support for this in the original case. The GGTF project does not "own" the concept of the gender gap - it is merely an initiative to address it.
I understand that this might feel to some people as rewarding Corbett, but please, use some common sense. Concentrate on disruption: Corbett mentioning GGTF on his talk page is not "disruption", unless someone is watching it to report him to WP:AE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DeltaQuad: This is a slightly long, but simple illustration of how absurd this remedy is. I am not sure if people have read this case which I gave in my evidence (my experience on the internet makes me cynical). It is worth going over that case to elaborate point 2 in my statement. And for all the people who still claim, based on no evidence, that the remedy is clear, and if Eric Corbett violated it, it must be his fault.
Just read the discussion among uninvolved admins. I will attempt to summarize it here, but I am biased, so don't take my word for it. On the one side there was
Callanecc with the interpretation that this was a violation which should result in action. On the other side, counselling closure with no action, there were
Newyorkbrad,
Black Kite,
Bishonen,
Zad68 and
Ymblanter. I hope nobody believes that all the people in the latter group are Eric Corbett fanboys (or fangirls). If you read the discussion, you will discover that Callanecc pushed decently hard for their interpretation, leading Eric Corbett to remark that, "This is all very tiresome. Callanecc clearly wants to issue a 72-hour block for something or other, so I suggest that he just gets on with it and stops wasting everbody else's time."
. Eventually, a compromise was reached where Eric Corbett was given an IBAN with Lightbreather.
Now I quote Newyorkbrad's reply to Callanecc's view of whether the topic ban was violated:
That is a formally defensible view and has the advantage of reflecting a clear, bright-line, readily enforced standard. Nonetheless, in this context, I continue to disagree, because the purpose of remedies is to prevent disruption of encyclopedia-building and community harmony, and seeking out this sort of violations on the user's own talkpage does not really serve that goal. (In the words of Benjamin Cardozo, relevant by analogy here, "Jurisdiction exists that rights may be maintained. Rights are not maintained that jurisdiction may exist.") However, I take a harsher view of Eric's post on Lightbreather's talkpage, and while I will not support a block for that so long as it is not repeated, I instruct him to stay off that page.
It will come as no surprise that soon afterwards, in a different case, Eric Corbett was blocked by *drumroll* Callanecc (there was no WP:AE report). The "crime" was linking to a GGTF mailing list post on his own talkpage. And giving fries with the burger, Corbett's block length was doubled due to him violating the IBAN with Lightbreather.
I again stress that I do not accuse anyone of impropriety or bad faith.
What is the moral of the story? Is the moral that Eric Corbett is a naughty child? Maybe you believe that. But is it an accident that the only person with legal training in the whole group (correct me if I'm wrong), who happens to be a respected ex-Arb, and who voted on the remedy, is also the person who said "concentrate on disruption"? Is there any doubt, in hindsight, that if their sage advice was heeded, 95% of the subsequent drama would be eliminated? Is there any doubt that Kirill Lokshin's block did not reflect that interpretation? Is there any doubt that the interpretation of the remedy is unclear, even among the people supposed to implement it (and some who wrote it, for God's sake!)? Is there any doubt that this means the remedy is fucked up? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I generally agree with the new remedies proposed, (8 obviously, but 9 and 10 as well), but I would not call it "leadership". Let's just say that ArbCom stock is not high among people commenting on this page, so any talk of leadership would be treated as risible. What I see in the remedies is ArbCom trying to clean up its own remedies, making them clearer and less onerous. And that is all to the good, in my view.
The elaboration in the remedies 9 and 10 are already the practice as AE. Look at the past 5 archive pages at WP:AE and find me a single case which violates them. Every single non-obvious case (the obvious one was BenMcLean, an obvious WP:NOTHERE account) took more than 24 hours, had several admins commenting, consensus among admins was respected, people concentrated on disruption rather than technical violations (see this , this and this for technical violations which were dealt with sensibly without blocks) and everyone explained their reasoning thoroughly. Why such things did not happen with Eric Corbett is something I will not speculate over here, I have already given my view. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@
Guerillero: Regarding your comment
here: Your comment that The
"I am coated in Teflon because I have loud friends defense" is muted when admins enforce our decisions because they don't have to go get a consensus."
is superficially plausible, but, in my opinion, the evidence I submitted shows precisely the opposite. The only cases where the "fan club" raised a stink was when consensus at
WP:AE was ignored or bypassed. In contrast, every single time the complaint went through
WP:AE, the block held for the full duration, with nonzero but minimal grumbling. Also, in my opinion, the actions were much saner (blocks were sometimes applied, sometimes not). This is just another way of rephrasing the common observation: "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done".
I do understand your concern that this may put off admins commenting at WP:AE. But may I suggest that this could also work in reverse? If the decision is taken by (rough) consensus among multiple uninvolved admins, then a single admin will not bear the brunt of the fanclub's wrath. People won't open ArbCom cases against a whole group. You have much more experience than me, but I have participated and watched a fair number of cases at WP:AE. This is my own opinion on the matter.
Finally, may I suggest that the term "fanclub" is slightly off the mark? Admins have block buttons, proles only have numbers on their side. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Please put this long suffering case out of its misery. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding restricting an editor to edit articles only, as mentioned on the proposed decision page and this discussion page: the nature of collaborative editing requires the ability to discuss changes, so a complete ban from article talk pages is problematic. isaacl ( talk) 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding allowing other editors to register an appeal of sanctions: as I mentioned during the previous arbitration case, a key problem with allowing others to request a review is that it takes the decision out of the hands of the affected editors. As the ones who have to live with the consequences, it is desirable to give them control of when and how a request is presented. A badly-worded request by an overly-eager objector, for example, can torpedo its chance at success, and typically there's only one immediate opportunity to get it right. I don't believe it is fair to the sanctioned editors to let someone else preempt any plans they may have to make a request, or to deliberately not make a request. isaacl ( talk) 07:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Hawkeye7's comments: I agree that the Arbitration Committee has the responsibility to specify clear criteria for enforcement in its remedies. As I mentioned in the previous Arbitration Enforcement case, as a practical matter this criteria must supersede, to some degree, the ordinary thresholds for action (if the remedy intends to allow for typical administrator discretion, this can be explicitly stated). Otherwise, it is too difficult to determine if an administrator is second-guessing or obstructing the enforcement of a decision. Salvio giuliano indicated a general agreement that the committee indeed has this responsibility. isaacl ( talk) 06:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
A case with this many issues and no passing remedies that do anything. AE3 is going to end up as a case in the near future :/ Kevin Gorman ( talk) 03:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This is outrageous. ArbCom creates enforcement rules like: "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." The enforcing admin is given no choice but to issue a one-month block for any violation, however minor. Then ArbCom weighs in and says things like: "the violation was too minor for a substantial penalty regardless of what had previous occurred. It was technically justifiable, but it was poor judgment. Better judgment would have been a short ban to make the point." I'll tell you whose judgement is poor: ArbCom's. Don't create enforcement rules if you don't want to see them enforced. Take some responsibility for your own actions. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 18:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Courcelles: If you are not taking enforcement of the case off AE, could you at least grant the editor who dobbed Eric in amnesty? AE considers such reporting groundless or vexatious complaints that warrant blocking. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 04:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Giano: Just what country do you think this is? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
WJBscribe's interpretation looks correct to me. If there is no finding against Yngvadottir, she regains the tools at the end of the case. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Also: If anybody can tell me what policy or procedure "At wit's end" comes from, I would like to know. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed from the news last night that the mainstream media is now getting strongly behind a campaign to out misogynists [7]
“ | I'm sick and tired of women being held responsible for the actions men choose to take. Don't report abuse because it might have detrimental effects on a man's reputation or career. Think of his family. What about his employers? Why are you doing this to him? It's not fair. Why can't you just suck it up and take the bullshit, misogyny and abuse that men think is their right to express every day? Why can't you just do that? Why do you have to be such a f---ing bitch about it? | ” |
— Clementine Ford |
@ Newyorkbrad:: Eric's refusal on principle to appeal blocks has nothing to do with this case. This case is about admins who are not content creators and therefore have no prima facie need for access to the tools at all using them to threaten content creators. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian: Five people. I blocked him too. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 03:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Sagaciousphil: The sentiments you expressed are not acceptable in 2015. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Please resysop Yngvadottir, either forthwith or after a reasonable period of time. Perhaps 3A of this motion regarding an administrator who reversed an AE action might be a suitable precedent? Permanent desysop is disproportionate - the evidence presented does not show any history of improper behavior. WJBscribe (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Developing the reasons why I believe a remedy is needed in relation to Yngvadottir, my understand is:
I don't think leaving this at the level 2 desysop is appropriate and ask that ArbCom include a remedy by way of final adjudication on this point. This isn't a mere procedural issue, I think it important that the Committee directs its mind now that the dust has settled to whether a permanent desysop is appropriate in this case (which seems to be exactly what level 2 requires according to ArbCom's own procedures). WJBscribe (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can't say I'm surprised, but unless some enforceable sanction against EC passes, or EC's status on Wikipedia is reinstated, the drama continues. Personally, I think a ban on EC could be justified, not necessarily because he is a disruptive editor, but because his actions cause disruption. On the other hand, I don't understand Gamergate.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Remember the last AE case?
The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering: [...] the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.
So why on earth are you now proposing to desysop Black Kite in part due to his behavior during that period? Brustopher ( talk) 17:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
<removed per request?
@ Worm That Turned: - Dave, while I'm not leaning one way or the other regarding your civility vs. gender" discourse, I did have an observation. Once patience is exhausted, often the forethought of words is exhausted at a similar pace. More directly: (and IMHO) - as patience is worn down, often over years, then often speech becomes more blunt. — Ched : ? 10:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
As a member of the Wikippedia community I submit a motion that this case be dismissed and vacated.
— Ched : ? 16:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to say that I endorse User:WJBscribe's view that some decision should be made over the desyop of Yngvadottir on whether it is permanent or temporary etc. I also endorse the view that case such as 3A may present a good precendent for these sort of occurences. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 04:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@ LFaraone: it says in the procedures at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions "Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place" I stress while investigations take place. It goes on later "...If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances." It's quite clear that a Level II desysop is meant to be temporary from how the procedures are written. Of course you can determine now that the desysop is permanent if you so wish (as this is normal arbitration proceedings i.e. a case), but this doesn't stop the Level II from being temporary, or at least according to how the procedures are written. And in the original motion from 2009 is entitled Procedure for temporary removal of permissions [8]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 04:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DeltaQuad: A small point, but I think you meant to say "blindingly obvious" rather than "blindly obvious", which sort of has an opposite meaning, basically extremely versus without being able to see. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Once again, apologies for the lateness of this contribution - I haven't been keeping an eye on Arbcom cases lately. If these suggestions are too late for the Committee to consider this time around, perhaps they might be worth considering with regard to future cases of this kind.
Again, I hope the Committee will at least consider such an approach in future deliberations, if not in this one. Regards, Gatoclass ( talk) 05:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I cannot endorse the new remedies, 9 and 10, proposed by DeltaQuad. Neither add anything useful to existing procedures in my view and would only add further complication and more confusion, for example, there are no definitions for "higher block times" or "minor/major infractions". Both remedies would be likely to lead to more drama in addition to discouraging administrator participation at AE. Arbcom should not in my view be crafting a host of "special" AE procedures like this for dealing with just one user; that is not a principled approach and smacks of preferential treatment. Gatoclass ( talk) 15:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I really hate to bail you ding dongs out after you accepted a case you never should have accepted and then found out (a) there really was no ongoing situation requiring Arbcom intervention; and (b) there really is no way out of the current case without alienating a huge swath of politically-aware Wikipedians. Either an "unjust" ban of Eric Corbett will be delivered (to borrow a phrase from one ban-happy Arb) and there will be mass discontent over the unreasonableness of the outcome; or else EC will walk and there will be another round of wailing from The Usual Suspects over boys on Arbcom giving a big, bad "misogynist" a free pass. Never mind the fact that he's clearly not a misogynist — that's how it will be spun to the press, and you know it.
The way out is pretty simple: (1) say "We screwed up here, there never really was a case at hand, we never should have taken it. There was an excessive block reversed out of process and a needlessly hasty desyssop of the reverser. Things were already more or less resolved before the case was ever accepted. Sorry, our bad!" (2) Fix the original stupidity, which was the mandate for "escalating blocks" for Eric Corbett. Punishments should fit transgressions, not follow some mathematical formula to be exploited by his personal enemies (who include a number of the main actors in this case, including sitting members of ArbCom). Say this: "Henceforth, Eric Corbett's topic bans remain in place, but the prescription for escalating blocks is vacated."
The situation is what it is. We shall survive, politicized wailing notwithstanding... There never really was a case here. Carrite ( talk) 06:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't get the At wit's end remedy. Surely Remedies are supported by Findings of Fact, which renders this redundant. Or is it supposed to be...what....a trump card in case the committee "feels" someone is just "not right" but can't find Findings of Fact to support...? It sounds ominously arbitrary.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1) I fail to understand why a ban for Eric Corbett is even being considered. EC said he would've served the 1-month block, concerning GGTF. Just because alot of drama occured around EC, doesn't mean EC should be punished.
2) I fail to understand why a topic-ban is being considered for Giano. So he utters criticism, if anybody doesn't like it? don't read it.
There's too much of a trigger happy approach to AE. If someone does breach, then allow somebody to calmly report it at AE. Then allow administrators to review the report (atleast for 24hrs) & give their reasons for blocking or not blocking. TBH though, folks would be better off not keeping an eagle eye on those of us under Arb restrictions. GoodDay ( talk) 16:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Updating: The clerks may want to update the Proposed decision posted date to unknown. GoodDay ( talk) 16:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Which finding of fact is the pointedly vindictive proposed decision 3.3.3 (reverse topic ban) designed to address? Eric Corbett 21:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's time the truth was told. Arbcom won't close this case, which has dragged on for more than five weeks now, until they've managed to cobble together some punishment or other for me, ideally a ban. To do otherwise would be political suicide. Eric Corbett 21:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I've tried to keep out of it but this is now becoming ridiculous. It is as if the Committee is trying desperately to reach some sort of effective "judgement" when in fact anyone with an ounce of common sense would have rejected the case request in the first instance. You have painted yourselves into a corner and are now trying to justify doing so ... or at least that is how it seems with the latest attempt to break a deadlock.
I may regret saying this but if you are going to go down this route then I think you should examine closely the history of EvergreenFir with regard to Eric Corbett. I doubt you will get the truth any time soon but the entire affair stinks and much of the recent stuff (if not indeed this particular instance) is connected to one tell-tale who is lawyering like mad over technicalities while ignoring the bigger picture, ie: the baiting etc. I am utterly appalled. And if anyone raises AGF, well, sue me: there were some pretty unpleasant events at the recent Wikimedia DC Conference and it is no surprise to me that there is a coterie of attendees who have been active in this and previous cases. It is nothing less than a witch-hunt, based on a culture that is far from being accepted globally. Shame on you all. - Sitush ( talk) 00:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@
MarkBernstein: Rather than nerfing Gender Gap and AE1 in a rush to get out the door, it might be in the interests of the project to schedule this entire case to be restarted from scratch by the incoming committee.
,
Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?. The case should never have been accepted, period, and the proof of that is in the pudding. To use (and mix) yet more of the same, moving the goalposts at this late stage will only reinforce the plentiful opinions that Wikipedia doesn't know its arse from its elbow. -
Sitush (
talk) 00:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
"Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do this." If you are going to ban him, then ban him. If you are going to give him another "One more chance," then do so. If you wish to be creative, please make sure it addresses the disruption. The new restriction does not address anything. Evangeliman ( talk) 02:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you Arbs kidding me? You've been debating the same case for how long? Remember, this is ARBAE2, that's after ARBAE, ARBGGTF and Lightbreather in less than the time span of my 1.5 year old granddaughter. Not to even mention this and this. Pathetic. It's beyond pathetic and if you think the 'community' is responding here you are out of your mind. The community has lost all hope that this ArbCom has the ability to do anything at all. You have proven time and time again that there is no hope for any real decisions. You have been back and forth over and over, allowing endless disruption. Most of which come from reactions of your own enforcement. You've allowed a mob to turn you into a toothless, meandering body of nothing. Dave Dial ( talk) 06:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Dennis Brown:, I have added a link to Doug's proposal. Also, you give a straw man argument. There is no one that would support such a sanction against Eric in such a circumstance. Dave Dial ( talk) 17:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
For those confused by the new proposals, these are the end results of those proposals should they pass.
I think that's all I need to cover for now, and I await responses. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, bugger it. I'm going to comment.
There's a bloody good reason this case is happening, and will keep happening. It's because people are taking sides on different issues, then arguing at cross purposes assuming the people they are arguing with are taking the opposing view. So, you have one group focussed on civility, another on the gender gap, another on content creation. Throw in some friendships and grudges for extra problems.
So the committee has to decide at what level they want to fix things.
Causes | There is a gender gap on Wikipedia | Civility is essential for a collaborative project | Content creation is at the heart of what we do. |
---|---|---|---|
Effects of causes | Many people are trying to address the gender gap on Wikipedia, general opinion is that the atmosphere is a reason that women don't edit. On the other hand, civility is not well defined, with some standard Wikipedian behaviours being inherently uncivil. |
Those editors who do create content and create it well are generally well regarded on Wikipedia. | |
Focal point | Eric Corbett has a history of incivility while stewarding his prolific content creation, epitomising one of the perceived reasons that Wikipedia has a gender gap. This has lead to a lot of blocks of Eric Corbett and his topic bans. | ||
Symptoms | Eric Corbett is regarded as a "toxic personality" | Eric Corbett is subject to Arbcom restrictions and therefore Arbcom Enforcement. | Groups on either side are willing to go to the wall on this issue. |
Effects of symptoms | Eric is the focus of increased scrutiny and is understandably upset by his treatment. | Administrative actions cannot be undone without Arbcom sanctioning. Eric Corbett's blocks are often disproportionate to the incident due to the long history. |
That table sums up the issues from my point of view. You can't change the top or bottom row. So you've got a few choices, tighten restrictions on Eric Corbett, or loosen them. You could "Gordion Knot" the issue, by choosing one side or the other - i.e. Ban Eric Corbett all together or make him unsanctionable by the community. Doing either will mean significant griping by the other side, and the case will likely return next year.
If you want my suggestion, I'd recommend creating an updated definition for who can sanction or remove sanctions on Eric Corbett or a minimum standard of explanation. The normal definition of UNINVOLVED is not working. Yet, some blocks are infinitely more controversial than others, and it's not just the length of the blocks that has lead to that. You could limit the group that could make a decision individually to arbs or functionaries or crats or arbcom clerks or any other group. You could also leave it to AE for consensus - assuming you don't get someone closing it down too quickly.
You all know the issues. Let's try and find a solution that doesn't end up with us here again by June next year. WormTT( talk) 13:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to add more than I have to to the cacophony on this page, nor to repeat everything I wrote in my pre-acceptance statements a month ago, so just a handful of quick points:
Basically agreeing with everything NYB said above, specifically that closing this as quickly as reasonable seems called for, if for no other reason than to reduce the drama and amount of heat generated in an open case with rather clearly drawn sides. I also tend to agree with Dennis (and NYB) that the ideal way to go in this case, like in most cases where there are questions of degree involved, is to make the possible restrictions sufficiently open to interpretation to be able to deal with all situations, including potentially really trivial violations which don't require a major block and any situations involving unforseen circumstances. John Carter ( talk) 19:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I take issue with
Worm That Turned's "Focal point" that Eric Corbett has a history of incivility while stewarding his prolific content creation, which is perceived as one of the reasons that Wikipedia has a gender gap.
Perceived by whom? My perception is that the gender gap might be caused by a whole raft of things, including the wayward over-tagging and premature speedy-nominating at New Page Patrol by power-hungry editors (predominantly male?) which can be so unwelcoming to new editors dipping their toe into editing for the first time (of either gender, but just possibly more upsetting for women who are traditionally less confident in matters of IT). The occasional daft comment from EC does not cause the gender gap, and the collegial atmosphere of his user talk page is supportive to all who go there in good faith rather than to cause trouble. The over-wide sanctions, and the editors who follow his every word in the hope that he will step over a line, are the cause of the current absurd situation, where dozens of editors have expended a vast amount of time and energy over this case instead of writing an encyclopedia.
This whole drama has gone on far too long and I hope the Arbs will see their way to a solution before their term expires. Pam D 21:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
epitomising one of the perceived reasons that Wikipedia has a gender gap", an improvement. Pam D 21:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the second diff in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Proposed decision#Discussion_following_The_Atlantic_article, this one, which "could be reasonably construed as violating his topic ban". The comment, in which EC says he's not seen "this alleged misogyny", doesn't discuss the GGTF, and doesn't discuss the gender disparity among Wikipedians--this is what I mean with "slippage". One could argue it falls under the second restriction, but if, and only if, veeeery broadly construed. That leaves this one comment, in which he speaks of his own experience working with editors on FAs and GAs--lending additional support to DGG's statement in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Proposed decision#Kirill_Lokshin.27s_block, "the violation was too minor for a substantial penalty". Drmies ( talk) 23:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Concur w/ Dr Mies (and NYBrad, and PamD, and Giano, and Sitush, and Dennis Brown, and others). Further, "Garbage in [validity of arb case acceptance, original sanctions], garbage out [impossibility to render non-dysfunctional Proposed decisions]." IHTS ( talk) 13:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
A poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. Kurtis (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the thing to do now is to drop the stick, so to speak, and move on to other things. Jonathunder ( talk) 06:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Experience of this case has shown that skipping the workshop step does not improve efficiency. A number of proposals had to be reworked and votes were changed because all relevant facts were not explored before voting began. As one example, Giano was brought in as a party, surprising one or more arbitrators. As a second example, the amnesty covering Black Kite was not evident until somebody pointed it out. Had there been a workshop, such issues could have been clarified during an early draft, and a more polished proposed decision could have been presented to the arbitrators. Voting would then have gone more smoothly and with less strife.
Wise users who support this opinion:
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Callanecc ( Talk) & Liz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Salvio giuliano ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
→ Important notes for all contributors to this case
This case is contentious and has the ability to devolve very quickly. So, this is a heads-up on the procedures that have been adopted. First off, the clerks have been instructed to be very proactive in removing any inappropriate comments. These include:
Furthermore, the case will use a "single warning" system: clerks are authorised to issue an only warning to any editor who posts inappropriate comments; if the warning is not heeded, the editor may either be restricted from participating in this case or be blocked at the clerk's discretion. This applies to everyone, which includes the parties, involved onlookers, semi-involved onlookers, and people who wander in randomly (whether truly random or not). Finally, to prevent "drive-by" attacks and attempts to devolve this case, the case pages will be semi-protected and additional scrutiny will be paid to accounts that haven't participated in this dispute beforehand. If a new editor or an IP editor genuinely has something that needs to be said, they may ask a clerk to post it on their behalf. For the Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC) |
Sectioned discussion will be strictly enforced on all talk pages in this arbitration case. With the exception of clerks and arbitrators, all commenters must create a section for their statement in the form "[Username]'s section" and edit only within their own section. Threaded discussion may be refactored or removed by any clerk or arbitrator. Thanks, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 02:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC) |
I understand the committee's desire to focus the scope of this case to a minimalist set of editors, however such tunnel vision will not meet the goal stated on top of the evidence talk page: "Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision."
Meaning depends on context; this whole civility enforcement / gender gap / arb enforcement debacle has descended into
Pythonesque farce. Part of the fundamental problem is there is entirely too much focus by many editors on trying to make EC some sort of misogynistic villain. Although Wikipedia:: is
WP:NOJUSTICE Wikipedians have an inherent sense of, and desire for, justice, resulting in an acrimonious "not a villian" backlash, putting denizens of The Ninth Circle of Hell the arbitration committee in the middle. Volunteering for the committee has got to be the equivalent of the Monty Python "abuse" room.
In issuing the current "remove and escalating block" sanctions, the committee made a good faith attempt to "split the baby". That, in hindsight, we can see this hasn't worked doesn't imply fault on the committee, it implies it's time to do something else. Therefore, rather than "going moderate," I suggest the committee currently go big and go small.
Big: Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Evidence#The_word, EC should be significantly sanctioned, not for unproven personal attacks against anyone, but simply for WP:DISRUPT (drama mongering). I suggest something on the order of one to three month site ban. (The anticipated protests of "he'll leave forever!!!" should be met with "Not our problem.").
Small: Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Evidence#Admins_not_using_discretion, the ggtf sanction should be changed to "An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy; any editor reverting such a removal, except following a consensus of admins at WP:AE, may be blocked for up to 72 hours." NE Ent 15:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DGG:, @ LFaraone: Re [1], LFaraone is mistaken. There is a specific enforcement provision. "An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. ", which explicitly includes the less drama inducing provision of simply removing the comment. And you both should know that, given that you both voted for it. NE Ent 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.. L Faraone 02:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Given Etiquette finding, the Equality and respect finding logically is superfluous. Ya'll should consider exactly what you're trying to say by adding the second finding -- it is worse to treat another editor disrespectfully because of the listed attributes rather than because they're an IP, non an admin, part of the admin cabal or use the oxford comma? What about political affiliation? Is it okay to treat someone poorly because they are self-declared fascist?
Because I've learned original thought is highly overrated, and because she has more wiki-cred than I, I'll quote LilaTretikov (WMF) We need your support and your example of saying no to rudeness, disparagement and incivility when you come across it. Every culture is defined by the behavior it tolerates. We need you to unite in defense of our culture of collaboration. Without you WMF will not succeed. This is a critical time for public internet and with your support we can make it a better and more equitable place for all. ... emphasis on for all NE Ent 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Salvio giuliano For the "arbcom takes over" remedies, what would the proposed process be? ARCA? email? ping to committee at AE? Do individual committee members have the authority to act unilaterally (as previously individual admins did?) or does action require a passing motion?
Where those remedies overlap with DS (GGTF in general) is DS enforcement for the relevant individuals also reserved to the committee? If not it seems like another likely source of drama/lawyering.
If the answer above is "motion", the extra layers of BURO may cut down of frivolous sanctions, but I also fear that they will discourage legitimate action, especially as the committee can be somewhat slow to move. It seems like this will put a floor on sanctions (eg, its not worth dealing with something that will result in a 24/week block, if it took 2 weeks to get there). Perhaps that is the intent (to stop the snipers?), but I fear that will result in de-facto permission for low level drama. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way to avoid a repeat at what happened at Jimbo's talk-page? In my opinion as soon as Eric Corbett was mentioned along with something to do with the GGTF it should have been hatted, and CLOSED. Assuming good faith even if a newspaper or something of the like is brought to Jimbo's attention or anyone else's about Eric Corbett, and the GGTFsomething should be done about it as it is essentially going behind an editors back, and talking about them when they cant defend themselves. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I just want to say that if nothing in the form of remedies comes out of this case we are sure to see AE3. How many admin have to click the unblock button before the problem is realized that these blocks aren't sticking? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Seraphimblade: I saw your response to the topic ban. How much drama has occurred so far with regards to addressing anything Eric related publicly? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DD2K: I don't know.... I mean I haven't seen anyone try or mention double secret probation yet. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@ PamD: I don't know if you have noticed but Eric's talk-page is anything but "collegial". I agree that Eric is not the cause of the gender gap, but do not agree that this justifies or gives a free pass to bad behavior from editors. I said it before, and I will say it again the drama is caused by editors jumping on the dogpile. I will give an example: Someone posts on Eric's talkpage about how much they cant stand Jimbo. Editor x replies, then editor y then soon we have a full thread complete with the cherry on top images. Now you tell me, how does this accomplish anything other than getting others riled up? If the drama isn't about the gender gap, then it is about something else. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah... at this point I can see editors are starting to throw in things that are either out of scope, or hinting at a hidden agenda. When you arbs talk about the "community" do you mean the Wikipedia community as a whole? It would be great if there could be some more outside input rather than going with the community that has been following EC. My advice at this point is to close this talk-page, and keep the discussion limited to the arbs. After that, reopen the discussion here to chat. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why everyone is rushing to get this case closed, it is the holidays people do have plans I am sure. It is best to wait until after New Year's for anymore to really come out of this. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Some of these proposed findings and remedies are just laughable. "Having reviewed Kirill Lokshin's explanation for his block of Eric Corbett, the Arbitration Committee concludes that it was a reasonable exercise of discretion." Seriously? The only valid purpose of this case would be to desysop Kirill for abusing admin tools. Instead, the ArbCom excuses his outrageous misconduct and moves on to punish people who haven't done a thing wrong? Any of you voting in favor of this nonsense either haven't looked into the case before voting or lack the rational capacity to sit in judgment over others, and in either case you should resign. Everyking ( talk) 19:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Salvio giuliano: Without a workshop phase in this case it was difficult to get specific drafts and proposals on the table. Some people proposed stuff on the talk pages, and I tried proposing a solution in a subsection of my evidence but in both cases it was hard to discuss these proposals because of the talk page restriction that nobody can edit outside their own section. The specific remedy I proposed would probably look something like this:
GGTF Remedy 3.3 is amended in that block lengths for civility violations shall not exceed 72 hours.
The last time I proposed this it was not clear to what extent it was considered by the committee, so if it's the same to you, I would appreciate if this proposal could receive formal consideration this time. If it is to be rejected, that's fine, but I'd like to know it was at least considered by committee members. You are welcome to modify it however you like, but please consider adding something like this to the proposed remedies. ~ Awilley ( talk) 20:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
You are entirely correct that a modified 3.3 would not have prevented our current situation, though I would point out that the current situation demonstrates the problem with disproportionate blocks. I totally understand the need for escalating blocks, and I think they work well for stuff like vandalism, BLP, falsifying sources, trolling, etc. But I tend to view civility infractions as more of a petty crime (as opposed to a misdemeanor or felony). It's like parking illegally in a reserved space. It's certainly not a victimless crime, but the actual damage is small. In the real world if I park illegally I'll get a $60 ticket that is meant to prevent me from repeating that behavior. If I do it the next day, I'll get another $60 ticket. If you had rapidly escalating fines with, say, a $1000 ticket or jail time for Nth time offenders there would certainly be fewer repeat offenders, but you'd also have people publicly burning their parking tickets instead of paying them and clogging up the court system with appeals. Sure, if somebody is uncivil and they are also a troll, indef them, but when they are cranking out featured articles every couple of months it's different than if they're your average AN/I gadfly.
I don't deny that there would be some grumbling associated with each 72 hour block, but when I say "low-drama" I mean that no admin is going to sacrifice their bit to unblock, and the motivation to start and participate in one of the time-sucking AN/I threads will be substantially lower than if it were the three-month block required by 3.3. In terms of drama, 3.3 is a ratchet compared to this, and with this any drama wouldn't last more than about 72 hours.
I doubt that you have ever been blocked before, but I'll bet that if you ask an editor who has been blocked for 72 hours they'll say it's more than a slap on the wrist. For an otherwise productive contributor, it's more like a slap in the face.
I realize there's not consensus in our community on how to deal with civility violations from otherwise productive editors. But let me ask this: what message are you sending when you block a productive editor for 3 months for calling somebody a bad name? I agree civility is important, and I try to live by that, but is it more important than "building the encyclopedia"? (I credit User:Dennis Brown for that argument.) And is strictly enforcing the principle worth the disruption and collateral damage? Anyhow, I apologize for the length here, and I'm open to discussing this in some other forum if you wish. I realize this might not be the best place. Thanks for reading. ~ Awilley ( talk) 05:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Personal story for the interested |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Three years ago I came dangerously close to being blocked for 4RR. I had reverted twice on an article on May 30 and twice on June 1, and since nobody had made any edits on May 31 it looked like 4RR in the article history. A third party reported me, and the admin at AN3 didn't notice the mistake but decided not to block because I had been using the article's talk page. I was asleep when this all happened, so I would have woken up blocked if User:Nyttend had decided to simply enforce a rule without weighing other behavior. This incident greatly influenced the way I behave now as an admin. The (heavily refactored) AN3 report is here if anybody's interested. |
@ DeltaQuad: I'm glad that you and the other arbs are discussing possible alternatives, though at first glance I don't think the "reverse topic ban" is going to work as intended. I could imagine a situation where Corbett is mentioned or even pinged in some forum (one of our many noticeboards for instance) and is unable to respond. Or an article he's working on might be discussed at the NPOV or RS noticeboard and he wouldn't be able to participate. It doesn't solve any significant problem, it just makes it easier for him to slip up.
Anyway, if you're looking for ideas, you might consider opening the Workshop phase. There are lots of smart editors proposing decent remedies on this talk page, but given the low visibility and restricted format it's difficult for these proposals to receive the consideration they deserve. And I'm not just talking about my own idea above. I've seen the idea pop up several times that the gender gap topic ban should be significantly narrowed (for instance to WP:GGTF and its sub-pages), but I don't recall seeing any arbitrators giving this any serious consideration. ~ Awilley ( talk) 05:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This
project talk page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this
project talk page
has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{
in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was
last edited by
MalnadachBot (
talk |
contribs) 13 months ago. (
Update timer) |
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building the encyclopedia in a spirit of camaraderie and mutual respect.
Editors should treat each other with consideration and respect. 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.
Blocking is permitted when incivility causes serious disruption; however, administrators should use discretion when considering civility blocks. Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. Poorly considered civility blocks can worsen disputes and increase disruption. (See excerpts from current civility policy presented in evidence)
Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, in the sense that they are to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Escalating block lengths are typically used for serious and repeated violations of policy, and administrators are encouraged to use discretion in choosing block lengths. In general the length of the block should be proportionate to the amount of disruption caused by the user.
Since the civility and gender-gap-topic restrictions placed in the GGTF arbitration case, Eric Corbett's civility violations have decreased both in frequency and severity. However Eric Corbett has still been blocked frequently due to violations of the GGTF topic ban. (See relevant evidence presented by Worm That Turned and Awilley.)
Over the years Eric Corbett has frequently been unblocked, often out of process, and has on average served significantly less time than the original length of the blocks. The three times that Eric was blocked for 1 month all resulted in controversial unblocks. The first time resulted in the desysop of INeverCry, the second resulted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement, and the third resulted in the desysop of Yngvadottir. (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Evidence#Block_log_table_and_chart)
GGTF Remedy 3.3 is amended in that block lengths for civility violations should not exceed [insert value, suggest 72 hours]. Administrators are encouraged to use discretion in choosing what merits a block and what block lengths are reasonable and proportionate to the offense.
Remedies 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the GGTF arbitration case are amended in that the topic bans for Carolmooredc, Eric Corbett, Neotarf, and Two kinds of pork are narrowed to include only edits to and discussion about pages, talk pages, and sub-pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force.
I strongly support Knowledgekid87's comment, above, about the need to hat and close particular kinds of discussions on Wales' Talk page. Furthermore, I would like to see some possibility of a sanction applied to people who reverse the hatting and closing or attempt to open another section dealing with substantially the same material. Otherwise, one has a situation where gross violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPA take place under the excuse of tittle-tattle that has a disruptive tendency on wikipedia. I make no comment about any other proposed decisions in this case. I would also have liked to see some comment on the advisability of making statement's about particular named editors other than oneself to the media. DDStretch (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with NE Ent on a lot of points. This case myopically looks at the actions of a very small set of individuals and does nothing at all to address the root of the problems. Not even a finding or a principle which merely states "Editors and administrators should be able to open and enforce sanctions requests without harassment"? No topic bans or DS for raging against EC's sanctions, even for repeat harassers? What in these proposed remedies would prevent this matter from happening again exactly the same way with a different cast of characters?
That said, you're already getting a lot of heat for this, which was inevitable. I don't envy you folks your jobs right now. Gamaliel ( talk) 20:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian: "The only cases where the "fan club" raised a stink was when consensus at WP:AE was ignored or bypassed." Complete and total nonsense. I've was attacked and insulted by the "fan club" - and I still am on this page - for merely submitting a possible violation to WP:AE. There are plenty of other examples to disprove this absurd falsity. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In thinking about what Gamaliel just said directly above, it occurs to me that if ArbCom takes over the role of enforcing the sanctions, you could add to that remedy a statement about enforcing strict rules of conduct for editors who comment in those enforcements. I think that would be more manageable at this time than to try to topic ban some large but undefined population of editors. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 21:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I just want to say that, whatever else you decide to do or not to do here, the final decision needs to set a very clear line about reversing blocks that are issued as AE. I think that it's important that the community come out of this case with an unambiguous understanding of how not to have free-for-alls between administrators who disagree with each other. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I think proposed principle #8 answers my concern about the admin ready to throw himself under the bus. People are a lot less likely to do it for no purpose. You might want to clarify that "sanctions" includes a resignation of the bits.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Thryduulf, I don't understand your rationale on proposed principle #6. Can Jimbo override the committee's restrictions within his own userspace? Can anyone do that within their own? What's the basis for Jimbo being able to do that? He can't be acting on an appeal, since I see you have indicated there is no appeal to Jimbo (possibly because of his obvious involvement). It appears you are saying that Jimbo and his space are specially privileged in this regard, but the principle you voted for does not recognize any.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It's completely unclear from the proposed decision. You've weakened your own prior decisions, so it can't be intended to support administrators who do the AE dirty work. You've kicked out at one admin who's been "casting aspersions" while refusing to permit evidence against the multitude of administrators who've been aggressively supportive of Eric. You've modified your standing sanction against Eric so extensively that it has the effect of kicking one of the few admins willing to apply the sanctions (essentially saying "we guess this was within the rules, so we're going to change the rules so nobody else can ever actually apply sanctions against Eric again") - and your own decision pretty much falls in line with Giano's (far less diplomatic) position that admins are not doing it right. There are at least half a dozen other editors who were at least as offensive in voicing their opposition to Eric's block (the degree of misogyny and sexism in some of the statements and comments was truly mind-boggling, but this is not the first time Arbcom has been unable to recognize these problems) - so obviously offensiveness in respect of "gender gap" issues is not a factor in this decision. What, then, was arbcom's objective here? Because the posted PD comes across as "geez, maybe we shouldn't be so hard on Eric, but we're gonna whack anyone who says mean things about us". I can't see any problem having been solved here at all. Risker ( talk) 22:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
If I'm reading this proposal correctly -- and I see above (especially Risker) that I'm hardly alone in my mystification -- it contains a bill of attainder: one or two Wikipedians are to be subject to different laws than everyone else, and those rules are to be enforced through a separate (?but equal?) procedure.
Another interpretation of this proposal -- again, I may be misunderstanding its intended effect -- is that it creates an Order of Nobility, a class of Valuable Editors who are not subject to the whims of administrators and the caprice of the Community as other editors are, but who can only be sanctioned by bringing a complaint before The House Of Lords ArbCom.
This would, I admit, have the beneficial effect of regularizing the current situation, in which certain popular and influential editors are free to threaten, to be uncivil, or to take a stroll down mammary lane. Will other Unblockables eventually receive the same privilege of Direct Appeal To Caesar? How are they to apply for nobility?
One hazard -- doubtless overlooked -- is that editors having routine dealings with the Order Of Very Special Wikipedians ought to be reminded of their unique status, lest they (for example) inadvertently forget themselves in the heat of the moment and complain in the common courts of AN/I or AE. Perhaps ArbCom should also require persons subject to these Very Special provisions to indicate this in their signature -- “Baron Eric Corbett,” perhaps? Alternatively, the Unicode symbol ♔ might come in useful and save space. MarkBernstein ( talk) 00:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The proposed 3.1.10 reads "Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression." I agree with those wishing the clause were stronger and clearer. In addition, this sentence is impossible for two reasons:
Looking on from the sidelines with increasing dismay -- and you know that if my dismay about this mess is increasing, we’re talking about a whopping big pile of dismay -- it seems clear that you're stuck. Worse, some of you seem inclined to solve the problem by throwing out the original Gender Gap Task Force decision, either explicitly or by rendering its sanctions toothless. (No one is going to dare complain about anything the harassment posse undertakes if the harassers risk at most a 3-day break, and the complainants -- witness Lightbreather -- risk indefinite suspension with offsite harassment thrown into the bargain.)
Rather than nerfing Gender Gap and AE1 in a rush to get out the door, it might be in the interests of the project to schedule this entire case to be restarted from scratch by the incoming committee. MarkBernstein ( talk) 21:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Salvio Giuliano: - I see the diffs you just posted. One thing that confuses admins and others is the difference between excessive rhetoric and personal attacks or harassment. I've always held that the latter is sanction worthy, but the former isn't. Do you have any diffs of Giano that constitute a personal attack or harassment, rather than mere polemics against a perceived power structure? Do you have any diffs where people asked Giano to refactor such comments and he refused to do so? We have to be careful not to sanction people merely for dissenting, speaking truth to power. I agree that Giano's comments with respect to Eric's sanctions could be viewed as disruptive, and that it may be appropriate to limit him from commenting on discussions of Eric's sanction. But I don't see him Giano doing anything sufficiently bad to warrant a broad gender topic ban, one that will become a huge drama magnet. Jehochman Talk 15:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not a complete mess, which is something, I suppose, but the topic banning of more people from the Gender Gap Task Force is ridiculous. If the Gender Gap Task Force is to accomplish anything of value and use, it needs to hear from Eric and Giano. The entire Gender Gap Task Force is in danger of looking like it has been decided in advance what it will hear, from whom, and what the final outcomes will be. If that is the perception of more of the community, it will eventually die a slow, lingering death as people realise it's a waste of time - much like the Mediation Committee. Nick ( talk) 09:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I can instantly think of at least three powerful, strong women who were almost unknown until I created pages about them, they now rightly have very comprehensive pages. The best way to combat a gender gap is to research write pages and solve the problem ie: by hard work. Sitting on one's derriere, shouting about on talk pages, and crying foul every time anyone challenges a view on the gender gap is unlikely to do anything but worsen the problem and cause discontent. The Arbcom and certain editors connected with the Foundation are pursuing a political and wrongly perceived social agenda, and anyone who thinks this is for the benefit of the encyclopedia is very sadly mistaken. Giano (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Jehochman asks above "Why is Giano being topic banned from gender issues?.....I see no diffs showing Giano being disruptive on gender topic, no more so than people on the other side of the debate. We do not ban people merely for holding a contrarian political view.?" Besides Oh yes we do; the answer is simple; this Gender Gap cause has been hyped by Jimbo and Foundation and become a worthy cause to promote and publicly show Wikipedia's caring nature. However, its size and severity is poorly researched and practically unprovable and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Therefore, anyone daring to question it, is to be shut down. Josef Stalin would be proud of such actions. Unfortunately, this Arbcom is either taking its orders from above or too stupid to see the damage it's doing to what probably is a slight problem. Giano (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
So now we have another remedy being dreamt up to save the Arbcom's face [3] The case should never have been opened in the first place just to satisfy the blood lust of a few. Once you start dragging people in off the streets, it becomes even harder to justify, so the Arbcom is now dreaming up even more odd remedies, in the hope they can all agree on one, so that it doesn't look like the whole thing has been a monumental waste of time - which of course it is. Giano (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
This edit [4] by PamD is probably the most astute and sensible thing written since this case opened. I urge the Arbs and anyone professing to care about a Gender Gap to read it and take note. Giano (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This is all getting frightfully boring and very dull to even keep checking on, which I do as seldom as possible. Excluding the reference above, no one has said anything remotely interesting or relevant here for weeks and weeks; the Arbcom quite clearly have forgotten (if they ever knew) quite why they accepted the case in the first place. This is one of the problems which happen when one listens to the squeakings of the public gallery, a few pompous self-important Admins and Arbs-with-an-agenda, and then act on such squeaks. There's no resolution here which is ever going to work, any fool can see that. Whatever is passed: I for one will continue to pass comment on the Gender Gap as and when required - which to date has been hardly ever, so God knows why the silly motion to topic ban me was dreamt up - again listening to the squeakings of the ill informed I suppose. Whatever the dreary, failing outcome I shall continue to write content, help the odd, passing newbie and generally carry on as normal. I suggest this travesty which seems to have driven off the Devil personified (presumably that was the intention?) is quietly put to rest, before even more people start to question quite why this case was accepted! Giano (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll agree to that providing User:Kevin Gorman is given a similar ban. If he isn't, then you will find that this 'solution' is a cause for even more drama. The Foundation and its hirelings may be able to censor me and shut me up, but so many others too.....I don't think so. Giano (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm disappointed in this proposed decision. I was hoping it would succeed where the GGTF and GamerGate remedies have failed: helping to create an environment in which women and other minorities are welcomed and encouraged to participate. Instead it seems to be focusing on a few individuals, and even within that narrow scope imposing only more toothless remedies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Giano: I did not say that you said there was not a gender gap, I said that you argued there was not a gender issue on Wikipedia. Regarding your latest comment, where does the burden of proof fall? I'd be curious to see you show that the size and severity of the gender gap is a non-issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jbhunley on this. It's clear that the (unrecused portion of the) Arbitration Committee is unwilling to ban Eric Corbett, but the proposed alternatives are quite frankly useless. This is exactly what workshop phases are for. Despite the Arbitration Committee's current shortcomings, our clerks are fantastic, and I trust that they would have been more than capable of shutting down disruptive edits on workshop pages, which I assume was the concern that led to skipping that phase entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Man up boys
–
TheRedPenOfDoom
lol.
GorillaWarfare
(talk) 10:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DeltaQuad: Wow, that's incredibly disappointing. I was hoping this case would come up with a workable solution to Eric's disruption in the gender gap topic area and his supporters' disruption when he gets blocked. I was pessimistically assuming nothing would change. But I was not at all expecting that you would loosen the restrictions. He's had seven blocks in the ~year since the GGTF case. It takes at least a year of spotless editing for most sanctions we impose to be loosened or lifted, and even then it's iffy. You're suggesting that the Arbitration Committee should 1) reduce the maximum block length to what was formerly the minimum block length, 2) consider an exception to a normally bright-line rule (overturning an AE block against consensus results in a desysop), and 3) reduce the scope of the topic ban. And you want to do all of this after a year of more disruption?? Talk about special treatment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Dennis Brown: Modifying AE sanctions out of process generally results in a desysop. This is well known. It's not "torturing admins," it's handling tool misuse, Dennis. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
... that writing articles about women is a good way to close the gender gap. |
I am not disappointed by the proposed decision because it had to be expected. I said often enough that I think to hold a few individuals responsible for the gender gap is as easy as it is wrong. My proposal stands to better revert all bans and restrictions of the GGTF case, for a more amicable relation between individual editors of all genders which I believe to be possible in mutual respect. A motion for that, please, assume good faith. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I read below that it is a problem that Eric doesn't appeal. I understand his not appealing, for dignity. Consider "... a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader" ( The Trial). Appeal the inaccessible authority? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Today, I wrote several articles on the compositions by Jean Sibelius and a first about a woman in religion (the first of five, in a total of 122 on 15 Dec). How many decent articles could have been written with the skills put on this page? When saying that you write articles with about as many women as men is a violation of Something, that Something is wrong, and perhaps those who made it, and those who didn't challenge the making. Can someone tell me please how the restriction in question serves a reader? - I voted for people who don't forget the readers over following rulez and process. To desysop Yngvadottir in the name of closing the gender gap was the most absurd event I've seen in a while. - How about general amnesty - said so in August - and return to writing articles? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Giano, GorillaWarfare, et al.:
The gender gap, which is the ratio of men to women on Wikipedia, is a manifestation of gender bias. The real issue is the latter. Gender bias is the institutionalised behaviours and tendencies that hamper the participation of women or make it extremely unpleasant. It is undeniable truth - a truism - that women are systemically discriminated against by virtue of the fact that they are women. This does not mean that women are not discriminated in other ways, or that it's only women who are discriminated. If you admit that gender-based discrimination is real and that it does occur on Wikipedia (there's ample evidence to that effect), it may logically follow that women would be inhibited from participating in such an environment.
As for the sanctions (about to be) enacted, I'm convinced that they're counterproductive. Alienating those who do not appreciate a certain issue or disagree with us on a certain issue by imposing sanctions will not lead to their enlightenment; it will not lead to an understanding. What will happen is that the factionalism that's manifested around this issue will take root. Alakzi ( talk) 14:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
At first look, oh of course, the goddess forbid anyone should ever ban EC. Maybe we could schedule another one of these each month just to make it look like there's an ongoing process despite no resolution? </END SARCASM TAG>.
After 24 hour's of thought: Wikipedia bills itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but the whole behind the scenes structure of pillars, policies, guidelines, Admins, ANI, WP:BLP, WP:COI, WP:RS, etc, and Arbcom itself, demonstrates that isn't true. No-one can edit in any way they want. Despite the cheesy advertising those who stick around know & accept this. I'd like to see Arbcom stress the fact that - just as in content creation - there are rules about how we interact in any & all Talk spaces. This isn't a 'free speech' zone. Never was, never will be. End of story. The collective 'we' has rules on 'free speech' in articles just as we have them in Talk space.
I'd also suggest the more particular an editor is with their article work (content creation -such as to lauded GA standard) betrays the fact that this editor is more than able to hold their tongue in Talk space. They shouldn't be 'let off' but treated equally (I'm completely supportive of mitigating factors, including on & off wiki 'baiting' and abuse, they should be considered equally too).
If their content creation isn't trash then their Talk space contributions won't be either. If you have someone who produces wonderful content but regularly makes trash Talk page additions then you are looking at someone who is openly gaming the system. Their content work demonstrates their ability for self-control, they are just selectively choosing to ignore it. AnonNep ( talk) 12:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
So, election results are in & the current Arbcom retreated & retreated, then ground to a halt. *rolleyes* AnonNep ( talk) 14:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand you all had a very difficult decision to thread but AbrCom taking over the enforcement of Eric's and Giano's restriction is the worst decision you could possibly make. You entrench the idea that some editors are 'to-big-to-loose'. This is a system analogous to 'to-big-to-fail' and we all know how well that has worked out.
This decision, in trying to focus only on narrow issues, has both failed to deal adequately with the narrow issue and far, far worse has failed to address the split in the community that has led to this situation - editors who are considered to important/prolific/whatever to be able to manage when they misbehave and even worse the factions which both "protect" and "persecute" them. By trying to find a moderate, middle road this decision, which could have ultimately reduced the tension in the community, has just kicked the can down the road while. at the same time, has the potential to make ArbCom's decisions unenforceable and administrators' management of problematic long term editors even more problematic.
I am very disappointed that the Workshop phase was omitted here. Managing it might have been a pain in the ass but there would be more community buy in on the decision and that might have made the outcome better address the issues the community thinks are the problem here. My advice would have been to open up the Workshop and case participation more. There are huge rifts in the community and while a Workshop could have devolved into a shit-storm it is always easier to get buy-in in this type of situation after a good cathartic shit-storm. In this case none of the pressure has been let off and, if you vote to have special enforcement provisions of "vested contributors" as a class, and make no mistake once the precedent is made is will expand beyond Eric and this case, a huge amount of elasticity will be removed from the system and the community will shatter in some unknown way.
ArbCom is here to manage tough decisions and that means the easy answers are usually wrong and trying to take half measures will almost always result in long term problems and instability. Follow the rules and principles of the community not one or more factions of the community. In decisions likely to have far reaching effects stick to the projects ideals - one of which, for good or for bad, is that all editors should be treated the same. Be very, very careful before you enshrine a change in that principle and if you do you must make a bright line for who is and who is not in this new class. Autoconfirmed=10 edits, then we have the 500/30 editors now Vested contributor=what?. If you show you are simply unable to handle a single Curate's Egg editor and simply cut out an exception for him you have shown you are in fact unable to manage the role the community placed its trust in you to manage and that would be very sad for the project. There are ways to deal with this issue but this is not a very good one. Jbh Talk 15:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In AE 3 - The Gathering (shit) Storm I would strongly suggest that you 1) better define the case and 2) not restrict the parties and 3) make the hard decisions you have been elected to make - stop the minimalist tip-toeing, it does not work in this kind of situation. You should also read up in Protracted social conflicts and their resolution strategies - it takes a bit of imagination but several of Wikipedia's ongoing problems can be modeled as PSC's. Jbh Talk 15:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
One of my favourite articles on Wikipedia is Hannah_Primrose,_Countess_of_Rosebery. She was a fascinating woman about whom I would know nothing if it were not for this encyclopedia. You only need to examine this diff from 2006 [5] to see the sort of hard work that we should all be doing to reduce the Gender Gap on Wikipedia... Andrewdpcotton ( talk) 14:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
People seem to be using this talk page as a venue to air their complaints about the gender gap, the GGTF, etc. While that is the topic that precipitated this and other cases, it is not the subject. The subject is (1) the behavior of editors and (2) the enforcement of sanctions by other users. Given that, the scope and nature of the proposed decision seems reasonable enough.
Would I perhaps like harsher sanctions or position statements about the underlying topic of dispute, sure. But that's frankly beyond the rather clear purpose of this and related cases. This is a limitation of arbcom to an extent... unlike other political disputes that have arbitration decisions like Israel/Palestine or gun control, this topic is too ingrained into the community to expect topic-related restrictions to be enforced reasonably. Clearly even behavior-related restrictions related to the topic are too much.
It is fallacious to suggest that certain sanctions won't work because they have not in the past. The issue is not the sanction's content but the editors' reactions to them. If is perfectly reasonable to expect editors whose past behavior was disruptive who wish to continue with this project to alter their behavior in order to do so. Sanctions are a type of probation for problematic and disruptive users in lieu of outright bans. If they do not wish to continue with the project or cannot abide by the sanctions against them that allow them to, they should leave.
As was discussed in this case, the reason this problem as continued so long is not the ineffectiveness of the sanctions themselves but rather the ineffective enforcement of them because of the INVOLVED relationship with the disruptive users. Hopefully this decision will remedy that by removing this point of dysfunction. Hopefully it will work.
If you are commenting and only focusing on the topic, you are politicking. The topic is important but not the subject of this case. The subject is now and always has been the behavior of users. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Roger Davies: Given the lack of movement on most of the remedy proposals, perhaps proposing your own remedy regarding Giano would be useful? I think your opinion that civility should be the restriction, not the gender gap, is shared by other arbs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Also commenting to second Arthur Rubin's comment below. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Sitush I am not party to this case. My history with EC is well-documented through the arb com cases and AE. There's nothing more to it then that. You seem to be suggesting some conspiracy or something. I find it odd you select me out of all the commenters here to single out. Go cast your aspersions somewhere else. You might catch better fish there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 01:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: psst... you forgot to sign your comment in 1.1. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
So 3.3.8 makes the topic ban only about the GGTF, but now allows comments about the gender gap itself, right? This seems to be a step backwards. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc, Liz, Amortias - This talk page is getting it of hand with all the people who "can no longer keep silent" coming here to cast aspirations and users making nonsensical motions. I hope the clerks or committee will stop this nonsense so that discussion of the actual proposed decision can continue without this disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not the location of Eric's comments, it's their content. I'd venture to say most of the comments that led to sanctions took place within the spaces the reverse topic ban allows him to comment. This remedy does not address the actual problem. Not sure how restricting the location of edits on top of the other sanctions will change anything. He has proven to be perfectly capable of disruption within the spaces outlined. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I am confused how people can claim EC's topic ban was too broad. The recent American Politics 2 case was a broad topic ban. EC's is quite narrow: no gender gap stuff. Eric is fully capable of abiding by his topic ban but often chooses not to. It is disingenuous to suggest the topic ban itself is the problem. Kingsindian hit on the bigger problem: the inconsistent enforcement of the tban. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 02:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand this is not the most straight-forward case and that it's a contentious topic, but closure is needed. If there are discussions happening on the email lists, let the community know. Else we think you're just putting this off.
Currently the following items are still unresolved:
Section # | Section name | Arbs yet to vote |
---|---|---|
|
||
3.3.1.2 - Remedies #1.2 | Enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanctions (alternative 2) | |
3.3.3 - Remedies #2.1 | Eric Corbett reverse topic ban | |
3.3.5 - Remedy #4 | Giano topic banned | |
3.3.5.1 - Remedy #4.1 | Giano topic banned (2) | |
3.3.8 - Remedy #7 | Yngvadottir |
|
3.3.9 - Remedy #8 | "Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope)" modified | |
3.3.10 - Remedy #9 | Guidance for uninvolved administrators | |
3.3.11 - Remedy #10 | Escalating blocks provision |
|
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 15:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, the truth is whatever the ctte does people will cry foul. So, should something's fail? Like the weird enforcement procedure for one user? (IMO, yes, but in truth, even that weird thing will not much matter to the world). What does matter, is that most everyone should know that everything, everything they do here, as a User, is public, and open to public comment (Like by, The Atlantic magazine). Nonetheless, if one actually listens to other Users where they say (or even block) repeatedly in hopes of 'stop, don't, please,' you should do, ok.
As for Risker's comment, it's odd, when Risker presented no evidence, that she now says, 'but you should know, and care about what these other people said.' Refering to these "other" "misogynistic" and "sexist" comments without identifying them is just wrong. At any rate, this ctte is always pulled in two directions: 1) you should make broad philosopher-king like impact statements, or 2) you should focus narrowly on the parties before you, in the understanding that the future is guided, incrementally, by the past.
Good wishes to you, regardless (and perhaps, listen to the wisdom of: 'good enough, for non-Govcom work'). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 22:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Even were one to accept the decidedly unworkable concept, "minor" ban infraction, one still in reason blocks for "minor" infraction (which of course depends on the ad hoc personal predilections of individual admins POV of minor, or more corruptly, perhaps, personal favoritism or disfavoritism toward a user), so that "major" infractions do not occur in the future - thus protecting the pedia. You make it a game with this ad hoc "minor" bit, instead of what it should be and is in policy - no posts, means no posts. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 23:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
No, WJBscribe: The case-statement of the person you now want to drag through another discussion is more than clear: "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."
Meddling and dragging through other people's issues, when it is theirs to raise, is wrong in many, many ways. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
For all the hand wringing that goes on, it is useful to remember that Arbcom has one function: in accord with policy, bind users with respect to their exercise of rights on the project. The reason you have this binding power is because some entity on this project is chosen to corral the 'just do everything and anything' environment inherent in a wiki. Thus, the ctte can: 1) ban (incl. tban) any user; and 2) take away admin rights (or increase admin discretion)- that is all you do (warnings, etc are the thing that comes before those two). You cannot create special "other" categories of users.
Step back, and stop tying this up in knots. Follow and use procedure set up ahead of the individual case, that applies to everyone - that's fairness, and remember this is a website, you're a volunteer ctte, everyone must roughly get along --- most of all, do not invent one-offs. (And as an aside, thousands, upon thousands go without being banned, nor even blocked - it is not that hard) Alanscottwalker ( talk) 20:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
DeltaQuad: Sorry, I was simplifying. You can call it "editor restriction", if it suits you, it is still a form of ban, or removal of User rights (either the right to edit in an area, or in a certain way, or in performing a function). In order to have a restriction, it must be enforced and enforceable. That is where AE -- not the board, the act of enforcement -- comes in and, yes, you can fiddle with procedure again, and make it all more convoluted and decidedly unfair, by creating obstruction or applying it specially to one but not to all.
Take for example this 24hr after-the-fact procedure the ctte is now entertaining - every block done under that will be obstructed as "punitive" because it is 24 hours later. My message to the committee is you need to simplify and apply workable remedy procedure fairly for all. If you mean to restrict, restrict - don't then invent ways to confuse everyone. Your hope to solve this by being 'creative' does not change your basic tools, it will only make the ctte process more convoluted and unfair to all (editor restricted, and everyone else who needs to know who may, and who must not edit/act, and what happens when they do.) -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Gatoglass is correct. The new 9 and 10 are recipes for new drama with their vagueness and convolutedness. Moreover, this talk of "leadership" is a pride-filled canard. We don't have Arbcom to lead us, you are not GOVCOM (we have you to bind users, where consensus has failed to otherwise address the issues) and Admins are to just here to mop in accord with policy. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I was glad to see DGG opine and would prefer to see more of it. Personally, I think it is important to see where Arbs different in opinion and being in the minority should never be a bar to making a statement. I agree that while desysopping was a discussion worth having, doing it as an emergency measure seems overkill as there was no emergency, not even enough to revert the very action that led to the desysopping. This undercuts the "emergency" claim unless you really thought she was going to use the tools to do more actions. And if the majority disagree, fine. The consensus model requires that every reasonable position be heard. As for the outcome, one has to wonder if it was decided before the case started, so expressing an opinion about it seems pointless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Utterly ridiculous proposal designed to shame Eric off the website. I'm sorry, maybe the proposal was made in good faith or with good intent, but it comes across as so demeaning and cowardly that I can't sit and say nothing. You should be narrowing his topic ban to specific areas if you want to prevent disruption, but that would require admitting you went a little too far, and lord knows that isn't going to happen with the Arb of 2015. So far, the sanctions you've imposed this year have been so ill thought out, so broad and unenforceable that we shouldn't be shocked you are doubling down with this farcical proposal. All because of a few comments, mainly defending himself, on Jimbo's page, and an admin (for whatever reason) decided to jump in an overreact to what common sense says should have been a 0 to 72 hour block. If anything, Kirill has cause more drama than Eric in this case by his poor judgement, you can't even agree on that. It is sad that this incompetent ArbCom started a case where one wasn't needed, can't agree to a single remedy, so it picks the lowest hanging fruit: do something bad to Eric, just so it can say it did something. I am totally disgusted and ashamed of what we have become. I (used to) like many of you Arb individually, but as a Committee, you are one big, collective asshole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
We have to be careful to not create policy here. I know this isn't popular, but the original problem was on the gender related pages, after all, and it requires some guts to remedy that. Going so far in the topic ban looked like you were silencing dissent, even if that wasn't your intention. Here is how I see solutions:
Obviously some tweaking is needed, I'm not a drafting Arb, but the intent should be clear: We seek a workable solution, even if we don't like it. To me, this is a direction that doesn't excuse the minor offense (and it was an offense, and it was minor) but actually provides some leadership and a path moving forward. This isn't rewarding Eric, it is just leveling the playing field and giving him a fighting chance to comply. He has complied with the RFA sanctions, because they were narrow and simple. Let's learn from that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand Amanda, it is so frustrating, and I'm not at you personally, I'm mad you all collectively. Everyone here is. Being a older and more experienced guy, I can envision that that the Arb mail list is a mess of arguments and name calling over principles, when it needs to just focus on solutions. ALL ARBs need to realize that there is zero chance of coming up with a solution that anyone really likes. The best you can do is come up with something that is workable, and common sense say it is better to err on the less harsh side; you can always up the ante later. I didn't like the sanctions to begin with, but I respect you guys want them; Fine, then just make them easier to follow by narrowing, yet making it easier to give 72 hour blocks without requiring AE. Fix it so borderline blocks can be dealt with like regular issues, with no Arb baggage. Sometimes you have to give more than you want, but that is life, and that is leadership. Leadership doesn't mean getting your way, leading means blazing a trail that others will actually follow, even if a bit grudgingly. Scale it back, tighten it up, and for god's sake end this thing. All of you, please go read the two quotes on my user page. You might find something of use, and it's shorter than Brad's (worthwhile) essay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ DD2K Doug didn't propose anything, Amanda did. Amanda's proposals would not change the status of Yngvadottir. DGG proposed something last week but Amanda actually opposed it, so obviously that isn't the goal and these three new proposals won't affect Yngvadottir's status. I would note that the sanctions give in lieu of a ban aren't being removed, they are being narrowed in scope as to make them more enforceable. As it stands, if on his talk page Eric were to simply say "I like working with women at FA and wish there were more women editors to work with", some would say that is a blockable offense, even though there is nothing offensive about it. THAT is the problem. The change is simply preventing him from participating in the ONLY place the Finding of Fact showed he was being disruptive. Some see that as easing up, and maybe it is, but it is doing so to more properly match the FoF in the first case, and prevent unnecessary blocks where he isn't actually disrupting anything. It is an actual solution that still stops the disruption he caused in the first case, which is what it should have been limited to anyway, per the actual FoF. None of this is perfect. It never is at Arb. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@ DD2K, not a strawman, only an extreme example, and if you think there aren't some admin willing to block him for a comment like that, you are mistaken. The problem isn't about supporting the block, the problem is that if an admin made that block, it would have to go to ARCA to be appealed and probably another Arb case. So the advantage is to the admin giving a bad block, virtually encouraging it. Most importantly, a sanction is supposed to reflect the Finding of Fact, and in the previous case, it didn't. This is just Arb fixing their own error. If he goes over to the Gender Gap areas, he will be blocked, period. That hasn't changed. All this suggests is that we don't punish someone for politely disagreeing with Gender NewSpeak. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@ GorillaWarfare and DeltaQuad: GW, you are saying we need to desysop MORE admin as the solution? And we need to do MORE punishment to them? The stocks, perhaps? Indef block until they grovel at the feet of Arb? Instead of coming up with creative torture methods for admin and playing out our little vendettas, we need to grow up and and find solutions that cause fewer problems in the future by clarifying and narrowing the scope of existing sanctions, AND give guidance to admin. We can't solve this by simply being mean to people, Molly. [6] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@ GorillaWarfare Your comment "Maybe impose additional consequences if you think the desysops are ineffective." is mean and childish, period. You are saying we need more threats, I'm saying we need more solutions. You have lost all perspective here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Amanda, I forgot to address one point about Yngvadottir. If you think the emergency deysop was a mistake, then you have to decide what is more important, fixing that mistake and collectively admitting it was an innocent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless or 2) Worrying about appearances when an admin considers reversing an AE block. As admin already know they can be desysopped, and in this case, Yngvadottir said as much before the unblock, I don't see any value in that position: We already know that our bit is at stake if we reverse an AE decision, but we would expect it would be by a case so both sides can be heard, not based on a single email, in the heat of passion. The same is true with the original GG sanctions.
Every email I've received on this says the same thing, that this Arb can not give an inch and admit a simple error. It looks like pride over justice. Other ArbComs have fine tuned their previous sanctions before, this ArbCom seems unwilling or unable. To all of you, again I would say that you don't have to like the solution, it just has to be workable and clearer moving forward. It has been almost four days since Newyorkbrad has weighed in with a nugget of wisdom, yet nothing has happened on the public side, and we are over 3 weeks late even after skipping the workshop. It is time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Among the many glaring issues of the proposed decision so far is a complete lack of the ArbCom taking responsibility for the crucial role they have played in generating and nurturing this clusterfuck. Man up boys and show some clue that you understand what is going on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
5.2) Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. 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.
@ Doug Weller: You appear to be explicitly suggesting that if two admins disagree, to the extent of overriding each other's actions, about the legitimacy of a block on an editor, that editor should be banned. Is that your position? Burninthruthesky ( talk) 18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner How can you conscientiously vote for action you personally view as a "Not necessarily just" response to "extremely defensible" behaviour? No doubt it would be expedient to scapegoat Eric for disruption by others, but the WP:CIVILITY policy doesn't allow it. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 17:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It was mentioned in evidence that blocks should not be punitive, they must be preventative. I suggest the committee add this as a statement of principle, and determine how it applies to Kirill Lokshin's block. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 08:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
3.1.10 touches on the harassment policy. This policy also says:
Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project.
The prohibition against harassment applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to harass any other user.
Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor.
The committee must ensure policy is applied fairly to all. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 08:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
See also our own article on Workplace bullying#Forms:
Regulation bullying — where a serial bully forces their target to comply with rules, regulations, procedures or laws regardless of their appropriateness, applicability or necessity.
The sole basis for action against Eric appears to be the fact he made "two further comments ( 1 and 2), which could be reasonably construed as violating his topic ban." They could also be reasonably construed as within the spirit of BANEX, yet some are now calling for a site ban. How can this be viewed as appropriate and necessary? Burninthruthesky ( talk) 09:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yngvadottir chose to IGNORE the rules when unblocking a user she felt was being "treated uncivilly". Administrators have wide latitude to use their permissions to stop misconduct and damage to the encyclopedia. I commend the suggestions that have been made for the committee to consider offering her bit back. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 08:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I will confine my remarks to the topic of arbitration enforcement which people have completely forgotten, including, in one instance, I am sorry to say, the committee itself.
If Giano's conduct regarding EC is bad why is he being banned from gender topics? Just ban him from participating in AE cases regarding Corbett instead of extending the broken remedy even further.
Now to the larger point. When will the cttee affirm that ggtf is special because it is explicitly political (and a good thing too) A political issue especially an emotional issue like this cannot be solved by muzzling people expressing opinions. Concentrate on DISRUPTION instead. How exactly is EC disrupting WP by simply mentioning gender on his or jimbo's talk page ?
How many desysops and disillusionments will it take for the cttee to realize that the fault lay in the remedy itself? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
If the topic ban scope is to be changed, the committee should also consider the option of narrowing the scope instead of broadening it. The advantage of this approach is that one does not need to think up convoluted remedies like "reverse topic ban". Just ban Corbett from the GGTF page, as should have been done in the original case - which was called "interactions at GGTF" for a reason. A few arbitrators including Newyorkbrad and NativeForeigner even indicated their support for this in the original case. The GGTF project does not "own" the concept of the gender gap - it is merely an initiative to address it.
I understand that this might feel to some people as rewarding Corbett, but please, use some common sense. Concentrate on disruption: Corbett mentioning GGTF on his talk page is not "disruption", unless someone is watching it to report him to WP:AE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DeltaQuad: This is a slightly long, but simple illustration of how absurd this remedy is. I am not sure if people have read this case which I gave in my evidence (my experience on the internet makes me cynical). It is worth going over that case to elaborate point 2 in my statement. And for all the people who still claim, based on no evidence, that the remedy is clear, and if Eric Corbett violated it, it must be his fault.
Just read the discussion among uninvolved admins. I will attempt to summarize it here, but I am biased, so don't take my word for it. On the one side there was
Callanecc with the interpretation that this was a violation which should result in action. On the other side, counselling closure with no action, there were
Newyorkbrad,
Black Kite,
Bishonen,
Zad68 and
Ymblanter. I hope nobody believes that all the people in the latter group are Eric Corbett fanboys (or fangirls). If you read the discussion, you will discover that Callanecc pushed decently hard for their interpretation, leading Eric Corbett to remark that, "This is all very tiresome. Callanecc clearly wants to issue a 72-hour block for something or other, so I suggest that he just gets on with it and stops wasting everbody else's time."
. Eventually, a compromise was reached where Eric Corbett was given an IBAN with Lightbreather.
Now I quote Newyorkbrad's reply to Callanecc's view of whether the topic ban was violated:
That is a formally defensible view and has the advantage of reflecting a clear, bright-line, readily enforced standard. Nonetheless, in this context, I continue to disagree, because the purpose of remedies is to prevent disruption of encyclopedia-building and community harmony, and seeking out this sort of violations on the user's own talkpage does not really serve that goal. (In the words of Benjamin Cardozo, relevant by analogy here, "Jurisdiction exists that rights may be maintained. Rights are not maintained that jurisdiction may exist.") However, I take a harsher view of Eric's post on Lightbreather's talkpage, and while I will not support a block for that so long as it is not repeated, I instruct him to stay off that page.
It will come as no surprise that soon afterwards, in a different case, Eric Corbett was blocked by *drumroll* Callanecc (there was no WP:AE report). The "crime" was linking to a GGTF mailing list post on his own talkpage. And giving fries with the burger, Corbett's block length was doubled due to him violating the IBAN with Lightbreather.
I again stress that I do not accuse anyone of impropriety or bad faith.
What is the moral of the story? Is the moral that Eric Corbett is a naughty child? Maybe you believe that. But is it an accident that the only person with legal training in the whole group (correct me if I'm wrong), who happens to be a respected ex-Arb, and who voted on the remedy, is also the person who said "concentrate on disruption"? Is there any doubt, in hindsight, that if their sage advice was heeded, 95% of the subsequent drama would be eliminated? Is there any doubt that Kirill Lokshin's block did not reflect that interpretation? Is there any doubt that the interpretation of the remedy is unclear, even among the people supposed to implement it (and some who wrote it, for God's sake!)? Is there any doubt that this means the remedy is fucked up? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I generally agree with the new remedies proposed, (8 obviously, but 9 and 10 as well), but I would not call it "leadership". Let's just say that ArbCom stock is not high among people commenting on this page, so any talk of leadership would be treated as risible. What I see in the remedies is ArbCom trying to clean up its own remedies, making them clearer and less onerous. And that is all to the good, in my view.
The elaboration in the remedies 9 and 10 are already the practice as AE. Look at the past 5 archive pages at WP:AE and find me a single case which violates them. Every single non-obvious case (the obvious one was BenMcLean, an obvious WP:NOTHERE account) took more than 24 hours, had several admins commenting, consensus among admins was respected, people concentrated on disruption rather than technical violations (see this , this and this for technical violations which were dealt with sensibly without blocks) and everyone explained their reasoning thoroughly. Why such things did not happen with Eric Corbett is something I will not speculate over here, I have already given my view. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@
Guerillero: Regarding your comment
here: Your comment that The
"I am coated in Teflon because I have loud friends defense" is muted when admins enforce our decisions because they don't have to go get a consensus."
is superficially plausible, but, in my opinion, the evidence I submitted shows precisely the opposite. The only cases where the "fan club" raised a stink was when consensus at
WP:AE was ignored or bypassed. In contrast, every single time the complaint went through
WP:AE, the block held for the full duration, with nonzero but minimal grumbling. Also, in my opinion, the actions were much saner (blocks were sometimes applied, sometimes not). This is just another way of rephrasing the common observation: "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done".
I do understand your concern that this may put off admins commenting at WP:AE. But may I suggest that this could also work in reverse? If the decision is taken by (rough) consensus among multiple uninvolved admins, then a single admin will not bear the brunt of the fanclub's wrath. People won't open ArbCom cases against a whole group. You have much more experience than me, but I have participated and watched a fair number of cases at WP:AE. This is my own opinion on the matter.
Finally, may I suggest that the term "fanclub" is slightly off the mark? Admins have block buttons, proles only have numbers on their side. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Please put this long suffering case out of its misery. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding restricting an editor to edit articles only, as mentioned on the proposed decision page and this discussion page: the nature of collaborative editing requires the ability to discuss changes, so a complete ban from article talk pages is problematic. isaacl ( talk) 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding allowing other editors to register an appeal of sanctions: as I mentioned during the previous arbitration case, a key problem with allowing others to request a review is that it takes the decision out of the hands of the affected editors. As the ones who have to live with the consequences, it is desirable to give them control of when and how a request is presented. A badly-worded request by an overly-eager objector, for example, can torpedo its chance at success, and typically there's only one immediate opportunity to get it right. I don't believe it is fair to the sanctioned editors to let someone else preempt any plans they may have to make a request, or to deliberately not make a request. isaacl ( talk) 07:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Hawkeye7's comments: I agree that the Arbitration Committee has the responsibility to specify clear criteria for enforcement in its remedies. As I mentioned in the previous Arbitration Enforcement case, as a practical matter this criteria must supersede, to some degree, the ordinary thresholds for action (if the remedy intends to allow for typical administrator discretion, this can be explicitly stated). Otherwise, it is too difficult to determine if an administrator is second-guessing or obstructing the enforcement of a decision. Salvio giuliano indicated a general agreement that the committee indeed has this responsibility. isaacl ( talk) 06:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
A case with this many issues and no passing remedies that do anything. AE3 is going to end up as a case in the near future :/ Kevin Gorman ( talk) 03:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This is outrageous. ArbCom creates enforcement rules like: "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." The enforcing admin is given no choice but to issue a one-month block for any violation, however minor. Then ArbCom weighs in and says things like: "the violation was too minor for a substantial penalty regardless of what had previous occurred. It was technically justifiable, but it was poor judgment. Better judgment would have been a short ban to make the point." I'll tell you whose judgement is poor: ArbCom's. Don't create enforcement rules if you don't want to see them enforced. Take some responsibility for your own actions. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 18:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Courcelles: If you are not taking enforcement of the case off AE, could you at least grant the editor who dobbed Eric in amnesty? AE considers such reporting groundless or vexatious complaints that warrant blocking. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 04:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Giano: Just what country do you think this is? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
WJBscribe's interpretation looks correct to me. If there is no finding against Yngvadottir, she regains the tools at the end of the case. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Also: If anybody can tell me what policy or procedure "At wit's end" comes from, I would like to know. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed from the news last night that the mainstream media is now getting strongly behind a campaign to out misogynists [7]
“ | I'm sick and tired of women being held responsible for the actions men choose to take. Don't report abuse because it might have detrimental effects on a man's reputation or career. Think of his family. What about his employers? Why are you doing this to him? It's not fair. Why can't you just suck it up and take the bullshit, misogyny and abuse that men think is their right to express every day? Why can't you just do that? Why do you have to be such a f---ing bitch about it? | ” |
— Clementine Ford |
@ Newyorkbrad:: Eric's refusal on principle to appeal blocks has nothing to do with this case. This case is about admins who are not content creators and therefore have no prima facie need for access to the tools at all using them to threaten content creators. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian: Five people. I blocked him too. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 03:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Sagaciousphil: The sentiments you expressed are not acceptable in 2015. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Please resysop Yngvadottir, either forthwith or after a reasonable period of time. Perhaps 3A of this motion regarding an administrator who reversed an AE action might be a suitable precedent? Permanent desysop is disproportionate - the evidence presented does not show any history of improper behavior. WJBscribe (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Developing the reasons why I believe a remedy is needed in relation to Yngvadottir, my understand is:
I don't think leaving this at the level 2 desysop is appropriate and ask that ArbCom include a remedy by way of final adjudication on this point. This isn't a mere procedural issue, I think it important that the Committee directs its mind now that the dust has settled to whether a permanent desysop is appropriate in this case (which seems to be exactly what level 2 requires according to ArbCom's own procedures). WJBscribe (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can't say I'm surprised, but unless some enforceable sanction against EC passes, or EC's status on Wikipedia is reinstated, the drama continues. Personally, I think a ban on EC could be justified, not necessarily because he is a disruptive editor, but because his actions cause disruption. On the other hand, I don't understand Gamergate.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Remember the last AE case?
The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering: [...] the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.
So why on earth are you now proposing to desysop Black Kite in part due to his behavior during that period? Brustopher ( talk) 17:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
<removed per request?
@ Worm That Turned: - Dave, while I'm not leaning one way or the other regarding your civility vs. gender" discourse, I did have an observation. Once patience is exhausted, often the forethought of words is exhausted at a similar pace. More directly: (and IMHO) - as patience is worn down, often over years, then often speech becomes more blunt. — Ched : ? 10:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
As a member of the Wikippedia community I submit a motion that this case be dismissed and vacated.
— Ched : ? 16:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to say that I endorse User:WJBscribe's view that some decision should be made over the desyop of Yngvadottir on whether it is permanent or temporary etc. I also endorse the view that case such as 3A may present a good precendent for these sort of occurences. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 04:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@ LFaraone: it says in the procedures at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions "Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place" I stress while investigations take place. It goes on later "...If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances." It's quite clear that a Level II desysop is meant to be temporary from how the procedures are written. Of course you can determine now that the desysop is permanent if you so wish (as this is normal arbitration proceedings i.e. a case), but this doesn't stop the Level II from being temporary, or at least according to how the procedures are written. And in the original motion from 2009 is entitled Procedure for temporary removal of permissions [8]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 04:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DeltaQuad: A small point, but I think you meant to say "blindingly obvious" rather than "blindly obvious", which sort of has an opposite meaning, basically extremely versus without being able to see. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Once again, apologies for the lateness of this contribution - I haven't been keeping an eye on Arbcom cases lately. If these suggestions are too late for the Committee to consider this time around, perhaps they might be worth considering with regard to future cases of this kind.
Again, I hope the Committee will at least consider such an approach in future deliberations, if not in this one. Regards, Gatoclass ( talk) 05:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I cannot endorse the new remedies, 9 and 10, proposed by DeltaQuad. Neither add anything useful to existing procedures in my view and would only add further complication and more confusion, for example, there are no definitions for "higher block times" or "minor/major infractions". Both remedies would be likely to lead to more drama in addition to discouraging administrator participation at AE. Arbcom should not in my view be crafting a host of "special" AE procedures like this for dealing with just one user; that is not a principled approach and smacks of preferential treatment. Gatoclass ( talk) 15:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I really hate to bail you ding dongs out after you accepted a case you never should have accepted and then found out (a) there really was no ongoing situation requiring Arbcom intervention; and (b) there really is no way out of the current case without alienating a huge swath of politically-aware Wikipedians. Either an "unjust" ban of Eric Corbett will be delivered (to borrow a phrase from one ban-happy Arb) and there will be mass discontent over the unreasonableness of the outcome; or else EC will walk and there will be another round of wailing from The Usual Suspects over boys on Arbcom giving a big, bad "misogynist" a free pass. Never mind the fact that he's clearly not a misogynist — that's how it will be spun to the press, and you know it.
The way out is pretty simple: (1) say "We screwed up here, there never really was a case at hand, we never should have taken it. There was an excessive block reversed out of process and a needlessly hasty desyssop of the reverser. Things were already more or less resolved before the case was ever accepted. Sorry, our bad!" (2) Fix the original stupidity, which was the mandate for "escalating blocks" for Eric Corbett. Punishments should fit transgressions, not follow some mathematical formula to be exploited by his personal enemies (who include a number of the main actors in this case, including sitting members of ArbCom). Say this: "Henceforth, Eric Corbett's topic bans remain in place, but the prescription for escalating blocks is vacated."
The situation is what it is. We shall survive, politicized wailing notwithstanding... There never really was a case here. Carrite ( talk) 06:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't get the At wit's end remedy. Surely Remedies are supported by Findings of Fact, which renders this redundant. Or is it supposed to be...what....a trump card in case the committee "feels" someone is just "not right" but can't find Findings of Fact to support...? It sounds ominously arbitrary.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1) I fail to understand why a ban for Eric Corbett is even being considered. EC said he would've served the 1-month block, concerning GGTF. Just because alot of drama occured around EC, doesn't mean EC should be punished.
2) I fail to understand why a topic-ban is being considered for Giano. So he utters criticism, if anybody doesn't like it? don't read it.
There's too much of a trigger happy approach to AE. If someone does breach, then allow somebody to calmly report it at AE. Then allow administrators to review the report (atleast for 24hrs) & give their reasons for blocking or not blocking. TBH though, folks would be better off not keeping an eagle eye on those of us under Arb restrictions. GoodDay ( talk) 16:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Updating: The clerks may want to update the Proposed decision posted date to unknown. GoodDay ( talk) 16:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Which finding of fact is the pointedly vindictive proposed decision 3.3.3 (reverse topic ban) designed to address? Eric Corbett 21:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's time the truth was told. Arbcom won't close this case, which has dragged on for more than five weeks now, until they've managed to cobble together some punishment or other for me, ideally a ban. To do otherwise would be political suicide. Eric Corbett 21:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I've tried to keep out of it but this is now becoming ridiculous. It is as if the Committee is trying desperately to reach some sort of effective "judgement" when in fact anyone with an ounce of common sense would have rejected the case request in the first instance. You have painted yourselves into a corner and are now trying to justify doing so ... or at least that is how it seems with the latest attempt to break a deadlock.
I may regret saying this but if you are going to go down this route then I think you should examine closely the history of EvergreenFir with regard to Eric Corbett. I doubt you will get the truth any time soon but the entire affair stinks and much of the recent stuff (if not indeed this particular instance) is connected to one tell-tale who is lawyering like mad over technicalities while ignoring the bigger picture, ie: the baiting etc. I am utterly appalled. And if anyone raises AGF, well, sue me: there were some pretty unpleasant events at the recent Wikimedia DC Conference and it is no surprise to me that there is a coterie of attendees who have been active in this and previous cases. It is nothing less than a witch-hunt, based on a culture that is far from being accepted globally. Shame on you all. - Sitush ( talk) 00:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@
MarkBernstein: Rather than nerfing Gender Gap and AE1 in a rush to get out the door, it might be in the interests of the project to schedule this entire case to be restarted from scratch by the incoming committee.
,
Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?. The case should never have been accepted, period, and the proof of that is in the pudding. To use (and mix) yet more of the same, moving the goalposts at this late stage will only reinforce the plentiful opinions that Wikipedia doesn't know its arse from its elbow. -
Sitush (
talk) 00:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
"Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do this." If you are going to ban him, then ban him. If you are going to give him another "One more chance," then do so. If you wish to be creative, please make sure it addresses the disruption. The new restriction does not address anything. Evangeliman ( talk) 02:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you Arbs kidding me? You've been debating the same case for how long? Remember, this is ARBAE2, that's after ARBAE, ARBGGTF and Lightbreather in less than the time span of my 1.5 year old granddaughter. Not to even mention this and this. Pathetic. It's beyond pathetic and if you think the 'community' is responding here you are out of your mind. The community has lost all hope that this ArbCom has the ability to do anything at all. You have proven time and time again that there is no hope for any real decisions. You have been back and forth over and over, allowing endless disruption. Most of which come from reactions of your own enforcement. You've allowed a mob to turn you into a toothless, meandering body of nothing. Dave Dial ( talk) 06:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Dennis Brown:, I have added a link to Doug's proposal. Also, you give a straw man argument. There is no one that would support such a sanction against Eric in such a circumstance. Dave Dial ( talk) 17:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
For those confused by the new proposals, these are the end results of those proposals should they pass.
I think that's all I need to cover for now, and I await responses. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, bugger it. I'm going to comment.
There's a bloody good reason this case is happening, and will keep happening. It's because people are taking sides on different issues, then arguing at cross purposes assuming the people they are arguing with are taking the opposing view. So, you have one group focussed on civility, another on the gender gap, another on content creation. Throw in some friendships and grudges for extra problems.
So the committee has to decide at what level they want to fix things.
Causes | There is a gender gap on Wikipedia | Civility is essential for a collaborative project | Content creation is at the heart of what we do. |
---|---|---|---|
Effects of causes | Many people are trying to address the gender gap on Wikipedia, general opinion is that the atmosphere is a reason that women don't edit. On the other hand, civility is not well defined, with some standard Wikipedian behaviours being inherently uncivil. |
Those editors who do create content and create it well are generally well regarded on Wikipedia. | |
Focal point | Eric Corbett has a history of incivility while stewarding his prolific content creation, epitomising one of the perceived reasons that Wikipedia has a gender gap. This has lead to a lot of blocks of Eric Corbett and his topic bans. | ||
Symptoms | Eric Corbett is regarded as a "toxic personality" | Eric Corbett is subject to Arbcom restrictions and therefore Arbcom Enforcement. | Groups on either side are willing to go to the wall on this issue. |
Effects of symptoms | Eric is the focus of increased scrutiny and is understandably upset by his treatment. | Administrative actions cannot be undone without Arbcom sanctioning. Eric Corbett's blocks are often disproportionate to the incident due to the long history. |
That table sums up the issues from my point of view. You can't change the top or bottom row. So you've got a few choices, tighten restrictions on Eric Corbett, or loosen them. You could "Gordion Knot" the issue, by choosing one side or the other - i.e. Ban Eric Corbett all together or make him unsanctionable by the community. Doing either will mean significant griping by the other side, and the case will likely return next year.
If you want my suggestion, I'd recommend creating an updated definition for who can sanction or remove sanctions on Eric Corbett or a minimum standard of explanation. The normal definition of UNINVOLVED is not working. Yet, some blocks are infinitely more controversial than others, and it's not just the length of the blocks that has lead to that. You could limit the group that could make a decision individually to arbs or functionaries or crats or arbcom clerks or any other group. You could also leave it to AE for consensus - assuming you don't get someone closing it down too quickly.
You all know the issues. Let's try and find a solution that doesn't end up with us here again by June next year. WormTT( talk) 13:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to add more than I have to to the cacophony on this page, nor to repeat everything I wrote in my pre-acceptance statements a month ago, so just a handful of quick points:
Basically agreeing with everything NYB said above, specifically that closing this as quickly as reasonable seems called for, if for no other reason than to reduce the drama and amount of heat generated in an open case with rather clearly drawn sides. I also tend to agree with Dennis (and NYB) that the ideal way to go in this case, like in most cases where there are questions of degree involved, is to make the possible restrictions sufficiently open to interpretation to be able to deal with all situations, including potentially really trivial violations which don't require a major block and any situations involving unforseen circumstances. John Carter ( talk) 19:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I take issue with
Worm That Turned's "Focal point" that Eric Corbett has a history of incivility while stewarding his prolific content creation, which is perceived as one of the reasons that Wikipedia has a gender gap.
Perceived by whom? My perception is that the gender gap might be caused by a whole raft of things, including the wayward over-tagging and premature speedy-nominating at New Page Patrol by power-hungry editors (predominantly male?) which can be so unwelcoming to new editors dipping their toe into editing for the first time (of either gender, but just possibly more upsetting for women who are traditionally less confident in matters of IT). The occasional daft comment from EC does not cause the gender gap, and the collegial atmosphere of his user talk page is supportive to all who go there in good faith rather than to cause trouble. The over-wide sanctions, and the editors who follow his every word in the hope that he will step over a line, are the cause of the current absurd situation, where dozens of editors have expended a vast amount of time and energy over this case instead of writing an encyclopedia.
This whole drama has gone on far too long and I hope the Arbs will see their way to a solution before their term expires. Pam D 21:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
epitomising one of the perceived reasons that Wikipedia has a gender gap", an improvement. Pam D 21:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the second diff in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Proposed decision#Discussion_following_The_Atlantic_article, this one, which "could be reasonably construed as violating his topic ban". The comment, in which EC says he's not seen "this alleged misogyny", doesn't discuss the GGTF, and doesn't discuss the gender disparity among Wikipedians--this is what I mean with "slippage". One could argue it falls under the second restriction, but if, and only if, veeeery broadly construed. That leaves this one comment, in which he speaks of his own experience working with editors on FAs and GAs--lending additional support to DGG's statement in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Proposed decision#Kirill_Lokshin.27s_block, "the violation was too minor for a substantial penalty". Drmies ( talk) 23:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Concur w/ Dr Mies (and NYBrad, and PamD, and Giano, and Sitush, and Dennis Brown, and others). Further, "Garbage in [validity of arb case acceptance, original sanctions], garbage out [impossibility to render non-dysfunctional Proposed decisions]." IHTS ( talk) 13:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
A poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. Kurtis (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the thing to do now is to drop the stick, so to speak, and move on to other things. Jonathunder ( talk) 06:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Experience of this case has shown that skipping the workshop step does not improve efficiency. A number of proposals had to be reworked and votes were changed because all relevant facts were not explored before voting began. As one example, Giano was brought in as a party, surprising one or more arbitrators. As a second example, the amnesty covering Black Kite was not evident until somebody pointed it out. Had there been a workshop, such issues could have been clarified during an early draft, and a more polished proposed decision could have been presented to the arbitrators. Voting would then have gone more smoothly and with less strife.
Wise users who support this opinion: