User:Daniel Case/Statement to ArbCom on Eric Corbett block case

As many people probably know, I don't usually comment on matters before ArbCom since I have so rarely been involved in a dispute that got all the way there. I like to think it's because of my own dispute resolution skills. But I could always be wrong ...

However, I am commenting here because of the very public nature of this case and the reflections it puts the community in. So many other Important People have done so, enough for me to believe that the more community input the ArbCom gets, the better.

I do not know Eric and have never personally interacted with him. Even knowing what I do from all the previous history here, I'd still like to think I could find a way to get along with him if I did. That said, at the same time he has become, even before this (rather one-sided, I hate to admit even though I agree with the article's overall point) Atlantic article, the poster boy for toxic users (I strongly suspect that if Jimbo had any particular editor in mind in his speech at Wikimania 2014 where he suggested we just give those editors wikis of their own so they and anyone interested in helping them can continue to accomplish the positive things they are capable of, it was Eric). It is not really productive to debate whether that perception is accurate anymore, since it affects events here as much if not more than any underlying reality.

I endorse everything Brad said above. Especially the part about how such summary desysoppings should be considered on a case-by-case basis rather than made part of a standing order. Although I believe the committee will see, as it appears to already have, that that action should have been taken in this case.

I believe Kirill's block was justified. As he noted, Eric had already made several comments directly addressing the article's depiction of him without anyone sanctioning him. The moment he went back to discussing gender issues on Wikipedia, when he said he didn't see any of this misogyny here, he violated his topic ban. He should reasonably have known that a response bringing him personally into the equation was likely—that's exactly why that topic ban was imposed. That, regrettably, moots the argument that he was defending his reputation (and given that Sceptre's remark was clearly hyperbolic, it was best left to lie where it would have been forgotten by now and we would all be working on better things).

If that been the only instance of Eric violating his topic ban, a softer response such as deleting the comment would have been much more in line. But it isn't. As noted, this is the seventh time in the last year he's been blocked for that. He is on a leash so short we cannot reasonably call it a leash anymore ... it is more like a balled fist pressing on his neck with a chain wrapped tightly around it. In short, all the room for administrative discretion he might reasonably be expected to get is long gone.

That said, I do not think the appropriateness of this block is the main reason ArbCom should take this case, though of course that will probably be part of the discussion. Instead, I think that this is a golden opportunity to clarify some things. First, as already noted, there is Brad's position that no remedy should include a standing order for summary desysopping in case of unlilateral reversal of an action.

Second is the status of Jimbo's talk page. He has said he would like people to feel freer talking there, and that is one of the few "founder" privileges I think we should still allow him. But at the same time he has never said that it's a policy-free zone. He and the ArbCom should clarify to what extent conduct policies that apply everywhere else apply to his talk page (and frankly, if he feels Eric should not have been blocked for saying what he said where he said it, I think the committee should defer to his preferences even to the extent of restoring Yngvadottir's bit). If we do not take this opportunity, this will happen again.

Third, it should consider amending the GGTF case to allow for removal of the offending comments without a block as suggested above. One problem that has plagued all our policy enforcement is the lack of an intermediate sanction between finger-wagging and a block. Too often there are situations where the former not only seems like but is a slap on the wrist but the latter is too harsh. Allowing some middle way like that might be productive in amicably resolving some future cases, at the very least. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)