User:Eric Corbett/Statement

The volume of comment here makes it very difficult to respond to every point. I'll begin by making just one, which is that I've been rather astonished that a case entitled “Civility Enforcement” has focused so much on me rather than the general issue.

I'll avoid personalising the discussion by not focusing on the recent blocks that triggered this case, while addressing the basic issues as I see them. I reject the idea that any words are out of bounds, but I do recognise that they may sometimes be deployed in the wrong space. I do not accept that my use of the term “dishonest cunts” was in any way sexist or intended to be offensive; it was simply intended to make a point in a robust fashion, and it was made in WT:RFA, one of Wikipedia's bear pits. I do however regret having called Spitfire a “fucking cunt” in the aftermath of my indefinite block; that was unforgivable no matter what the provocation, and for that I apologise to him.

I emphatically reject the suggestion that the comment triggering my indefinite block was intended to be misogynistic. I never have and I never would make sexist or racist remarks about any editor; that would be completely unacceptable. I was unaware that there seems to be a cultural divide over the use of certain intensifiers, specifically that the word “cunt” was considered at least by some in the US to be misogynistic. Obviously, if the arbitrators require any additional information I'll be happy to try and provide it.

I would like to specifically address a proposal made by Elonka: “''Blocks are not intended as a revolving door. If an editor is disruptive, has been blocked multiple times, and is showing a pattern of just resuming the disruptive behavior upon their return, it is reasonable to block the editor's access indefinitely. The block should not be lifted until the editor acknowledges that they understand the problems that caused the blocks in the first place, and agrees to modify their behavior accordingly.''” If behavioural modification is demanded of editors then it should equally be demanded of administrators who issue blocks for the use of words such as “wikilawyer” or “sycophantic”. There is a clear and evident danger that the present civility policy can be and has been used to stifle dissent, not to prevent disruption. There is also clear evidence that some administrators focus on the perceived incivility of those they are hostile to while ignoring it in their friends and colleagues, as in the first block I linked to above,, which was prompted by this discussion.

With that in mind my hope is that the committee will focus on Wikipedia's poorly written and inconsistently applied civility policy, and its merging with the equally woolly WP:NPA; a policy that forbids one editor to comment on another is simply unworkable. If I can be helpful in providing more feedback for the arbitrators to further this goal, I would like some guidance as to 1) exactly what kind of evidence is sought, and 2) in how many words I am allowed to respond.