User talk:Worm That Turned/Eric Corbett

Worm That Turned I didn't see an obvious place for this meta-discussion, so I added it here:

I am very much in favor of an RFC. However, I feel strongly that one has a better chance of solving a problem if one spends a bit of time carefully defining the problem. The time spent may seem frustrating at the time, as many participants feel they know the problem and want to jump to a solution. However, it is often the case that not all participants share the same view of the problem and a careful definition of the problem may itself suggest avenues to explore when identifying possible solutions. While the problem description here is a start, I believe there are some implicit assumptions which are flawed. The statement that  User:Eric Corbett has been blocked multiple times for incivility and personal attacks… leaves the impression that there is no dispute about the reasons for the blocks. While I have no doubt some of the admins blocking believed they were blocking for these reasons, I think it is worth exploring the blocks, and what led to them, to determine whether this simple statement is entirely accurate.

More importantly, the statement of the dispute totally omits the possibility that action by other may have led to statements by Eric, that in a vacuum, may appear to violate policies. The phrase  Many of these blocks have been overturned early leaves the connotation that the original block length was just right, and someone intervened to make it too short. I suggest that some might see it differently.

The closing sentence  Neither the blocks nor the unblocks seem to have caused any change in this pattern of behavior is fine as far as it goes, but it leaves the distinct implication that we need to change the behavior or Eric, but not anyone else.

I accept that this wasn't intended to be a legally precise statement of the background, and the absence of some element in the statement does not necessarily preclude the subsequent discussion of other issues, that in itself reveals a flaw in our RFC process. We do not need to be tight in our dispute  statements if the subsequent discussion can cover anything, yet that very freedom means contributors are tempted to go far astream of the original issue, and leave a non-closable RFC.

Long-term, I'd like to see well-worded statements of scope, then an insistence on sticking to the scope, but for now, I'd be happy if we were to rewrite this statement so it doesn't assume the conclusion, and either identify specific additional areas for discussion, or make clear what types of things are in scope. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I included "Note that both block logs are very long becaus of the pattern of block / change block / overturn block. The actual number of blocks is smaller than it may seem at first glance. Note also that being blocked doesn't mean that the block was necessarily justified. But the blocks and explanations usually have links to the disputed behaviour." in the "evidence" section. Perhaps it could better be included in the opening summary as well. It is not meant to be set in stone, it was just a first draft, with an invitation to others to contribute. Fram (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)