Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Proposed decision

NE Ent's section
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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Evidence, 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Evidence, 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)


 * , wait you're thanking another editor for making the same proposal I made 21 days ago? Anyway: no the purpose of arbcom remedies is not to "prevent recurrence," it's to manage disruption, and Awilley's graphic evidence clearly supports what I suggested. Ya'll keep having to do this over and over because the general community in general, and likewise the administrators from what it's drawn, have not come up with a civility policy, only a general notion that "we should all be civil" without agreeing up what exactly that means (WP:Civility meme documents specific failures.) If the next six months sees 10 or 20 72 hour blocks, who cares? After the four or fifth the drama will die down -- no one likes reruns; if after that period there's no progress, arbcom should be the big hammer (via motion is fine), not AE. And, if you go that route, skip the "may appeal the ban" -- just put a time limit on it. NE Ent 04:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

, Re, 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 same line continues: 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)


 * , there is much to be said for your view that the results from GG and related follow-ups have not been as good as  hoped for. and we should have done something more drastic at the start. (Of course, if we had, there would have been bitter complaints just the same, though perhaps most of them from different people.)  I have observed that it has been the usual practice of the committee in recent years, and I have myself seen it particularly  this year, to try to do as minimal an approach a might possibly work, with the very correct justification that we are not here to punish anybody; I still think we should not view what we might do as  "what someone deserves".  It is however indisputable that too light action can sometimes escalate things further whereas drastic action would squelch it thoroughly; but I think human affairs in general show that it has also sometimes caused an explosion. I can't immediately think of any group or organization in the RW that has a particularly good record for getting this right; we have been operating on the assumption --an assumption that is the motivation for everything at WP --that ordinary people working together can sometimes do as well as those who have formal qualifications to be called an expert.  You are probably right we need to try something different, but there is no way to be sure that whatever we do different will work any better. I think it's obvious at this point there will be further cases arising from this next year, and I hope the new arbs--who will be in the majority--together with those of us continuing--will be cleverer at it, or at least more fortunate at guessing.  DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Absurd response. LFaraone's linked statement explicitly says "his topic ban does not." (have specific enforcement) -- I've demonstrated via link that it does. It's the logic equivalent of a shepherd saying All the sheep are white, a visitor pointing out but that one is black, and the shepherd saying all those others are white. NE Ent 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Equality and Respect FoF
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) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2015-10-21%2FEditorial&type=revision&diff=687751377&oldid=687743995 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)

gaijin42's section
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)
 * It's under "proposed enforcement", but, yes, it would be a motion at ARCA. I thought of alternatives (an individual arb, or even three), but that seemed to be the simplest solution. My idea, when drafting this decision, was to propose three alternatives (from least to most onerous, enforcement only through AE, only by us or full site ban), to allow my colleagues to decide what they think best tackles this problem. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87's section
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)


 * For once I agree with you in saying that I see it as a lure. Assuming good faith as I said, someone just happened to find the Atlantic article online, and posed it on Jimbo's talk-page hoping he would address the issue. Next up comes WP:WWJD/WP:YOULOSE which going by good faith again the answer would be NOTHING. So in conclusion the best course of action on an admin's part would to have closed the discussion saying it is better to either A. Address the Atlantic article about x editor, or B. Address the WMF which goes back to WP:WWJD or in this case "What would the WMF do?" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and please comment in your own section, hey I don't make the rules here but it is a weight off the clerk's backs in having to manage these pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The ones I blame most are the admin who refuse to or don't step up to the plate when needed, and the editors defending Eric by hurling insults/garbage at the opposite side. The Atlantic article fiasco was definitely avoidable, if editors didn't mention Eric on Jimbo's talk-page, and Eric or his "cabal" didn't mention Jimbo then maybe none of this would be happening. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 13 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)

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)

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)

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)

Everyking's section
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)

Awilley's section
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)
 * This block was not due to a civility violation, but rather to a topic ban violation, and the length was freely chosen by the blocking admin, applying the standard rules concerning recidivism. But, aside from that, I'd be against capping the block length in any case: after all, it's standard procedure that, if you repeatedly violate a rule, the blocks keep getting longer. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I'm not convinced by your logic on this. I can't see "standard procedure" as a reason to reject a creative remedy that satisfies policy and reduces drama. (After all, is it "standard procedure" for Arbcom to take over enforcement of the sanctions they place on other editors?) And I don't buy the argument that Eric's civility-related blocks are outside the scope of this case. You yourself are currently using this diff of Giano responding to one of Eric's civility blocks in Proposed Finding of Fact #7. If this were as simple as enforcing a rule it wouldn't show up at Arbcom every few months. It's a complex situation with multiple competing procedures, policies, and philosophies. Instead of doubling down on trying to enforce a status quo that most people are unhappy with, why not take a chance to nip future drama in the bud? ~Awilley (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you got my previous ping Salvio ~Awilley (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you do not wish to discuss this please let me know so I can leave you alone. ~Awilley (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't get the previous ping, don't know why the system sometimes ignores pings, but, as I said, I don't see the point of adding such a remedy. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You mentioned there might be another "remedy in the works", so I would ask you to consider the proposal I made above and in my evidence (which I'm not sure many arbs have read). Salvio doesn't see a point to it, but if you're looking for fresh ideas perhaps you will. [blatantly asks other parent] ~Awilley (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Awilley, I appreciate your time stopping by to propose an additional remedy that might actually work. When we get to this point, Arbitrators usually find it difficult to think of a new one.
 * Currently I read your proposal as implementing up to 72 hour blocks. I agree with Salvio on the fact that modifying 3.3 wouldn't of helped stop this situation. Speaking in general though, putting a limit on civility blocks sends the wrong message in my opinion. If someone is being particularly uncivil, and we block them for 72 hours each time, we are just slapping them on the wrist and they aren't learning to correct the behavior. The point of blocks and sanctions is to prevent the disruption from occurring again, and if we are going to use limited blocks we aren't giving them the time to think about why their actions were disruptive and to reform their behavior. So I can't support something that is only going to encourage it. Furthermore, you said that a remedy needs to be "fair, enforceable, and low-drama". This won't be low drama. It will get people going every time a 72 hour block is issued (which I feel many would be issued) and with tensions escalating more an more with each block, we might as well start preparing and writing AE3. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this rationally, and you make some good points, much in line with current community norms. I'll respond to a few. 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)
 * This might be where we differ. For me, issues of civility are scaled, and do not fit into a single offense such as a traffic ticket. For me to say "Go fuck of you asshat" to an editor versus saying "Oh ya, your being very 'helpful' to the project with that diff *eyeroll*" are two very different things. So to class them all under one 72 hour block I see as a failure in the system to address repeat offenders that have arguably caused more damage.
 * As for people who write FAs and etc., I'm a firm believer in if your causing harm to to the project, your causing harm to the project, not your a net positive contributor.
 * I'm also probably jumbling my response, and I apologize for that. I'm also not saying that it's escalation or die with the escalating blocks model. If someone has a stupid moment and makes a single NPA statement (reason y), and their last block was 1 month for reason x, then issue a 72h or how ever long block and if future reason x behavior occurs, then work with the 2 month block.
 * As for low drama, if we are looking to reduce people risking their bit, but were looking to the editor to solve the problem, we are looking in the wrong direction. Admins have a standard of conduct they have to adhere to on their own regardless of who the editor is. As I said in another thread on this page, it's stupid for admins to sacrifice their bit when not only is there a possibility of it being reverted to something else anyway, but when direct sanction is the next exit on the highway which they would be forced to take.
 * While I haven't been blocked on wiki before, when I was a younger editor, I was suspended on 2010-07-11 from WP:ACC indefinitely for something that was not my fault. From there, I had to work through the appeal process, and i'll be honest, I took it quite personal. Here I was a good contributor kicked out of the project. It took time where I was very antsy through the process, but I successfully ran an appeal. When I talk about a slap on the wrist for 72 hours, I am speaking for editors who are accustomed to blocks for longer periods and don't seem to give a crap for that amount of time cause they have had worse.
 * In answer to your final question, I believe my 3rd response in this post addresses your question. Crap, I think my response is bigger than yours, I shall shut up now :P -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually do agree that there are degrees of civility offenses. I think where we differ here is that I can't imagine a civility offense that would merit more than a week-long block. (Still limiting the discussion to otherwise productive editors.) Most of the blockable blow-ups I've seen from Eric are worth a 24-72 hour block in my opinion. I think it's great to give administrators discretion, but in the case of Eric Corbett I think you will agree that at least some admins seem to lose all discretion. Putting a cap on the block length reigns in the the admin who would cause a drama-fest with a month-long block for saying the "F-word", and protects the admins who would block 24 hours or not at all for minor offenses. The length of the block cap can be debated, but I think we'd arrive at something shorter than a week.
 * I think our biggest difference in opinion is how to treat net-positive contributors who also disrupt or "cause harm" to the project. Whenever I'm about to block somebody I always look at their contributions, including how many edits they have and whether they're editing articles and talk pages. (I also look at their block log.) All these factors help determine whether I nudge, warn, or block them, and to a certain extent how long the block is. I do the same with unblock requests. If a productive editor is clearly going down the wrong path, they can still get a block, but I do everything I can to correct the behavior without losing a productive editor. Trolls, obvious POV pushers, SPAs, and dramamongers don't get the same treatment. At some point you must admit that we treat editors differently based on their contribution history and net impact. If not, why do we indef-block, without warning, vandal-only accounts? But yes, at some point this case boils down to an argument about how to treat Vested Contributors, so maybe the first case title was appropriate after all.

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.


 * I think it would be good to look at what current policy actually says. The "escalating blocks" argument is justified by Blocking_policy which says, "The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future". But it also says that administrators "should consider the severity of the behavior" when determining a block length. And earlier in that policy page it specifically addresses civility, saying blocks may be used for "persistent personal attacks" and "gross incivility" (note the modifiers). But the real policy of interest is Civility. Read that section and tell me whether mandatory escalating civility blocks are supported by current policy. Thank you for responding, and don't apologize for the length. I realize you have a lot more important commitments than this, and I won't be offended if you don't respond further, because I can tell you have seriously considered what I said above. ~Awilley (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * , wow, thank you for taking that into consideration. I think the escalating blocks are a very strong social norm in our community, and I expect many people will have a hard time getting over that. Here are some criteria I think will be important for proposed remedies:
 * The remedies must be in-line with current policy. We aren't going to be making/changing any policies.
 * The remedies need to be fair (proportionate), enforceable, and low-drama as I've stated before.
 * We should not be creating a higher tier of "vested" contributors. In other words, we should be willing to give any other editor the same treatment.
 * The remedies should not make it any harder to quickly remove users who are damaging the project (vandals, sockpuppets, POV-SPAs, etc.).
 * The remedies should allow room for some administrative discretion, but should limit the amount of collateral damage a single admin can cause through lack of discretion.
 * Anyway, thank you for that post. I personally think you're being too hard on yourself. I'm going to do a little mini-workshop up here if you don't mind. ~Awilley (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed principles
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.
 * 1. Purpose of Wikipedia
 * Modified Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Proposed_decision to be more in line with the first sentence of WP:NOT (our first pillar), including addition of the words "as a means to that end".

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.
 * 2. Civility
 * Modified Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Proposed_decision to be more in line with current civility policy (our 4th pillar).

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)
 * 3. Civility blocks

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.
 * 4. Block lengths

Proposed findings of fact
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.)
 * 1. Blocks
 * (Suggested in addition to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Proposed_decision)

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, the second resulted in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement, and the third resulted in the desysop of. (See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Evidence)
 * 2. Unblocks
 * (Suggested as addition to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Proposed_decision)

Proposed remedies
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.
 * 1. Limited-duration blocks for civility offenses

Remedies 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the GGTF arbitration case are amended in that the topic bans for, , , and are narrowed to include only edits to and discussion about pages, talk pages, and sub-pages of WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force.
 * 2. Topic bans narrowed

Ddstretch's section
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)

Gamaliel's section
I'm in agreement with 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)
 * That's because, originally, I had put in two alternatives: ARCA or a ban and, in either case, it would be superfluous. If Eric has been banned, there are not going to be any more enforcement requests; if we take over the enforcement of the restrictions, we could sanction those who disrupt the threads without the need for a specific remedy. However, the DS authorised for all gender-related edits could be used to sanction disruption related to the enforcement of Eric's restrictions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying that, that makes a big difference. Maybe clarify this in the decision as well?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"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)


 * I do not concur with your glib dismissal of the behavior at WP:AE as merely "heat".  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish's section
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)

Wehwalt's section
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)

@, 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)
 * That's a good point that I hadn't fully thought of. Jimbo's talk page has historically been more than a standard user talk page, and my initial reaction is to say that allowing him to grant exceptions from bans is compromise necessary to prevent the free-for-all that has resulted in this drama while still recognising it as a discussion space important to the project. I'll think more on this though, and would welcome input from colleagues too. I presume though you have no issue with allowing users to ask the community for exemptions to post on Jimbo's page? Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In principle I don't but, how does the community decide that without hearing what the proposed content is, which would presumably either break the topic ban, or else allow a rather glaring loophole?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the standard exceptions from topic bans allows the seeking of appeals, amendments and clarifications and so a request for an exemption for Jimbo's talk page would allow the discussion necessary for that purpose. What counts as "necessary" and what is using the request to evade the topic ban will need to be judged in each individual case, but this happens already so I don't see an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Arbs: if your 3.2.5 distresses you, how about something like "Kirill Lokshin's block of Eric Corbett did not exceed the maximum scope of discretion entrusted to administrators?" It recognizes the fact without being approving.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that's better. NativeForeigner Talk 13:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As do I. Doug Weller (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest "Kirill Lokshin's block of Eric Corbett did not exceed the maximum scope of discretion allowed by the sanction" as less pretentious than "entrusted" NE Ent 13:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh, this is better than Wehwalt's original but I stand by my vote --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What problem were you trying to solve in this case?
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)


 * Almost six weeks later and this still isn't closed? Nothing anyone does is going to make this one better. Just close it so it isn't hanging over anyone's head anymore. Risker (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein’s Section
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)


 * Attn: clerks: Would 's attacks on  be permitted if Giano were an obscure editor?  Would they be permitted in an article talk page?   We seem permit astonishing liberties when those liberties are taken by our new nobility; I'd like a ruling on whether commoners may also call other editors Stalinists. Is Stalinist permitted but National Socialist verboten?   Giano also says that the Gender Gap Task Force is looking “very dodgy indeed” in the wake of this case: the task force is not a party to the case. Should it be added as a party? In my reading, "dodgy" denote "of questionable honesty," for which I see no evidence in this case.  Finally, is instructing an editor to "silence yourself before you damage your tarnished cause" consistent with WP:CIVILITY?  Again, I would like formal instruction that it is, and that if (for example) I were to address anoher editor in these terms, I too would be in compliance with policy. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:22, 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:
 * The word "including" requires a noun or noun phrase that will be included. It has instead a propositional phase, "with respect to....".  So we don't know what is included.
 * The phrase "with respect to" has no referent.
 * The natural interpretation of the following sentence would hold that demeaning comments are offensive because Wikipedia’s audience is diverse. Would demeaning comments be less offensive if the audience were not diverse? Demeaning comments are offensive in themselves, not merely because they might be overheard. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * the meaning of the clause on a diverse audience is that in considering whether a comment might be demeaning, the wide range of different sensibilities in our audience has to be considered; the contrast is with writing for an homogenous audience of some particular sort, where one need consider only the way they will interpret things. it's in order to deal with such arguments as, for example, that  a particular sort of language is polite enough in some particular country, if it is not considered polite elsewhere. It's a clarification that  "All people of my sort talk to each other this way" is not an acceptable excuse, even when the immediate discussion is between two people of that sort.  (it never really was, yet some tried to use it.)     DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

December 15
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)


 * Further, if the Gender Gap Task Force sanctions are to be redefined this extremely, the remedies in Lightbreather should also be rescinded. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman's section

 * Problems with the proposed decision


 * 1) Any editor wishing to remove Giano or Eric Corbett from any discussion could simply raise the issue of editors' gender in the discussion.  The sanction is excessively gameable and should be recrafted not to be.  Moreover, reasonable observers would frequently disagree about where the boundary lies.  The sanction is too broad and too nebulous.  It runs afoul of the due process clause. (Oh, wait, this isn't a real court...)  Jehochman Talk 03:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  The gender topic ban sanction has been a failure with respect to Eric Corbett.  Why then are you doubling the failure by applying it to Giano too?  That is totally illogical.  Try something different.  Ban them outright, if you must.  Leave them alone.  Do something else.  But for goodness sake, don't keep repeating the same failure.  Jehochman ♔ 03:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) You should add a statement saying that Gender Wars are not welcome on Wikipedia.  I think everybody has thus far missed the fact that there is a large gender gap in the technology industry in general.  Wikipedia is just a specific manifestation of a larger problem.  Rathern than fighting among ourselves ("Gender Wars"), we should think about ways to get more girls and women interested in STEM education, and then in working on Wikipedia.  Gender Wars distract us from the real problem.  Jehochman Talk 19:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Why is Giano being topic banned from gender issues?   Why not just restrict him from commenting on the enforcement of Eric's sanctions, since that's the area where evidence has been presented.  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. Jehochman Talk 08:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Wikipedia is a website; it is a tech enterprise.  Has anybody looked at the gender inequality in Silicon Valley?  We even have an article about it, Sexism in the technology industry.  Anyhow, my thesis is that the gender inequality problem, the low participation of girls and women in STEM education and professions, is a broad social problem, not just a Wikipedia problem.  We are in a position to help, and we should allow free discussion with all points of view in order to figure out how we can best help. This decision names two scape goats but does nothing to solve the real problem. Jehochman Talk 09:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) If a sanction is so contentious that you can't allow the community to enforce it, and you feel the need to enforce it yourselves, maybe the sanction isn't workable and should be redesigned. Jehochman Talk 17:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) You need to vote on whether to restore Yngvadottir's sysop access.  I think if that had been dealt with in a thoughtful manner, a desysop might have been avoided.  Could somebody from the Committee email her and seek assurances that something like this will never happen again?  Be a human instead of a pencil pusher. Jehochman Talk 15:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

- 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)

Nick's section
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)

Giano's section
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)
 * @User: GorillaWarfare, the solution to the Gender Gap problem is not to shut down all debate and discussion from those who do not agree 100% with those who ardently support it. Giano    (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @]User: GorillaWarfare: The exaggerated perception of the size, severity and effects of a Gender Gap. You are going to find Stalinist diktats will alienate you and create more problems than they solve Giano    (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @User: GorillaWarfare: How can I possibly be calling you "Stalinest" if you are recused? Surely these proposed motions can have nothing to do with you. It is a sad fact of life though that mud does tend to stick where it's often hardest to remove and most unwelcome, but that truth is hardly my problem or fault. Even the Arbcom would be challenged t lay that at my door. Giano    (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @User: GorillaWarfare: Nowhere do I say that women should sit idly by and allow men to write articles about them. You seem to be very keen today to put words into my mouth. I say that instead of constantly bemoaning their lot and causing trouble on talk and wikipedia pages, certain editors should spend more time writing articles (that includes male editors too - one in particular) on a variety of subjects, if it's lesser known notable women, so much the better. I seriously doubt the size of the gender gap for the simple reason that so many editors do not identify as male or female - and why should they? I may even be a woman for all you know (I'm not). As it is, anyone who doubts or questions the gender gap is immediately labelled a misogynist bigot and now seems to be the target of illegitimate Stalinist Arbcom action. Now, I'm sorry that's a bitter pill for you to swallow, but as a result of this case, which I suspect you and your friends foolishly encouraged, the Gender Gap task force are left with egg all over their faces and looking very dodgy indeed. Now unless you have anything more constructive to contribute, I suggest you silence yourself before you damage your tarnished cause even further.   Giano    (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @User: GorillaWarfare Perhaps you should maintain a silence because you are again putting words in my mouth. I did not say there wasn't a Gender Gap. I just question the size and importance of it. Not allowing people to question or doubt is Stalinist whether you like it or not. Giano    (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @MarkBernstein, like GorillaWarfare, you seem to be having a problem reading what I write. I do not say GW is Stalinist, I say Arbcom diktats banning criticism or question of a Government/Foundation/Jimbo approved cause is a Stalinist-like action. That such actions make that cause appear dodgy, is inevitable. I do not say it is dodgy, I say it is being made to appear so by this case. It seems some people here find it hard to accept the blindingly obvious, and damage this case is causing. I love nothing more than being able to say: "I told you so", and believe me, I am going to enjoy doing so. Giano    (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "as soon as Eric Corbett was mentioned along with something to do with the GGTF it should have been hatted, and CLOSED" would have rather defeated the point of the exercise. Which was to lure Eric Corbett into making a statement that would enable him to be blocked. Giano    (talk) 08:39, 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)
 * GorillaWarfare: I am quite certain that there is a "gender issue" here; I acknowledge that in my statement, which for some reason, in best Inquisition style, is being used against me. I doubt though the severity of it, and even you have failed to convince me of its magnitude. As neither of us will ever know the true ratio of males to females here that will always be an uncertain fact. I also suspect ( it's allegedly a free country, I am just still allowed to personally suspect ) that some of those advocating the severity of the issue are here at Wikipedia with only that agenda - they are not here to write an encyclopedia, which I am. Shortly, I shall have my tongue ripped out for heresy and you and your friends will be free to pursue whatever agenda you like - rejoice. Giano    (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jehochman: while what you are saying here is the truth and makes perfect sense. I can't help but feel you are wasting your breath. This case has little do with me and more to do with avenging old, perceived sleights to one arbitrator in particular. Salvio, for reasons best known to himself, has set himself up as Prosecutor, Judge, Jury and Hangman. The whole case must seem very bizarre to most people, and will seem even more bizarre when I continue to opine when necessary on the subject and we have to endure resultant mayhem. Fortunately, for Wikipedia, I seldom feel it necessary to opine on the Gender Gap, but no doubt others will tempt me, and I've never been a shrinking violet - as the Arbcom well knows.  Giano    (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Another remedy
So now we have another remedy being dreamt up to save the Arbcom's face 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)
 * , You ask "Just what country do you think this is?" That's a very good question. I'm currently sitting nice and safe in a rather cold London; you are hopefully in a slightly warmer Australia and the Arbcom seems to have transported itself back to 1940s Russia. Giano    (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The most sensible comment here to date
This edit 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)

Me banned from discussing Eric Corbett
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)

GorillaWarfare's section
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)
 * Reading through this talk page, though, I have to disagree once again with Giano. The solution to the gender gap on Wikipedia is not for the women to sit down and shut up and allow the men to graciously write articles about them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support... what? GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we're on different pages here, and I'm frankly pissed that you've just implied I'm Stalinist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the Stalinist dig, I see you haven't actually addressed my concern with the larger part of your argument, which is the implication that the solution to the gender gap is for Wikipedians (generally men) to write articles about the women who would be unknown but for them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not attempting to put words in your mouth, nor have I encouraged this case. It is not the "Stalinist ArbCom" that is a bitter pill for me to swallow—rather the argument that there is not a gender issue on enwp despite plenty of evidence to contradict that assertion. I do not intend to "silence myself" on this issue, but thanks for your kind suggestion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * Whether it was the right decision or not, the reasoning behind a lack of workshop for this case was that it would essentially duplicate the workshop from the first AE case and so it was omitted here in the interests of expediency and non duplication. The reason I am not voting to ban Eric here is that his comments (on this occasion at least) were only borderline violations of his restriction and a ban would be massively disproportionate. The problem on this occasion was the overreaction of others to Eric - other people said far worse things in that discussion without anybody causing any drama about it at all. The drama hurts the project directly and by hindering the fixing of the underlying problem. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think its fairly clear to many of us on arb com that we should not have short circuited the workshop in this particular case. We are under considerable pressure--quite rightly so--to simplify procedure, and it is necessary to experiment a little--there's no other method. It's inevitable that some experiments will fail, but from them we all will gradually learn what works. One thing I think we on arbcom have learned, is that we are not very good at predicting the complexity of a case.  DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * I see that you are requesting opinions; I'm mostly concerned that all the opinions you're requesting appear to be on reducing existing sanctions. I do think that a siteban (or a reverse topic ban, if we really must drag this out) is the answer. I think the answer to administrators sacrificing their bits to make a point is to continue desysoping. Maybe impose additional consequences if you think the desysops are ineffective. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * No. DeltaQuad asked "Do you have any particular recommendation for admins sacrificing their bits to make a point?", to which I responded "I think the answer to administrators sacrificing their bits to make a point is to continue desysoping. Maybe impose additional consequences if you think the desysops are ineffective." I personally think desysoping is sufficient, hence why I included the clause "if you think the desysops are ineffective." GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Gerda's section
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)

Alakzi's section
,, 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)

Anonnep's section
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? . 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.
 * Don't get how 'DGG' can support 3.2/3/4 as 'findings as fact' but the on 3.2.5 support Kirill Lokshin's block not 'being reasonable'. Huh? What else is allowable against E.C.? A trout slap & stern, nanny voiced, 'You naughty boy!' *wags finger*, despite previous arbitrated sanctions & history? Mind boggling thought process displayed for all to see there. Ditto with 3.2.5 'Yngvadottir's unblock' - that sums up all the bloody obvious reasons why but whimpers out with 'Now, I don't like it'. *Headdesk* AnonNep (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * et al Rather ironic that those who trumpet 'free speech' should suggest Jimbo's page is hatted & closed in case EC *might* be even slightly, I don't know, kinda, really shouldn't, but maybe violate HIS restrictions (emphasis on his - since when did one individual's fuckup equal an automatic across the board ongoing interaction ban?). How many other pages will you progressively require this to be added to? Or, could someone just - I dunno - abide by sanctions already placed on them? AnonNep (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (NB. Cross-post. Received your alert as I posted the above.) I do agree with you that swift action, in various ways, is the road ahead, but I'm seeing little of that, at present, in this.
 * I'm sorry but this (above) is ridiculous "I can instantly think of at least three powerful, strong women who were almost unknown until I created pages about them...". If those women have RS sources the idea that they they only needed that all so-powerful manly-hero is truly laughable. This isn't about (Enid Blyton) or who expanded certain female focused pages to GA status. Its about what kind of behaviour is allowed. On my list I see far too many 'GA' pages patroled by troglodytes who don't know the difference between an academic publication and a popular history (especially when the 'popular history' is published by the commercial arm of an academic publisher). The latter are great as content adders but WP is chocked with history/biog GA's that are near plagarism book reviews. Far too many GA's are just footnoted 'pop hist' book summaries. Arbcom isn't protecting 'content creators' with any of this. AnonNep (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Truly boggled by DGG's statement that Kirill Lokshin's block was: "I agree it was permitted, and well-intentionned (and I should have said well-intentioned in the first place--my apologies to Kiril). It was however an act which made the situation worse. Doing something that unintentionally makes a situation worse is poor judgment." So KL following, in good faith, the previous Arbcom ruling was wrong? If ArbCom is going to make decisions it has to throw away the complimentary second-guess parachute. You make a rule - it is followed - don't later chickenshit-panic out of it. What ever it is. AnonNep (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * Time; Silently watching the Arbcom discussion, this past week, what doesn't seem to be acknowledged is EC's repeated statement's & actions to the effect that he will not participate or co-operate with an ANI/ArbCom investigation or sanctions. Nowhere is this acknowledged in your deliberations. Those he's attacked have co-operated with you, under the rules & been stripped bare & banned. While your plan, at this point, is to place a documented repeat abuser, who denies your own, ultimate, community elected authority, back into that understandably disillusioned, badly bruised & hurt volunteer community, with little more than a slap on the wrist. Why? EXACTLY. WHY? AnonNep (talk) 16:06, 16 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)

Jbhunley's section
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. J bh Talk  15:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate to join the pile on here but what I am seeing here is the worst possible outcome. If Eric is a problem, and I personally feel that any editor who repeatedly stated they will not follow the rules is a problem, then ban him - this case should be examining the whole issue not just the last set of comments he made and remedies should reflect that. If his contributions are worth keeping him, and I think he is quite good at what he does, then identify those editors who are partisans on both sides and topic ban them from all WP name space discussions about Eric. If you are not going to do these things then simply vacate this case and close it as no action. That, at least, will show ArbCom is capable of recognizing when a case is too screwed up to benefit the project. It will also likely improve the community's opinion of ArbCom. 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. J bh  Talk  15:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ADPC's section
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 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)

EvergreenFir's section
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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I very much like 3.1.10 Equality and respect and think 's suggest is a good one. It is a pleasant surprise to see the arb com consider adding this.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * you oppose nearly all remedies in this case. Given that you see them as inadequate, what would you find more tenable? It seems like more alternatives are needed. I'm curious what remedies would work here for you and others who oppose given that the status quo is clearly insufficient (speaking mostly about EC here, less about Giano).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You bring up a completely valid point. There is a remedy in the works by the drafters and other arbs as an alternative, so I thought I would drop that. What I would find more palatable is 1) ArbCom not taking over or interfering with enforcement of it's sanctions. AE exists for a reason, and what we have seen in both cases is an improper use of AE and no use of AE. So the systems I feel do exist, people just need to use them right. 2) Admins need to stop making administrative suicide by ArbCom actions. Yngvadottir's and GorillaWarfare's actions in these instances could have been completely avoided and not caused the drama. Were they? No. Somewhat less so, Reaper Eternal's actions also, but I didn't feel they met the same level as the other two's. 3) People use some common sense. Particularly, Black Kite. 4) If we really need to curb the stupid admin actions, put a remedy out for anyone who reverses an AE improperly on EC shall be desysoped. That will stop the issue from keep coming back to ArbCom. 5) Eric Corbett needs to be removed from the places in which he can easily cause disruption, and curbed to contribute to the encyclopedia directly. If we can't do that, eventually it will result in a ban no matter how hard we try. I hope the answers your questions. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * it has of course proved difficult to deal with the appropriate limits in DQ's point 5 above. We can easily construct topic bans for those disruptive in a single area, but it is very difficult to completely separate article contributions as a whole  from opportunities for unhelpful comments.  DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Also commenting to second 's comment below.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

psst... you forgot to sign your comment in 1.1.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

,, - 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * EvergreenFir, yes it is unusual to have over 53 sections on a case talk page and I don't think this case will close for a few more days. I've brought up the issue you raise on the Clerks-l email list and I want to see what the other clerks and arbitrators have to say. I can see hatting some comments at this point but it has the potential to inflame the tensions on the page even more than it is right now so I want to get some feedback on it first. Thanks for bringing up this point. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the reverse topic ban
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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 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. hit on the bigger problem: the inconsistent enforcement of the tban.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to close this
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:  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This was a helpful summary, although I have previously voted on remedy 10 (I oppose it). Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake! Doug also voted on that... I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker's section
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)


 * The comment by In actu is so on point (The question is not "Would I make the same block?" or "Do I agree with the block?"; the question is "Could a reasonable person come to this this decision?". The answer is yes.), it is a wonder that DGG thinks thier own second guessing is good judgement. (DGG, in fact your comments are showing both hubris, and encouraging a system where every admin is at the throat of every other admin) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not know I would have done it right, but I think it clear that in what was done, something went wrong. The discussion on this page shows that. But what you call my hubris is simply a guess that I am closer to what community consensus would be in this matter. Trying to proceed on the basis of implied community consensus is always part of the job of admins, and of arb com also; it's very far from a matter of fixed rules, and much more of judgement.  Arbcom can guide the community, or even lead it, but it does not dictate to it.   DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your hubris is now that you divine consensus out side of written consensus (policy/guideline) based on your own ad hoc prejudice. When Kiril acted within policy.  You are clearly abusing both power and individuals. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Block for infraction
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)

Reply to WJBscribe's section: on the bit, and dragging others through things
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)

Arbcom: perspective and saying no to one offs
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)

Reply to Delta Quad (with case study of 24hr delay at AE)

 * 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)

On the new 9 and 10 (unworkable vagueness and policy conflict)
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)

Dennis Brown's section
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&cent; 01:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tried to stay away, but I feel I have to address for his comment in "Eric Corbett banned".  You admit that banning Eric for this one transgression isn't just (your words), that what he did was extremely defensible, yet you vote to ban him.  To cut the Gordian knot, ie: "out of convenience", because it is the easiest way to solve the problem.  I've never had cause to question you nor any negative interaction with you (quite the opposite, actually), but by any standard, your position is unethical, and reinforces my previous claim that some at Wikipedia want to convert the encyclopedia into a really polite social networking site.  Your words reflect exactly what many of us thing is inherently wrong with Arb, that the ends justify the means, and that context, policy and ethics, are meaningless when you have the power to do what you want. That isn't the  I remember a couple of years ago, so either the Arb system has poisoned you, or brought out your true colors; which, I do not know. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think this is reasonably consistent. Is it perhaps a mistake on my part? Yes. Do I care if this is a polite social networking site? Eh, it's an encyclopedia first and foremost. We're here to impose solutions. And I'm all out of good solutions for this issue. If corbett stays around I think he'll indefinitely be a magnet to this kind of thing? I think the two routes one could go with Eric Corbett are to remove the restrictions, or to ban him. I think these are both vaguely workable solutions. If we keep the current sanctions in place I think he'll keep on getting dragged to AE, where the two sides (there is no good way to name them, but we know the factions exist), fight out a never ending battle. I think the battle itself is more destructive than either the comments corbett made, or the good he does whilst editing. I will admit, this is more looking for resolution than for fairness. Perhaps this is simply because I'm sick of seeing corbett cases. I think there needs to be a solution one way or the other and of the presented solutions I think this is the only one that cuts to the core of the issue. I think I'd also support removing the sanctions or severely reducing them but that's not on the table. I don't want to ban corbett, that's not my goal here. I actually agree with him on some points in the area. I think the attacks he's endured (especially the article) were uncalled for. Perhaps it's out of convenience, but I dont' see anything better on the table. If we leave corbett's appeals for a minimum time I think that will simply become the battlefield. And I'm definitely against the silencing of critics. It's why I've thought banning him was premature. I very much agree with the JS Mill quote "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." But Corbett has repeatedly violated his restrictions. We are now at a point where either the blame falls on Corbett for not following his restrictions, or on us for creating ones that are impossible to not break. I generally am of the latter opinion, but the ban of corbett is the only solution on the table that prevents a proxy war regarding civility and gender which both sides seem extremely zealous to engage in. However, I agree with numerous editors that we shouldn't let this issue become an echo chamber. There are many questions that have been raised and all too few solutions. In all honesty, I'm pretty unhappy with the ban, and the more I think about it the less happy I am, but I don't see a viable alternative other than really relaxing the scope of the topic ban, and that has absolutely no chance of passing. Pragmatic? Yes. My read? Yes. Consistent with how I've thought about these issues. Yeah. Context policy and ethics all play a role, and I think to suggest otherwise is pretty pessimistic of my thought process, and not terribly realistic. And I have similar moral issues with both of the things I view as solutions. Morally can we loosen restrictions on an editor who has repeatedly violated his past ones, when in many cases repeated violations lead to sitebans or broader topic bans. Policy wise, can we say that some users, due to content contributions, should be allowed such transgressions? If we argue WP:NETPOSITIVE, this argument becomes even more confusing. On one hand, Corbett's content may outweight any lack of civility. But does his content outweigh the slough of cases and appeals and administrator actions? NativeForeigner Talk 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time for a thoughtful response, . While I understand the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, you at least have the choice of deciding how you are damned.  Someone should have the courage to push a slight relaxing of the restrictions, which would have made this case never happen in the first place.   If Eric is banned here, history will show it was because he defended himself in what you yourself called a "defensible" manner, without causing any real disruption, and it was supported by at least one Arb that said it was unjust but convenient to do so.  This isn't my opinion, it is the words of you and others in that case.  That is one hell of a legacy to leave, a final nail in the coffin of the Arb of 2015. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed you withdrew your vote with explanation, which I appreciate. I think it shows a more balanced approach that actually considers the FoF in this case. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverse topic ban
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&cent; 00:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @ and others: I hate being so blunt, but felt I had no choice. You know I respect you, we've worked together on a lot of cases.  We have few problems here: 1. Eric does push the boundaries regularly, but most of the time just barely, such as this case where commenting was partially excusable.  2. There is clearly a group of people that want him banned at any price, and it is personal.  3. There is a group of people that will defend him regardless of his actions.  4. Escalating blocks only work in limited circumstances.  Edit warring, socking, POV pushing are good examples.  In civility issues, they backfire and most of the time, any block over 72 hours is punitive.  This should have been simple.


 * If we put pride aside, we have to admit the previous sanction was too broad. We have made it so he can't even say "gender" without some detractor wanting to drag him to AE.  Unpopular or not, the sanctions need to be narrowed to Gender Gap related areas (or dropped altogether, but I doubt anyone is that brave).  Otherwise, you will see more of this until you not only push him off, but you push people like ME off because we get tired of the unnecessary drama here.  There needs to be a principle that states that an Jimbo's talk page, and an individual's talk page are not immune from sanction, but a degree of latitude is given when circumstances justify it.  Either we ban Eric, or provide realistic parameters in our sanctions.


 * Kirill should have hesitated, taken it to AE or better yet, simply warned him first. He should have seen the article was about Eric and that Eric had a right to say SOMETHING.  Why Kirill didn't do it, I have no idea.  What he looking for a reason to punt Eric?  What is bad judgement?  Just a bad day?  He stands behind the action, so I have no idea.  To justify an action as basically "Policy says I can, so I did" is showing poor judgement and I would ask you reconsider your vote in that area.  Admin are not drones blindly following the parts of policy that suits our ends.  Discretion is given with the assumption we will use it wisely.  He did not, and that is the ONLY reason we are here right now.  A 72 hour block would have been too much, but I wouldn't have gotten involved because what Eric did towards the end was borderline.


 * Many of the people that like him are women because he has worked with so many women over the years, probably more than any other editor (ironic, is it not?). They don't like that he has ANY sanctions regarding Gender Gap, and they've told me this.  He might have been a little disruptive, but his opinions are shared by more than a few women here, and banning him from the topic to start with was insulting. Not everyone has the same academia approved, political correct opinion when it comes to the topic, and when we sterilize the discussion by selectively removing people who have minority opinions, we lose the right, all authority to call ourselves "Free".  My email over the last year is clear, many women feel disenfranchised and afraid to speak up because they agree with Eric on gender issues but feel they will get attacked like he has.  Not all women agree, but many do and you have silenced them, picking sides and pushing those women off the site or into the shadows afraid to speak out.  There is a gender gap, and you just might have made it worse for those that disagree with the Arb Approved&reg; version of Feminist NewSpeak.


 * You might want to restore Yngvadottir's bit as well. In many respects, she did was GW did in AE1, and this unnecessary emergency desysopping DOES look like an admin will get desysopped if they don't tow the line on what side of the Gender Gap is politically acceptable, or if you are a powerful Arb.  I'm not blaming GW for this, she is recused, nor saying they are the exact same circumstances, but that is how some see it.  Maybe she got a little emotional, but you just bit stripped one of the most liked women admin when it really wasn't an emergency.  That is part of your legacy.


 * While I like most of you individually, collectively you will go down as the most ineffective and destructive Arb of all time, the Arb of 2015. It is why I opposed everyone in the election and encouraged others to do the same.  It's why I don't even want to be here, but feel forced out of a sense of fairness. Your collective inability to work together and put petty differences aside is more disruptive than anything Eric has done this year. For god's sake, put the personal feelings to the side, drop or pare down the sanctions on Eric, recommend blocks of only 72 hours, do the smart thing, and end this horrible year with one smart decision. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @ How about making enforcement only at AE with at least 24 hours, flexible block times, an automatic reblock if he's unblocked without consensus but without a desysop - we don't want any more martyrs. If he did decide to treat the blocks as a fine he could afford, and I'm not convinced he will, then of course we'd have to reconsider. If he doesn't get blocked in the next 6 months an automatic review of his topic ban. Doug Weller (talk) 15:24, 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:


 * "Should" and "blindingly" are intentional as we aren't setting policy, we are providing leadership. This would then not single him out, and instead apply to all AE cases.  This would have prevented AE1, and will prevent hasty blocks or sanctions.  It is also just a good idea so admin from all continents have the same opportunity to opine.  I've worked AE, this is very workable, easy to impliment
 * "Should" and "blindingly" are intentional as we aren't setting policy, we are providing leadership. This would then not single him out, and instead apply to all AE cases.  This would have prevented AE1, and will prevent hasty blocks or sanctions.  It is also just a good idea so admin from all continents have the same opportunity to opine.  I've worked AE, this is very workable, easy to impliment


 * This is more of a principle, but words mean things and again, it is providing leadership. You may need to just remove the escalating section in the old wording to accomplish this.
 * This is more of a principle, but words mean things and again, it is providing leadership. You may need to just remove the escalating section in the old wording to accomplish this.


 * Following the facts in the previous case, the problem seems to have been his activity on certain pages. Silencing his opinion on gender issues in such a broad way is akin to political censorship.  Too many women agree with him on gender issues, as demonstrated by how many work with him on articles and don't find him offensive in the least.  It isn't easy to admit, but you overshot this one a bit and you need to pull back enough to let him breath without detractors hovering over him, praying he will simply use the word "gender".  This also throws it back to ALL admin, not just those that patrol AE, so enforcement is actually easier.
 * Following the facts in the previous case, the problem seems to have been his activity on certain pages. Silencing his opinion on gender issues in such a broad way is akin to political censorship.  Too many women agree with him on gender issues, as demonstrated by how many work with him on articles and don't find him offensive in the least.  It isn't easy to admit, but you overshot this one a bit and you need to pull back enough to let him breath without detractors hovering over him, praying he will simply use the word "gender".  This also throws it back to ALL admin, not just those that patrol AE, so enforcement is actually easier.


 * This is simply restating and upholding tradition, so again, providing leadership. If we want to change that, file an RFC, but we have always given a bit more leeway in both places.  Not a free for all, but it is the safest place for heated discussion, and better than an article talk page or meta page.
 * This is simply restating and upholding tradition, so again, providing leadership. If we want to change that, file an RFC, but we have always given a bit more leeway in both places.  Not a free for all, but it is the safest place for heated discussion, and better than an article talk page or meta page.

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&cent; 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&cent; 18:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: the 24 hour delay suggestion doesn't mean someone can't block for up to 72 hours now, or do both, essentially using AE as a review. It isn't a hard rule, it is guidance, so it doesn't demand that obvious cases are open 24 hours.  And if a punishment for any user under this slight delay is "punitive" after 24 hours, but wasn't urgent enough for an immediate block, then why the hell is it at AE?  Vaguely possible POV warring, borderline violations and the like deserve more than a cursory glance. When it is obvious, the delay isn't needed.   When it isn't, they we should already be waiting 24 hours instead of acting rash, as AE1 taught us.   Most of the time, this is how is works NOW.  Again, this isn't new policy, this is providing guidance and leadership based on already established "good practice".  I thought this was clear in my wording but then, I'm not an Arb-Jedi or master Wikilawyer, I'm an editor. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ 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&cent; 17:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@, 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&cent; 18:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Moar
@ and : 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. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@ Your comment 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&cent; 00:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Continuing
@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 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&cent; 20:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the three new proposals are consistent with what I said above, and what others in the community have said. The solutions aren't perfect, but perfection isn't possible here.  Kudos to Amanda for going out on a limb and proposing them, and I hope the remainder of ArbCom and the community sees them for what they are, the best solution we could hope for in this case. They actually provide guidance and leadership, which I think is important is such a divisive case.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , Those remedies aren't perfect but are really about giving guidance not setting policy so are flexible by nature, Per Newyorkbrad's essay, we can't make a rule that fits every possible situation. At this stage, they are about as good as we can hope for that might actually pass, and passing these is still better than what we have, imho. The lesser of all the available evils.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * number 9 doesn't deal with this case, it deals with all cases. It is guidance for AE in the generic. This case isn't mentioned in it at all. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD's section
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)

Necessary level of decorum for broad general participation

 * Comment As an example of the need for equality and respect, let's consider what it means to incorporate the comment above by TRPoD-- irreverent, colorful and direct-- as a suitable level of decorum for the administrative sections of the site. Does it inspire confidence that the interests of women are represented in our conflict resolution process, or that women are welcome at all? Does it inspire confidence that civilized people can participate in the administrative sections of this site? Would you want to turn to a group like this for resolution of a sexual harassment matter with possible real-life implications? --Djembayz (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Challenges posed by literary style of self expression

 * Comment After endless reading of discussions on this site, I am finally ready to speak, though not without trepidation regarding the consequences.


 * First, I was also baffled as to what Giano had to do with the case as initially presented, and share concerns above as to whether two people are being singled out for unfair treatment.


 * However, upon reflection, if we view Arbcom as a place to resolve intractable site conflicts rather than as an amateur court of law, upon reflection I believe that Arbcom has correctly identified two centrally placed individuals who are part of the center of gravity of larger constellations of conflict on the site.


 * User Eric Corbett has proven uniquely talented at provoking controversy, and for better or worse, has become a leading voice in defense of the use of sexualized language in the user talk sections where editors interact. User Giano has an unusual gift for constructing personal commentaries on others even on the basis of very minimal initial information, and would be a true asset to any team writing for stage or screen that seeks to develop compelling and dramatic conflicts.


 * I don't know if people with these two individuals' degree of literary flair in their self-expression will be willing to restrain themselves enough to interact effectively with others on the site, but it is essential that they do so if they wish to participate. (The movie Trumbo (2015 film) provides some useful insights on the challenges of interacting with literary individuals.)

Enforcement necessary for a less sexualized and hostile interaction style between editors

 * Although it's not entirely clear, it appears possible that both of these editors simply do not support the idea of turning the ship towards a non-hostile editing environment, and they may be personally opposing efforts to enforce against a sexualized and hostile interaction style, just on general principle. Perhaps they could be asked directly, "are you willing to cooperate with efforts to enforce a less sexualized and hostile interaction style between editors here?" and see what they say.

Talk pages as a privilege

 * If current sanctions don't work, the next level isn't necessarily banning these editors, but rather revoking their access to user talk pages, and having them move their discussions to e-mail. Wikipedia talk pages need to be usable by the average, garden variety editor, by timid people, by civilized people, by women and minorities. It may be worth experimenting to see if restricting commenting to article talk pages only, rather than addressing other users directly, is a way to help productive but unacceptably contentious editors function on the site. We need to reconsider how we view the privilege of posting on Wikipedia talk pages, and consider the possibility that some perfectly competent article editors may not be able to function in a user talk page environment without creating disruption. --Djembayz (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A good point but as I've suggested it might have to be extended to banning comment anywhere, allowing only article editing. Although allowing participation on article talk pages with the proviso there should be no commentary on other editors (even indirectly) might be ok. Doug Weller (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Equality, respect, and non-discrimination

 * It it not the fact that postings which are disrespectful towards women in general happen now and then that is the problem-- it is the community's response to these postings, of having endless discussions about what is and isn't disrespectful, often repeating gendered slurs in the process. This method of resolving gender-related conflicts creates an atmosphere conducive to personal attacks on other editors, and also has the unfortunate side effect of contributing to the creation of a hostile and discriminatory environment for women.


 * We need to be more effective in the way we respond to disrespectful negative comments based on identity.


 * We need firm but polite decisions that say "this is unacceptable behavior," and enforcement to ensure that people unwilling to abide by the required standards of behavior don't participate on the site. Hopefully this decision will be a step in that direction.

Equality and respect
 * The question of non-discrimination is explicitly addressed in the Manning case:

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.


 * Is Arbcom willing to apply similar principles regarding equality, respect, and non-discrimination in this case? --Djembayz (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason not to include it. Coppied over --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that anybody is violating this principle? Skipping the Workshop is turning out to have been a very poor idea.  It's not a good idea to include extraneous principles.  Are you suggesting that Eric Corbett and Giano are misogynists?  If so, you better provide evidence to support that innuendo.  Making accusations or casting aspersions without evidence is forbidden, as we have been told so many times.  Jehochman Talk 22:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am not suggesting that either editor is a misogynist. What I was attempting to say, as respectfully as I could manage, is that based on my reading of many user discussions, Mr. Corbett and Mr. Giano appear to hold positions that represent a legitimate difference of opinion on the site with regard to two key points: 1) the use of sexualized language in user interaction pages, and 2) regarding what constitutes overly personal critical remarks and what doesn't. Having just watched the movie about the hotshot Hollywood screenwriters, I was really quite struck by how the literary abilities of people like Mr. Corbett and Mr. Giano impact the way they interact on the site, and realized that they use many of the same techniques as the screenwriters to generate dialogue that holds the reader's interest. You can see evidence of how Mr. Giano does not hold back in personal discussions further up on this page.
 * Unlike many here, I don't have a legal background, and so am very much at a loss on how to participate in these complicated site processes in my time available. I am hopeful that the final decision will move us towards a workable framework for dealing with the legitimate differences of opinion described above.
 * Adopting principles moving forward of equality, respect, and non-discrimination with regards to women, as well as with regards to race, would be consistent with the terms of use. Hopefully these principles are not considered totally irrelevant, given the number of women in the community. --Djembayz (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I very much agree. You are correct that demeaning comments are extremely disruptive and problematic. It just bothers me that you made physical threats of violence against me in DC (asking me if I "wanted to go" and raising your fists at me while standing threateningly) and then called me a punk, and now post about the necessity of equality and respect. For this reason I'll abstain on any and all business directly involving you. (Though there is currently none, and I do not foresee any in the near future) NativeForeigner Talk 10:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Eric's site ban
You appear to be explicitly [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Proposed_decision&diff=next&oldid=690615807 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)
 * You've missed the context. That's about banning Eric. Doug Weller (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, when I said "that editor" in my above comment, I realize that means Eric on this occasion. I appreciate you have now acknowledged your mention of admins in this context was "probably not necessary", I think it was entirely inappropriate. Nobody should be held responsible for the conduct of others. To be fair, there may be some of your colleagues who are applying similar flawed logic, but it's hard to tell this from a bland "support". Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

Blocking policy
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)

Harassment policy
3.1.10 touches on the harassment policy. This policy also says:

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:

The sole basis for action against Eric appears to be the fact he made "two further comments ( and ), 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's unblock
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)

Kingsindian comments
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 &#9821;&#9818; 11:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Elaborating on 's comments to, the issue is that blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, but blocks are also used to punish people for violating topic bans. Is there any evidence for the behaviourist dogma that escalating blocks for trivial/borderline offences reduce recidivism? There is no requirement to read "may institute escalating blocks" as "must institute escalating blocks". Fortunately, there is a simple, if not perfect solution, which I already gave evidence for. Using WP:AE to implement the remedy has basically worked, and has resulted in much saner discussion and enforcement, and even some rejected requests as too trivial/borderline (all diffs in my evidence). However, I also gave evidence that the remedy itself is broken, but apparently ArbCom isn't interested in rethinking that here, which is a mistake, but whatever. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 06:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocks for violating topic bans are not  punitive. The purpose of a topic ban is to prevent uncooperative or unconstructive editing, How can these be enforced except by blocking? The only other technique I can imagine is to revert the edits, but this would being to involve arb enforcement much too greatly into content matters. Maintaining quality in the article is the job of the community of editors as a whole; keeping away people who have been shown by repeated experiences to  inevitable cause lowering of quality is the job of administrators and arb com.  DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, but I am afraid it doesn't change my belief that this block was punitive. Anyway, whatever the viewpoint on that, admins are expected to apply discretion; as you yourself noted in your reply to Hawkeye7, "may institute escalating blocks" is not the same as "must institute escalating blocks". As to your question about how "uncooperative and unconstructive editing" can be stopped, one must first demonstrate that "uncooperative and unconstructive editing" occurred. Nobody at all, including Kirill Lokishin, claims that this happened. I raised the point in my original statement that enforcement should focus on disruption rather than a blind "rules are rules" application. I gave evidence that the record of WP:AE has been much better in this respect, which instituted various measures such as doing nothing, interaction bans and yes, blocking. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:22, 25 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 and  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 &#9821;&#9818; 21:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to asking for comments

 * 1) As  stated in their evidence, the violations by Eric Corbett of the GGTF remedy are significantly less problematic than the ones which got him banned. I would actually go further and claim that there have been zero examples of actual disruption in any of the comments (the Kaldari one is a different civility remedy).
 * 2) The ban was vague and inconsistently applied. In the resultant WP:AE discussions, the admins implementing the remedy disagreed on whether the topic ban was violated, or whether it constituted enough to block him for. See my evidence. There have also been a couple of cases where no action was taken at WP:AE.
 * 3) Other remedies on EC have worked rather well, including the RfA one. See 's diff here.
 * 4) The GGTF is an official initiative, about a specific political problem. It is different from normal Wikiprojects. Illogically, Corbett criticizing/disrupting the Wikiproject (and the mailing list and WMF) was banned from mentioned the gender gap topic anywhere. Looking at the last few blocks/unblocks on Eric, it simply defies belief to rule out political sympathies, conscious or unconscious. As a dramatic but rather inconclusive factoid, no less than four persons who blocked EC (,,  and ) are currently running for ArbCom, and another candidate  opened an WP:AE request which was dismissed. Note that I am not accusing anyone of impropriety. All important issues are political, and rightly so. It does everyone a disservice to pretend otherwise, as this case has done.
 * 5) As a proposal, to avoid the appearance of "special treatment" of Eric Corbett, as  claims, I present an adapted proposal of something else I read (IIRC it was by, another ArbCom candidate). First ban EC for a long enough duration, say three months. Simultaneously narrow the remedy to apply to the GGTF pages only. This will draw a line under the whole business, and align everyone's expectations as to the future conduct. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is no secret that the last proposal is not my own choice. However, I have seen several people (I mentioned in my statement, but there are others) give the following argument: the latest block is not just for the latest minor infraction, but the pattern of topic ban violations, and simply narrowing or otherwise removing the restriction is evidence of "special treatment" and rewarding bad behaviour.
 * This is with some justice, though I think they are mistaken overall - I do not believe that after the experience Eric Corbett has gone through, anyone can justly speak of rewards here. My proposal was meant to address this argument, while ensuring that this issue does not stretch out indefinitely. It is meant as a closure to the entire sordid business, which is unfair to not only Eric Corbett, but also to people on all sides, who are being desysopped or otherwise disillusioned, and also those people who tried to implement a broken remedy honestly (I gave the example of Sandstein in my evidence). I plucked the "three month" duration out of thin air, I have no opinion about whether it is too large or too small. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 19:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

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 with the interpretation that this was a violation which should result in action. On the other side, counselling closure with no action, there were, , , and. 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 &#9821;&#9818; 21:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

New remedies
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 &#9821; &#9818; 17:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone pointed it out to me, and I just read remedy 8 more carefully: I have two comments. First, may I say, "I told you so"? Courcelles' oppose comment is precisely what I said in my point 5. Of course, you might have anticipated this and thought this was for the best anyway. Secondly, the remedy does not actually address the issue fully. The case which passed the remedy was *called "interactions at GGTF", (my emphasis). The FoF regarding Eric Corbett, points C and D, if you check, all the diffs refer to edits made at the GGTF talk page. (Points A and B are handled by the "belittling" remedy). See also the comments by NYB, NativeForeigner and Carcaroth in their vote at the PD. Yet, illogically in the remedy, he was banned from the gender gap topic. Changing it to forbid him to talk about GGTF is a bit better, but not a whole lot, since the focus is not on disruption, but opinion. For instance, the absurd case I mentioned above will still fall under this remedy.
 * Having said this, it is definitely better than the earlier remedy, because it makes the scope clearer and a bit more sensible. Combined with remedy 9 and 10, perhaps it will work out, who knows. I have already banged my drum a lot, and people will be getting tired of me, if they are not already. I will shut up now. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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 &#9821; &#9818; 18:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was speaking relatively. Nobody who brings any case to WP:AE remains unscathed. I have been called an "apologist for violence", "a liar who falsifies sources" among other things (diffs in my evidence). It is not pleasant bringing a case to WP:AE or WP:ANI - your own motives are always questioned. Grumbling in WP:AE threads is different from bringing someone to ArbCom. Moreover, my major point remains the same. Your own request was closed at WP:AE with no action, while others were acted on. This would be seen as more transparent. If you had blocked Eric Corbett by yourself, do you think you would have gotten less or more heat? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please put this long suffering case out of its misery. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 19:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

isaacl's section
Regarding restricting an editor to edit articles only, as mentioned [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Proposed_decision&diff=690617077&oldid=690616505 on the proposed decision page] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Proposed_decision&diff=690757011&oldid=690756717 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2/Proposed_decision&diff=690879230&oldid=690772998 allowing other editors to register an appeal of sanctions]: as [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement/Workshop&diff=671061124&oldid=670975982 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FArbitration_enforcement_2%2FProposed_decision&type=revision&diff=691111150&oldid=691096503 Hawkeye7's comments]: I agree that the Arbitration Committee has the responsibility to specify clear criteria for enforcement in its remedies. As I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement/Workshop&diff=674662688&oldid=674662527 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. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement/Workshop&diff=674665005&oldid=674664752 Salvio giuliano indicated a general agreement] that the committee indeed has this responsibility. isaacl (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

AE3 incoming in 3, 2, 1....
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)

Hawkeye7's section
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)

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)


 * "for up to one month" does not mean "for one month".   DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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 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?


 * 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)

Five people. I blocked him too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The sentiments you expressed are not acceptable in 2015. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

WJBscribe's section
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)


 * Whether or not the arbitrators agree, it would be good practice to propose a motion and vote on it. That way we can see who supports, who doesn't and the reasoning. Jehochman Talk 19:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't really be polite to do anything like this without discussing it with her first. Doug Weller (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. You (ArbCom) took her admin rights away, you don't need to discuss with her to give them back. If she doesn't want them any more, she can always resign them (but she would be doing so in good standing). The desysop seems to be becoming permanent by default. There should be a motion to either: (a) restore Yngvadottir's access now; (b) confirm that it will be restored at a later date; or (c) confirm that her conduct was sufficiently serious that the desysop is permanent and she must run a new RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think 3A (linked to in the opening post) is a very sensible proposal, and hope the committee at least formally considers it. (The remedy comprised a six month temporary desysop to give the admin time to reflect, followed by a six month moratorium on them unblocking the person they got into trouble for unblocking.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Remedy needed in relation to Yngvadottir
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)
 * 1) Yngvadottir's desysop was stated to have taken place under "level 2" of the Removal of permissions provision of Arbitration Committee/Procedures.
 * 2) Arbitration Committee/Procedures states, "Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. 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."
 * 3) It seems that, if ArbCom want a level 2 removal to be permanent, they are supposed to make it the subject of a full case.
 * 4) However, the notification at WP:ACN of level 2 removal of Yngvadottir's access included the following provision, "They may only regain adminship after a successful RfA."
 * 5) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Proposed decision includes no remedy in relation to Yngvadottir. It merely notes the desysop as a finding of fact.
 * 6) As stated above, I would have expected the full case to (having heard all the evidence) include provision for the return +sysop, its suspension for a period of time (as in these somewhat similar circumstances) or a remedy requiring a new RfA.
 * 7) It appears that the issue of return of permissions was prejudged at the time of the level 2 removal, but ArbCom's procedures don't appear to provide for summary permanent removal - it needs a full vote.


 * I have proposed a remedy to this effect just now, trying to word it as neutrally as possible. See the PD page.  DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. WJBscribe (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As soon as this case is over, I'll be proposing updates to the current Level I/Level II processes (including renaming them), which should sort out some of the current issues.  Roger Davies  talk 09:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin's section
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)

Arbcom contradicting itself
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)

Ched
<removed per request?

- 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)


 * I request that this page not be closed. — Ched : ?  14:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I ask this because I wish to present evidence. I understand that the "evidence" phase in this case is closed.  I would request leeway to present evidence that this case has been corrupted.  — Ched :  ?  15:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I must say that I am concerned that the harassment of Mr. Corrbet not only goes unchecked, but that obvious violations of the foundation of this site are used and twisted to achieve an agenda. Said agenda is in direct violation of the goals of this site.  — Ched :  ?  16:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A motion should be made that this case be vacated. Salvio should be censured for extending the reach of the scope of this case.  I  should be admonished for the tone of my posts. — Ched :  ?  16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Motion
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)
 * 1) what is best for the readers - content.
 * 2) prejudicial.


 * I submit that this committee has not exercised due diligence in reviewing this case. While evidence regarding Eric's - and by extension and evidence in fact, Giano's contributions have been given weight, the contra balance has not been given fair review. — Ched :  ?  18:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Discovery I request that members of the committee disclose any and all off-wiki attempts to sway resolutions to this case. — Ched : ?  18:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Mrjulesd's section
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)

it says in the procedures at Arbitration Committee/Procedures "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.  --Jules (Mrjulesd) 04:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

Gatoclass's section
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.


 * Firstly, I am pleased to see the committee acknowledging that a user's overall contribution record may be taken into account when considering sanctions, per the "Sanctions and circumstances" finding. I think this is an important step forward for dealing with such cases.


 * I note however, that in spite of recognizing the desirability of tailoring sanctions according to a respondent's overall contribution record, the Committee has nonetheless apparently retained the "escalating sanctions" model in the Eric Corbett prohibited section of a previous case as well as here. I think this is a mistake; escalating sanctions are in my opinion a broken model for this kind of case. I think it would be far better, and likely to greatly decrease wikidrama, if an upper limit on block length, say one month, were to be imposed for this type of user for this type of offence. The fact that we end up considering sitebans for otherwise highly productive editors for the relatively minor offence of an occasional incivility is I think an issue that needs to be recognized and addressed, or it is virtually certain to cause more needless wikidrama in future.


 * Finally, I note that the Committee is on the verge of endorsing a remedy which will restrict the imposition of blocks in the case of this user to AE. My concern about this remedy is that, with administrators so divided in their opinions about such users, this will effectively lead to a toothless sanction with administrator !votes cancelling each other out as in previous cases of this kind, thus leading right back to square one. I think a better option would be to allow administrators to unilaterally impose a block (of up to one month, as suggested above), with an appeal allowable at AE, per standard procedures. Blocks would not be overturnable except when a supermajority of participating admins agreed on its inappropriateness. I would additionally suggest that such appeals not be closable until 24 hours after the last statement by an adjudicating admin, ensuring that the case is not decided prematurely. This would allow for effective sanctions to be imposed where necessary, while still ensuring adequate oversight.

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)


 * As I said, I doubt enforcement only at AE will work with a user who so polarizes the community (see the admin wars in the last two cases at AE involving Eric for examples). I think you need to allow individual admins to impose sanctions per the standard model, with a lack of consensus among admins in any subsequent appeal defaulting to a lost appeal. I would also like to see you guys considering the notion of an upper limit to blocks for incivility or for breaching the other remedy rather than escalating blocks. A number of users on this page have made this proposal but there's been no response. Most people seem to agree that, taken individually, Eric's breaches are largely minor, so why wave the banhammer around? Isn't it like jailing someone for life for failing to pay their parking fines? Limited blocks would also be likely to greatly reduce, if not eliminate altogether, the amount of wikidrama generated by these cases, because if the offender's supporters know he only faces a few weeks at most in the sin bin, they are unlikely to kick up such a fuss. It's disappointing to see Arbcom responding year after year to the same problems with the same failed all-or-nothing approach when there are alternative approaches that are going untried. Gatoclass (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , I see you already endorsed the blocks-only-at-AE model on the proposed decision page. I still have my doubts that will be effective, but for the record, my previous post was made before I was aware of your amended position. I'm inclined to agree, having seen your post, that it might be better to try the blocks-only-at-AE model rather than do nothing at all if they are the only options left on the table at this point. If it does prove ineffective, you could perhaps consider the alternative approach at a later date. Gatoclass (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I cannot endorse the new remedies, 9 and 10, proposed by. 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)


 * , you are correct regarding remedy 9, my apologies - it's late here and I'm tired and about to log off. Given that a review of existing AE procedures has recently been proposed however, I'm thinking that would be a better place to discuss such changes rather than in the middle of this case. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems I also misread remedy 10, perhaps it is not so objectionable as I initially thought but I don't have time to give it more consideration right now. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Carrite's section
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)


 * The Arbitration Enforcement system is part of the problem. In its current form, it is Tattletale Central, where enemies and gameplayers can go to report the transgressions of their foes; these are then unilaterally acted upon by Administrators with wide bullying streaks without the benefit of adequate discussion or consensus. Putting a 24 hour discussion requirement on seems a good start, not just for EC but for every AE request. Carrite (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support these ideas, though the decision is essentially heading in this direction already, and there's not really a need to say "there was no case". The result speaks for itself.  Yngvadottir should get her temporary desysop vacated and be admonished instead.  EC's sanction should be modified to allow common sense determination of appropriate block length, and AE requests should generally go to the board, for transparency, and be discussed for 24 hours, unless there is a true emergency or other stranger circumstance that requires swifter enforcement.  Jehochman Talk 14:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as the only ounce of sense I've seen on this page. I know this ain't a vote or anything, but Carrite isn't a lone voice in the wilderness. Intothatdarkness 21:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber's section
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)

GoodDay's section
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)

Eric Corbett's section
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)


 * The implementation notes say the ban remedy "cannot pass". The reverse topic ban looks unlikely. Doug Weller (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That wasn't my point. My point was that given those two options seem unlikely to gather sufficient support, then it's necessary to invent something else before this case can be closed, and hope that will gather the necessary consensus. Eric   Corbett  22:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That's "Enforcement of Eric Corbett's sanctions (alternative)" for which I've suggested some changes. I'm going to chase this up now. Doug Weller (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sitush's section
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 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)

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)

Evangeliman's Section
"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)

DD2K's Section
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)
 * Final Comment - Are you people delusional or what? Look, I've listed the cases the past year and a half, and Eric's multiple blocks under both his known user names on the project. There is no question that he has become a disruptive force on this project. How that happened is up for debate, but the fact is that he's become disruptive. Dennis says there are two sides, while there might be, there is also the side that is sick and tired of special rules being developed for certain editors.
 * I myself have never had a problem with Eric, under either user name. And I don't think(deep down) he's sexist, although some of his actions can certainly be perceived that way.
 * 1) The fact that Eric refuses to ask for an unblock is problem #1 in a long list of problems surrounding this issue.
 * 2) Any admin taking it upon themselves to unblock Eric out of process, and against Wiki rules, is definitely worthy of a desysop. Period. It does not matter that Eric will not ask for an unblock, that is not a special circumstance for the committee or the project to take into consideration. That is Eric's personal decision.
 * 3) They are not 'martyrs' as User:DeltaQuad described them, and the project should not have admins taking these steps to further disrupt the project. Period.
 * 4) This is not about 'civility', that is a straw man argument. Eric was able to defend himself on Jimbo's page, and it was not until he started arguing about the GG that he crossed the line. There was absolutely no reason for him to do so in order to defend himself, and he knew he was violating his topic ban. To argue otherwise is disingenuous and an insult to the intelligence of Wikipedia editors.
 * I wish user:Jimbo Wales was able to talk some sense to the committee and to enable them with some wisdom, and that's a desperate wish.
 * As long as admins are able to block Eric, as long as Eric refuses to ask for an unblock, as long as he has a list of supporters willing to try and bully people into submission, this project will be disrupted over and over by these same issues. So regardless if any of us want tougher sanctions, that is the only recourse into solving this once and for all.
 * Loosening the sanctions for a serial abuser of restrictions imposed by this very body is absolutely absurd. And any member of ArbCom that believes that is the answer should resign immediately. Dave Dial (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Amanda and Doug, why not just be more honest in your proposals and state "Rules apply to everyone equally, except for our friends". This ArbCom now wants to alter unanimous sanctions imposed last case, because their friends....and sanction wheel warring, because their friends.... Dave Dial (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave, I'm not a friend of Eric. You should know that and I'm disappointed by this personal attack. What I am trying to do is stop wheel-warring by making it pointless to unblock Eric if the block was placed by consensus at AE. Do you think this suggestion won't derail the disruption? And if we should in the future have another editor who is the focus of similar wheel-warring, I'd suggest the same remedy. The sanctions change won't just affect Eric. Do you object to it in principle, ignorng Eric, and if so why? Doug Weller (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a personal attack, Doug, and sorry if you do. It's frustration. And yes, I would oppose any remedy that allowed admins to unblock AE blocks unilaterally without a desysop. I also don't believe this case should have been even accepted. I should have taken my own advice and made my claimed last comment, my last comment. For the record, I don't want Eric banned for this, or even his block reinstated. It's been long enough as it is now. The problems here are rouge actions and escalations. Why not leave things as they are and close this case? It's obvious that the current committee can not agree on any relevant remedies, and keeping the case open just lets things fester. Dave Dial (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

, 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)

Explanation of new proposals
For those confused by the new proposals, these are the end results of those proposals should they pass.


 * This proposal by DQ would rescind this remedy(general topic ban) that was passed unanimously, taking away topic bans related to the gender gap entirely and only specific to the gender gap task force. This was passed in lieu of banning Eric in the GGTF case. Meanwhile both Carol and (later)Lightbreather were banned from the project.


 * Doug's proposal would reinstate the bit for an admin who reverted the ArbCom block, and allow further admins to unblock AE blocks without consequences(although the unblocks would supposedly be reversed). Making unblocking supposedly useless. It's supposed to be useless now, and result in a desysop, so this just removes the desysop portion of the consequence. Please correct me if I am wrong.


 * Eric's recent block wasn't replaced after he was unblocked, so it wasn't useless. I don't know the history of previous wheel-warring so can't say if all or any of his unblocks were reblocked. Doug Weller (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

DeltaQuad's section

 * Rather than trying to respond to you all individually, I'd rather respond in my own section to solicit all the appropriate comments. As for the recent reverse topic ban proposal, I have a few comments:
 * The proposal wasn't designed to shame Eric off the website, at least in my view. It was to limit Eric's disruption and to drive productive contributions (not saying that none of their contributions are productive).
 * The proposal is absolutely flawed and doesn't address the issues at hand which related to administrators and escalating blocks. It opens more enforcement towards Eric, which is not the reason why we came here in the first place. It was the admin actions that brought us here.
 * has got me really into rethinking the idea of 72 hour blocks, and may have changed my view on that and escalating blocks. Since my days first at the tools, I have used the escalating block model. Given some deep thought into it now I have a few comments. Escalating blocks do not take into account good contributions. I'm not saying vested contributors should get a green pass to engage in violations of policy. But if our blocks are meant to be preventative, then the model of escalating blocks is screwed up. After all we want people to be able to contribute to the project productively, not be caught in forever incarceration of never being able to do that because they screw up. Does this mean people should be banned or indef'd from Wikipedia - yes, it still does. But my view on how many/reasons why is closing more narrowly. While with Eric we want to reduce the administrative burden of the violations, we also have to realize 1) It's not always him creating the burden 2) Short blocks are cheap. If we play hard ball on civility to the point where we are making indefs or high value block lengths out of people saying "fuck" vs. "go fuck yourself" then we are not acting in the best interests of the project.
 * Now all of you hold on to your seats. Given what I've just said above, the escalating duration block on civility was a bad idea. This 72 hour proposal is appealing to me finally. It deals with the issue at hand, stops admins from being idiots and sacrificing the bit (or at least discourages for such a cheap block).
 * If anyone of you want to slap me, trout me, or what ever you want to do for just coming to the point that I've come to, then please feel free. It's way beyond well deserved.
 * I still agree to this point that this case should have been accepted. Cases can be accepted without a ban or restriction, they just set a path for what should/shall/may happen down the road.
 * I doubt my colleagues will go a fresh workshop right now, so I hope the below will suffice.
 * I do feel like shit right now for going to propose the reverse topic ban. It was unhealthy and it would have been better to consider modifying other things or just closing out the case instead of doing so. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for your sympathy at all, in fact the reverse, I ask you don't express your sympathy. Arbitrators have to held accountable to the decisions they make, and in this case, I fucked it up. I alone am responsible for my contribution in that aspect.


 * Before I go crazy and start adding more proposals to the PD, I would like to here ALL comments, even some from you if your willing, on the idea of these:
 * Revise R3.3¶3 of GGTF to stop the maximum block for that restriction to be 72 hours, and for the minimum to be a discretion.
 * Also I wish to hear thoughts on a possible restriction that any overturning of such a block without a clear consensus (80%+) from ANI would result in a forthwith desysop.
 * On numerous comments that the gender gap topic ban is too wide, bring down the topic ban to match the scope of the original case, being the gender gap taskforce.

I think that's all I need to cover for now, and I await responses. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm requesting opinions. Except for the 72 hours, I haven't stated my support for any particular remedy at this point. I'm trying to get the discussion going on what will work. If you think it's a site ban, then please tell me. We are here at this point because the previous sanctions haven't worked, and hell we are having admins desysoped over it. Do you have any particular recommendation for admins sacrificing their bits to make a point? As for number two in your points...I wasn't clear enough obviously and was being too abstract in my thinking. I was not looking to override already existent AE procedure, just strengthen it with a forthwith desysop to make it clear admins acting like (frankly) idiots, is not appropriate. I'll look more directly into the blocks in my considerations. Please don't assume I'm already taking sides when I am not. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of responses, but i'll be responding to them in order that they come in, so if you don't see a response, it's not because I am ignoring you, I just need time. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if your asking me to reconsider my oppose on the Krill FoF or not, but I did vote oppose there which I feel is inline with your ideas. Correct me if not. Also, thank you for providing the recommendations, and I really like the idea of ALL AE threads being open for 24 hours unless blindly (yes as in a fresh admin out of RfA with no Arb like experience could say it) obvious. Once I get through talkpage comments, i'll mull over specifics and provide a more direct reply with my views on those proposals. That said, I definitely want to see a workable solution also. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One thing I forgot here Dennis was to cover the desysop. I agree the emergency aspect of the motion was wrong. That said, I'm not up for restoring the bit point blank. It sends the wrong message in my opinion about reversing AE decisions and creating more drama. That said, I'm not opposed to starting a discussion (and I would be willing to initiate it) with Yngvadottir about the circumstances of their actions, future prevention, and maybe a resysop by motion if everything checks out. Likely though, I would approach that post case, so we can deal with EC for now. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see inconstancy from your point 1 to point 5. If, as you claim, "there have been zero examples of actual disruption in any of the comments", how does that result in the need for a ban? I don't like the idea of appeasing groups by banning someone without reason. (To everyone else reading this, i'm just pointing out the logic flaw, not saying that a ban isn't needed/there is no reason...don't twist my words around, thanks.) I have read the rest of your statement, and if you would like specific reply on anything, please reping. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that clarity. I still feel we can avoid any legitimate favoritism claims at this point, so I don't see 5 as needed at this point. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't like limiting it to a specific group, especially ArbCom itself. If we did (recommend/restrict/force) blocks for the civility enforcement to 72 hours (again...not say that it's the way i'm ready to go right now), would your proposal to limit it to certain groups change at all? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Somethings I agree with in your post, others I don't. The only one i'll comment on right now, is I don't view admins that stupidly revert AE enforcement proceedings are martyrs by any means, and I don't think I ever said that. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to follow your message to ArbCom, but I don't agree that we only have 2 tools in our belt to use, and I hope we can act beyond bans (topic or site) and desysops to solve this issue. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you put points 2 and 3 in a different light, i'm not sure I follow. That said, I agree with your comment on rulings and clarity, and loved the essay and supposed family rule page. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It would have been nice to have a workshop in my opinion on this case so we could see the community views, but since were short on time right now, I'd only really consider adding P4, R1, and possibly R2 (only after I do even more digging and make some more decisions about where I stand). Of course i'll need more time to do this...hopefully I can get something posted before the weekends out, hopefully sooner. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really going to play a game of copy-editing here. It's a phrase from where I live (how widely it's used globally I don't know), and it carries the appropriate meaning. This isn't really the PD, and someone won't base enforcement off my use of one word here, so instead of wasting the time to fix it or that i'm doing writing this message, I will just let it be. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have read up to comments to 11:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC). At this point my replies will be more limited as I review things by my comments above. If you would like me to respond anything specific, please ping me and state directly what you would like me to respond to. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made my final set of proposals to the PD. Beyond this point I will not be modifying my proposals (except where stupidity/obvious changes need to be made) nor changing my vote on them. I don't expect everyone to be accepting of it, what I do expect though is for parties and non-parties to understand I have taken the time to read through their comments even from the above post, and i've tried to make the best recommendation I can. And I can hear you already with "well it was a pretty shitty recommendation to make". All I have to say to that is at least I thought about the recommendation I made. I do not expect to be replying much more to this talkpage in an effort to get this case closed so the community can rest. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Worm That Turned's section
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.

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. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the 24 hour min AE discussion would create an updated definition for who can sanction or remove sanctions... i.e., those with the consensus of AE behind them. I'd certainly be fine with that. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone believes Eric has caused the gender gap personally - but rather that his history epitomises an issue some people believe leads to the gender gap. I've clarified on my table. For the record, I don't believe civility issues are particularly related to the gender gap. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. The wearing effect is something that turns up all over wikipedia and is a form of burnout. The question is how to deal with the negative repercussions that it can cause. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's section
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:
 * 1) If Eric Corbett had simply appealed the one-month block, it would have been discussed and probably reduced to a more proportionate length. This dispute and case have multiple causes, but a main one of them is Eric's refusal on principle to appeal blocks, coupled with the newish rule that no one can appeal a block on AN or AE other than the blocked user himself or herself. The lessons of this fact remain an exercise for the reader.
 * 2) It is a mistake to confuse other people's views on the importance of civility, anti-harassment, and gender equality with their views on the best outcome to this by-now very convoluted case, borne of unusual facts and virtually incomprehensible to anyone who has not followed the years of back-story.
 * 3) It is also a mistake to confuse people's views as to Eric Corbett's past behavior or overall pattern of behavior with their views of his conduct in the specific incident that led to the case.
 * 4) It is a further mistake to assume that any set of remedies or restrictions adopted in an arbitration case, past or present, could ever predict or address every set of circumstances that might arise. There can always be unexpected situations, and there will always be borderline cases. Please read my short essay here regarding this issue. (Please actually do read it, or re-read it, as its point is being overlooked by several people here. For extra insight and more fun, read the article I link at the end of the essay also.)
 * 5) To the arbitrators on this case, having sat where you sit, I understand the frustrations many of you must be feeling with the current state of this case. I implore the Committee to wrap up the case quickly, because it is doing no one on any side of the controversy any good at all for it to continue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

John Carter's section
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)

PamD's section
I take issue with '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)


 * My belated thanks to for amending his wording to "epitomising one of the perceived reasons that Wikipedia has a gender gap", an improvement.  Pam  D  21:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Slippage
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the second diff in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Proposed decision, 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Proposed decision, "the violation was too minor for a substantial penalty". Drmies (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso's section
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)

This ArbCom case is but a walking shadow...
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)

certiorari improvidently granted
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)

Opinion of Jehochman
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:


 * 1) ...but thank you for testing a new idea, even if it didn't succeed. Jehochman Talk 01:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) The only advantage I see of skipping the workshop is that trainwrecks like this one belie the notion that all Arbcom cases are pre-decided. That's not a good enough reason to skip the workshop.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) It was clearly a mistake. I know some candidates for the committee (can't recall who they were) wanted to speed up the process by eliminating the workshop stage, but this makes it clear that is a bad idea. What I'd like to see is Arbitrators making more use of the workshop page, including perhaps some proposals themselves that might go in the PD. A good workshop makes writing a successful PD much easier and exposes possible problem, especially if the drafters use it. Doug Weller (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) The case should never have been accepted, but once it was, skipping the workshop wasn't a good idea. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Another thing that would have come out in the workshop was the temporary nature of the desysopping. I also laud the willingness to experiment, but agree that skipping the workshop was not a good idea. While I still think that it could be skipped in some cases, this one highlighted the difficulty in predicting this in advance,. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

{Somebody else's opinion}

 * 1) At this point it is moot, I suspect arbcom is waiting for after the holiday to deal with this mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)