Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence

I am not going to add much to what I have written above, for reasons which are explained on my talk page. Meanwhile, let's hope this case doesn't end up with such an incompetent outcome as GamerGate or GGTF. I shall not, however, be holding my breath. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. so you remove my section, and a number of other people's, whilst leaving fiction like Kevin Gorman's section? Sorry clerks, don't do that please. Otherwise people might think this case is exactly as it has been described at other places. Does the phrase "kangaroo court" mean anything to you? Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Two issues were conflated in the Atlantic article: incivility and harassment. Corbett is uncivil at times, frequently to those who take an arrogant tone toward him, but rarely to innocent bystanders. He has taken his lumps when he's overstepped. However, he did not harass Lightbreather, and his editing and content work clearly shows that he is not a misogynist. He was prone to stick his nose into the hornets' nest of the Gender Gap Task Force and poke the hive with a stick. That said, he insults everyone, and the four-letter insult that LB claimed was directed at LB is a term Corbett has also used to describe Jimbo. Montanabw^(talk) 01:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In short, Corbett was not portrayed accurately in the Atlantic article, and had every right to make efforts to clear his name. Montanabw^(talk) 01:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have failed when it comes to enforcing civility. Escalating blocks and the "first block advantage" don't work. Arb has unwittingly given those that oppose Eric tools to de facto ban him for minor infractions. No wonder there is so much drama. We've made it a blockable offense to be disliked.

Some say that admin are afraid to block him, as if the admin corp is a bunch of cowards. That is foolish. Most admin don't fear Eric, but they do fear the long, sometimes overreaching arms of Arb, getting dragged into a six week debate on their fitness, and possibly bit stripped for the crime of agreeing with him. Eric doesn't have this power, only Arb does, so let us be realistic when we talk about fear and risk. Most of the time, Eric can be avoided by simply unwatching his talk page.

We've created this monster with unworkable Arb restrictions, perhaps forged with the best of intentions but executed in a way that turns Eric into a pinata. Anyone can take a swipe, but he can't swipe back. If you really care about keeping Eric, and keeping disruption to a minimum, lift all (or the overly broad) restrictions and treat him like any other editor. If he needs a 72 hour block, give it. The short blocks have been effective, the blind escalation without regard to the actual offense has made things worse.

Kirill followed the letter of the law, but in an overly strict way. We've desysopped someone recently for habitually doing this very thing, while edit warring. That would be overkill here. What we need is LESS Arbitration when it comes to Eric, not more. Or ban him so everyone who supports him can just retire. That would be the easy thing, but it would be the most expensive and foolish. I'm not asking for Eric to be above others, simply have the overly broad portions of his restrictions removed so we can treat him like everyone else, so you don't have the impression (or reality) that others are waiting by the sidelines hoping he says "gender" and gets banned. There is no justice and Arb is not a court. What this requires is being brave enough to try something that might actually work, instead of more of what has already failed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kww's comment shows the split among admin in dealing with Eric and civility in general. He feels we should have left the indef block, a de facto ban, in place years ago. A few might agree, but do we want an encyclopedia or a polite social networking website? The solution is using good judgement and the least amount of force required, not aggressive blocks. There was nothing disruptive about what Eric said, yet plenty are ready to ban him today, only for what they think he has done in the past. If you fail to see that, then there truly is no justice here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Moved to talk page (clerk action)

 – Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence that Eric Corbett was blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said he creates half of his featured content with women. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Eric is perfectly aware of his restrictions and intentionally exceeded them an incredible number of times as evidenced by his block log. He could have either avoided violating his topic bans or approached AC asking for an exemption. He's repeatedly made it clear that he doesn't care about his restrictions and has no intention to abide bythem.
• Kirill is a well-respected former arbitrator who accurately enforced an arbitration remedy against an editor knowing the incredible backlash anyone sanctioning Eric receives. There's no question that his enforcement was accurate according to active arb remedies, and I have no doubt that he took in to account Eric's previous flagrant flaunting of sanctions and hesitancy of most admins to action Eric in taking action.
• Yngvadottir announced her retirement months ago. While acting out of her ideals deserves a measure of respect, she chose to use her tools in a way she knew was inappropriate to directly counteract the will of the arbitration committee. I hold nothing against her personally, but instead of pursuing an appropriate path to challenge Kirill's actions, she did something knowing it directly counteracted standing arb remedies and would likely result in her appropriate desysop.
• Black Kite has made multiple statements, such as [this] unfounded attack that lead me to seriously question his ability to act in accordance with the expectations of decorum and behavior expected from all administrators. I would suggest AC consider his actions and continued ability to function as an administrator.
• Multiple inappropriate attacks have been launched by a number of parties, including Giano's behavior here, here, and here among many others, many of which Gamaliel points out. I would strongly consider AC to consider the behavior of Giano and others that occurs whenever EC is blocked for any reason. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Kww raises good points below and I endorse his viewpoint: it's the unblocks that are the problem.

Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

"The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. To give you just one example, it's my opinion that one of the most incivil people on WP is Jimbo Wales, and very few would have the balls to block him. Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me. Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. Eric Corbett 20:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)" [2]

Current version

See the footnote to the current version linked above.

"In a page set up to discuss Lightbreather’s request [Corbett] told her, 'The easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.'"

See the current version linked above.

Permalink

Diff

• It's just the normal press hyperbole. It makes for a better story if I'm an administrator, so that's what they describe me as.
• No woman was called a cunt so far as I'm aware, and certainly not by me, admin or not.
• Let's be clear about this. The only person I've ever called a cunt on WP is Jimbo, who I have every reason to believe is not a female.
• That's my experience as well. I'm just not seeing this alleged misogyny.
• "All the time"? That's a pretty big lie.
• In fact, if I were to go just by the editors I've worked with, particularly on FA/GAs I'd be inclined to think that it was about 50/50 between males and females.

(Block log) citing two of Corbett's comments in the Talk:Jimbo Wales discussion:

• "That's my experience as well. I'm just not seeing this alleged misogyny."
• "In fact, if I were to go just by the editors I've worked with, particularly on FA/GAs I'd be inclined to think that it was about 50/50 between males and females."

as breaches of his gender gap topic ban; specifically, "Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from [...] making any edit about [...] the gender disparity among Wikipedians."

• 48 hours (breach) (AE request). Sandstein 19:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• 72 hours (breach) (AE request) Coffee 18:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• one week (breach) (AE request). Callanecc 07:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  extended to two weeks (breach) Callanecc 02:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• one month (breach) GorillaWarfare 03:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Overturned 28 June 2015 [3][reply]

Salvio, if you do anything more or less than confirm the one month block (taking into account time served - Eric has effectively stopped editing) and confirm the desysop, you'll blow this. Any less and you're feeding the disruption and not just looking but being weak. Any more (such as a site ban) and you're being needlessly punitive/vindictive. The existing sanctions are working. His incivility has dwindled to a triclke, if that, and he and those watching are learning you won't tolerate his ignorant sexist denialism. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out Eric is trolling. It was "just one breach" but it was deliberate and he knew he would waste all this time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

  Moved to talk page (clerk action)

 – Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm no notification? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Interactions at GGTF was closed on 1st December 2014. Eric Corbett was banned from discussing the Gender Gap. He was also banned from "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors". There was also an additional interaction Ban with Lightbreather put in place 28 April. He has been blocked about 6 times since. (I say about as there was a double offence in May, but the June offence was overturned)

1. 25 January - 48 hours. No admin unblocked.

   Diffs in violation of GG topic ban: [4], [5], [6]

2. 27 February - 72 hours. No admins unblocked.

   Diffs in violation of "belittling": [7]

3. 27 May and also 29 May - 2 weeks (and 2 days) block, no admin unblocked.

   Diffs in violation of GG topic ban: [8] and subsequently [9]

4. 26 June - 1 month. overturned at AN 28 June

   Diffs in violation of GG topic ban: [10]

5. 20 July initially 1 month but reduced to 72 hours per Arbcom restriction. No admin unblocked.

   Diffs in violation of "belittling": [11] [12]

6. 22 October - 1 month. overturned without consensus by Yngvadottir.

   Diffs in violation of GG topic ban: [13], [14]

Eric Corbett is still regularly being blocked. Arbcom, and the wider community, knows that each of these blocks is associated with grumbling at noticeboards, which is a significant timesink. That said, the diffs for which Eric Corbett has been blocked are significantly less problematic than those associated with his past behaviour, making the longer blocks look extraordinarily draconian. Proportional blocks are the right way to go with Arbcom enforcement of this case, however we have seen that proportional blocks are not being handed out.

• Eric is prohibited from "editing any pages relating to or making any edit about ... the gender disparity among Wikipedians [and] any process or discussion relating to [the gender disparity among Wikipedians], all broadly construed" (Interactions at GGTF, "Eric Corbett topic banned", Interactions at GGTF, "Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope) - February 2015").

• On October 22, Eric made two edits ([15], [16]) which violate this restriction, as both edits (a) reference gender disparity and (b) were made as part of a discussion whose principal topic was gender disparity ([17]).

• On October 21, Eric had explicitly acknowledged that he could not comment on the topic of the discussion in question ([18]).

• Wikipedia policy defines "reverting obvious vandalism" and "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" as the only exceptions that apply to topic bans (Banning policy, "Exceptions to limited bans"). Neither has been claimed as a defense in this incident, and neither is reasonably applicable to the edits listed above. Note that the policy does not include an exception that allows an editor to respond to comments about himself.

• The enforcement provision which the Committee chose to apply to Eric’s restriction states that a user who violates the restriction "may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year" (Interactions at GGTF, "Enforcement of restrictions").

• The Committee has previously ruled that "the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including ... the possible recidivism of the editor in question" (Arbitration enforcement, "Common sense in enforcement") and that "[e]ditors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors" (Interactions at GGTF, "Recidivism").

• Prior to the most recent block, Eric had been blocked 4 times for violating the restriction in question, with escalating block durations of 48 hours, 72 hours, 1 week (subsequently extended to 2 weeks), and 1 month.

• The selected block duration of one month ([19]) is compliant with the limits specified in the applicable enforcement provision and does not constitute an unreasonable escalation relative to the durations of prior blocks imposed for violations of the restriction in question (and given the failure of those prior blocks to elicit compliance with the terms of the restriction).

• Wikipedia policy defines two principal cases in which an administrator is considered "involved" for the purpose of taking administrative action against an editor: (1) the administrator has had "current or past conflicts with [the] editor" and (2) the administrator and the editor have had "disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute" (Administrators, "Involved admins").

• No evidence has been presented to suggest that either of these cases is applicable here. On the contrary, several of the statements submitted in the current proceeding explicitly identify a lack of any such involvement: "Kirill Lokshin had never been involved in the situation before" ([20]), "[Kirill Lokshin] did not have ... past involvement" ([21]).

• The question has been raised as to whether merely having an opinion about an editor's prior conduct and/or prior enforcement actions taken against an editor could make an otherwise uninvolved administrator involved for the purposes of taking enforcement action against that editor ([22]). The policy on involvement does not address this question explicitly; however, other provisions of the policy, as well as prior Committee rulings, support the idea that this does not constitute involvement:
  • The policy on involvement indicates that "warnings ... do not make an administrator 'involved'" (Administrators, "Involved admins"). An administrator who issues a warning to an editor must necessarily have formed an opinion about the editor's conduct. Per the policy, this does not result in the administrator being deemed involved for the purpose of future action in relation to that editor.
  • The Committee's enforcement procedures indicate that "[p]rior routine enforcement interactions [and] prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions ... do not constitute or create involvement" (Arbitration Committee procedures, "Expectations of administrators"). An administrator who takes an enforcement action against an editor or participates in an enforcement discussion about an editor must necessarily form and articulate an opinion about the editor's conduct. Per the procedures, this does not result in the administrator being deemed involved for the purpose of future action in relation to that editor.

Many of these are, individually, not huge things; but they are part of a constant pattern that has extensively defined Corbett’s interactions with others: [23][24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]

He states this more or less explicitly here: [44][45]

(The first diff is old; but I think the others, above, make it completely clear that his views are unchanged since then.)

He has repeatedly rejected any sort of attempts to make him follow WP:CIVIL, and has expressed broad rejection of Wikipedia’s admins and non-content policies: [46][47][48][49][50][51]

This is the core of the issue. It isn't simply that he’s sometimes caustic; it's that he finds the very idea of being required to be less caustic to be intolerable. In the previous Arbcom case, an arbitrator wondered why he kept using a slur, pointlessly, when many many people asked him to stop; this is why. Corbett does not merely reject the idea of civility; he holds it (and anyone who enforces it) in deep contempt. Nothing is going to change this; no sanction can compel him to follow WP:CIVIL. He has made the deliberate decision to reject one of Wikipedia’s core policies, and any attempt to enforce it on him only engenders further contempt on his part. All of the problems in the previous ArbCom case stemmed from this; the current case is a direct result of his continuous rejection of those sanctions. Yes, the ban was harsh, but it was a direct result of the attitude you see outlined in the diffs above, spread out over his entire time here and building up over a sequence of smaller blocks, each of which had exactly zero impact on his rejection of WP:CIVIL and his refusal to follow any policy he disagrees with.

Of course, any user can have any opinion they want on policy, even a deeply-unpopular one; my point with this section is that he is both rejecting WP:CIVIL and constantly violating it, and that (because his violations are grounded in a deep-set opposition to it) there is no reason to expect that this will ever change. Editors can have whatever opinions on policy that they like; but they can't simply ignore whatever policies they like, and Corbitt has been doing so constantly.

This is, I feel, directly relevant to the current case, since to my understanding this incivility was the reason for the sanctions we're discussing. While the comment that directly got him blocked in this instance was not particularly uncivil, the core issue is that his sanctions have clearly failed, and I think the fact that he has made it clear that he will never change his behavior is central to that; his sanctions represented a last-ditch attempt to save him as an editor, despite an extensive pattern of behavior -- which he continues up until today -- that would normally get someone permanently banned.

The main issue I feel is the ongoing feud between editors Eric Corbett, and @Jimbo Wales:. Eric has made it clear [52] that he wants nothing to do with Jimbo, but at the same time editors post on his talk page to take swipes at Jimbo. [53] Looking through Jimbo's archives I have also found Eric posting on his talk-page User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 195 more than once for whatever reasons. I suspect that supporters of Jimbo are doing the same in regards to Eric Corbett though on his talk-page. This to me hardly says "I've made my views on Wales very clear. I don't want to have anything to do with him". This being said, the paper should have never been posted on Jimbo's talk-page, or if it had there should have been no mention of Eric Corbett. Someone or some people are fueling this fire that needs to end, there doesn't need to be this back and forth indirect battle going on. In the end Eric isn't to blame, and neither is Jimbo I feel I speak for at least some of the community in saying enough is enough already. Move on to other things, I am so sick here of seeing Eric and Jimbo's names pop up it seems like everywhere.

Eric's supporters have made it loud and clear that he is not sexist. I am convinced this is true based on how well Eric works with some female editors, the issue though is his behavior. As pointed out by Aquillion, Eric frequently is uncivil this may be a cultural things but there needs to be an element of respect in place. I hope some here read WP:YANI when it comes to Eric's block record. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I go up to the third level and take control of the spotlight to turn it on someone else, probably to the boredom of the large crowd watching the rock star of this case. KL is quite right in his evidence, there is no question in my mind this was at least a technical violation by Eric (and a technical violation is still a violation) and the sanction within that set by the AC. I consider the comment and subsequent colloquy between me and him in the preliminary evidence, and will conclude that a case can be made he violated WP:INVOLVED. That does not mean he should be desysoped, or anything drastic done, but if arb remedies included a good trouting, I'd be pushing for that.

I do not have the time, energy, or, frankly interest to run through all of KL's comments, and no one yet has bothered to put them in evidence. I focus on two, in the preliminary statements. First, this:

I don't do much admin work in general (as I'm sure you know). That doesn't mean I won't intervene when I see a need—for example, when someone has so frightened the admin corps that nobody else will step up to the plate.

In my preliminary statement, I questioned KL on this:here

Does that refer to your block of Eric Corbett? If so, could you please, pursuant to WP:ADMINACCT, tell me when you first began to think that Eric Corbett (or if some other person on his behalf) had so frightened the admin corps that no one else would step up to the plate. Please explain fully the events that led you to that conclusion, and how you tested it (if you did). A general timeline would be helpful, so long it relates the events and other matters requested in terms of time to a) Eric Corbett's first comment at User talk: Jimbo Wales at issue in this arbitration request, b) Eric Corbett's final comment at User talk: Jimbo Wales at issue in this arbitration request, and c) your block of Eric Corbett. Also if the person referred to as "someone" is not Eric Corbett, I'd appreciate it if you could say who it is. Many thanks for your time and candor in helping me understand this matter.

KL responded here:

My conclusion is based primarily on the individual testimony of numerous administrators, who have personally told me on various occasions (the earliest being sometime in 2010, as I can recall) that they deliberately avoid intervening in incidents involving Eric for fear of harassment. While these accounts are necessarily anecdotal in nature, they are consistent with the patterns of behavior I’ve personally observed at times when such matters were brought to arbitration, both during my time on the Committee[. Cites deleted]

DESiegel, an admin, denied he was intimidated or involved in his preliminary statement; former admin Hawkeye7 indicated he felt it was the committee putting the frighteners on. But it's not as relevant as to whether KL's statement (which I really wish he had discussed in his initial evidence here) is literally true, but that it reveals a view of "something must be done". That's all very well, but when "something must be done" becomes "I must do something", as it did here, then there is an issue.

But how much of an issue? That's rather more difficult. WP:ADMIN has varying guidance:

"Uninvolved administrators" can also help in the management of Arbitration Committee remedies and the dispute resolution concerning disruptive areas and situations. Administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with.

...

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

Was KL involved? He did not have the past involvement, but his comment I queried him about certainly displays "strong feelings" about Eric's situation, that something must be done, and he must do something. But if you read the language strictly, it does not apply unless there has been past, actual, involvement. A legalistic reading of that, in the context of the whole issue of admin expectations, though, is discouraged by the bit about construed very broadly, and I would submit, trumped by the word "neutral", which is the key word of the section as regards arbitration enforcement. There's also a WP:BOLD argument in his favor.

The bottom line? As I said, a trouting, if you can climb off the dignity of formal arb remedies, which I suggested in my preliminary statement. That this would devolve into a destructive, time-wasting drama was foreseeable, fueled by the temptation to use the first-move advantage of AE. I would suggest that consultation, opening a thread, asking for advice would have diminished the opportunity to block Eric Corbett unchecked, but AGF says accept KL's word that he is experienced enough in such things that he felt no need to consult. But an attitude of "I must do something" is inconsistent with the expectation of "neutral". This is no court, but the expectation of a neutral magistrate runs through our legal systems.

I remind the committee of the nutshell description at WP:ADMIN, which I think enjoys broad community support:

This page in a nutshell: Administrators are users trusted with access to certain tools on the English Wikipedia. They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute.

The ones in columns B and C seem to have taken something of a beating here. But in the absence of contrary evidence, I accept KL's word. At heart, though, I don't think best practices were followed; this is a collaborative enterprise, and admins should remember that. I again urge the committee to place Eric Corbett beyond the temptation of single admins. It's abundantly clear that both blocker and unblocked felt something must be done, and that they were the ones to do it. As I agreed with Salvio in preliminary statements, we can't go on like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the GGTF decision[54] Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion. This statement is not made in other cases, but the committee should clarify whether this is generally true of sanctions. Per ArbCom procedures this is generally true of discretionary sanctions. The committee should clarify if it is true of other remedies as well.

User:StarryGrandma's observations notwithstanding, the committee is invited to consider WP:GIANTDICK.

As seen in the main page of this case. This is not the most pressing matter in the case, but the committee should not neglect to comment on it.

Rhoark (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[cut down per request Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)][reply]

User:Yngvadottir (Y) in the opening statement, in effect, acknowledges use of community tools to make several points, the points being, at least, that 1) she generally agrees with criticism relative to certain views on the gender gap (see also, long statement by Y, but look to the paragraph that begins "However, on the woman issue . . .", -- we should welcome these views, but these personal views are still not a reason to disrupt community process with community tools); 2) that, although by community WP:Consensus, Arbitration is binding on every admin and User, including Y, Y knows better; 3) that everyone should have some unfettered right to speak on whatever, even though they have been found, after extensive expense of community resources, to be banned; and 4) that Y disagrees with the views of a writer for The Atlantic, so she wanted to post there but could not get it up fast enough.

Absolutely nothing in community policy, which is where Wikipedia records community consensus, supports Y in doing this act. Y's use of community tools is text book disruption, indeed she views it as so right, true, and just (hubris), she cannot even commit to clear, well established Unblocking|community processes. Over what? A block - blocks which many people sit out, or live through until appealed - blocks - that can be overturned or shortened using community process. Whatever it is, Y's argument is neither moral, nor actually community minded - it is self-indulgent misuse of power:

The remedy is clear, and should be adopted here as a principle and remedy - in the future, out-of process arbitration enforcement actions will be summarily reversed by this committee, so that community process can then take its proper course. This will reduce the incentive to disrupt community process (protecting future admins from such error), and will instead actually honor the community's decision making.

It is, of course, incorrect that incivility and harassment are two separate things. According to WP:Civility and common sense, harassment is a subset of incivility. But The Atlantic article dealt not just with an act of harassment by a person not a party to this case, it asserted an example related to "hostility." That the English speaking world relates the use of "cunt", or defense of its use for strangers to hostility, is not in the least surprising, nor unusual, and that it also has sexual connotations is very clear [55] (offensive epthet for "stupid" is related by that word to part of a woman, so defending calling strangers that (man or woman), in reason, is also belittling to women).

If Eric Corbett, wants to debate with The Atlantic, he does not need Wikipedia to do so (although he can certainly tell the World here he is not an administrator, and that he is not anyone of a number of other things - comments for which he was not blocked), and he does not need to make comments, here, related to the Wikipedia gender gap to do so. Indeed, on Wikipedia, after extensive expenditure of community resources, his individual contributions related to personal epithets, belittling, etc., or to the gender gap have been bindingly found so wanting as to be banned. (See also, WP:NOTAFORUM Wikipedia is not a free speech forum). Every ban is made with the understanding that the party banned is probably perfectly capable of making benign posts on the banned issue, but the binding processes of Wikipedia have determined that those benign posts should be made by others, not the one banned. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The civility policy says "civility blocks" are indeed appropriate for disruption, personal attacks and several other circumstances. One of the hallmarks for disruption is repeated conduct that does not conform (eg tendentious, IDNHT, recidivism) and of course personal attacks are personal attacks that only need to be made once. Obviously, after multiple ARBCOM cases it cannot be claimed that anything falls under policy reluctance regarding "immediate blocking", that you highlight. This case is about long, long process, not "immediate" process. And it's not even about a civility block to begin with.

1. GGTF is a special part of Wikipedia, because "to some extent, it is political in nature", in the words of Salvio giuliano here.
2. The original GGTF case made a hash of the remedy concerning Corbett, and it hasn't worked. See WTT's evidence and Salvio's comment in the latest case.
3. In my opinion, the mistake was: instead of banning Corbett from the GGTF page narrowly, as Newyorkbrad stated and NativeForeigner concurred here, it was decided to ban Corbett from gender gap topic. Even at that time, people, for instance Carcharoth, noted that Corbett's talk page might be a special case. Also, note the "fair criticism" principle. None of the caveats made it into the wording, however.
4. There are other cases, for instance WP:ARBPIA, where I work often, which lend themselves to topic bans. The difference here is that the topic is GGTF which is an initiative, and does not pertain to articles. Corbett did not go around badmouthing "militant feminism" on Wikipedia articles as far as I know. The remedy virtually guaranteed that opinions about Wikipedia politics would be targeted.
5. The result of this ill-worded remedy was a series of extremely petty blocks - all of which were correct - which have nothing to do with disruption at all, though one or two are arguable. For instance he was blocked for simply linking to a post on the GGTF mailing list on his talk page. The effect of the remedy was a bunch of people watching Corbett like a hawk, waiting for him to mention something about gender somewhere.
6. Nevertheless, in every single request which went through the WP:AE system, the block held, for the full duration. See Awilley's evidence. Several requests were also dismissed because the violation was deemed too insignicant or non-existent. There were also other remedies considered, like the IBAN with LB. It is only when admins substituted their own judgement, went around the process, and used the block button was there a massive shitstorm.
7. I am not Giano's lawyer, and several comments are of course incivil. However, mud-slinging is routine at WP:AE. I have been called, among other things, an "apologist for murder", and "liar" who "falsifies sources" - and I have seen much worse stuff directed at others. Moreover, unlike the insults directed at me, which pertained to Wikipedia articles, Giano's remarks are over Wiki-politics. There have been two back-to-back editorials/op-eds in the Signpost flatly stating "Corbett called LB a c---", a charge which many people (including me, and I'm guessing a lot of people on ArbCom, because otherwise they would not have let such a comment stand) consider a misreading at best and "despicable" at worst.

My conclusion: Ditch the silly remedy and enact something more narrow and more sensible. And enforce it strictly if you like. And forbid admins acting unilaterally and simply force everything to go through WP:AE. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has been leaning on the mop instead of pushing it. [56]. (This is not a violation of wp:admincond but helps establish context).

Despite not doing much actual admin work himself, calls those administrators who have been carrying the load cowards [57].

Disparges the community discussion of The Atlantic article "I generally have better things to do with my time".

Is attempting to mislead through omission in his evidence, [58] claiming arbcom guidance is "may be blocked, initially for up to one month..." linking to the more general provision, rather than the topic ban specific provision, which says " An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. " (emphasis mine).

By imposing an excessively long block under unique circumstances that could hardly have been anticipated by the committee when placing the topic ban. ("If, however, a national publication falsely accuses Eric Corbett...") rather than simply removing the remarks, he has created a mountain out of a molehill. -> this case

Wiktionary defines discretion as "The ability to make wise choices or decisions." As documented by WTT et. al. although the remedy clearly states: An uninvolved admin may remove any comments, every intervention has been blocking instead of removal. Based on past trends, removal would likely result in a "grumbling" thread on EC's talk page (e.g. something like [59]), but not a case request with 82 opening statements.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

Per 2011 evidence, in 2011 EC used a moderate UK insult generally directed at men which unfortunately (WP:ENGVAR) is considered heinously misogynistic in the US, which resulted in the civility enforcement case. In July 2014 he repeated usage of the word [60]. Based on the prior experience, regardless of whether it was intended to be the US or UK usage, and regardless of whether it was targeted to a specific editor or the community at large, he knew, or should have known, that it was unnecessarily provocative. An editor with his demonstrated mastery of language (see User:Eric_Corbett, "Significant contributions") is capable of making his argument without usage of the term.

As Giano does not hold the administrator user access level, he has essentially no impact on arbitration enforcement. While some of his comments aren't particularly nice, as indicated by the prior committee finding such comments "are common". Citation by Gamaliel of "bleating" as part of incivility and harassment while such language is present in WP:Signpost, of which he is editor-in-chief, talkspace [61],[62] indicates inconsistency of concern.

The restriction on EC's editing was drawn so widely that it leaves scope for sanctions which are within the letter of the law but not, I suggest, within the spirit of what the sanctions hoped to achieve. As a parallel, the BBC Radio 4 game show Just a Minute requires speakers to avoid "Hesitation, Deviation or Repetition", so that technically the words "The trouble with Wikipedia is the way ..." would be sanctionable, in the game, as repeating the word "the". In the interests of the flow, and entertainment value, of the show, there is a recognition that "that sort of repetition doesn't count". A restriction allowing an admin to interpret EC's self-defence comments as worthy of a month's block is over-tightly drawn. ArbCom should consider revising its sanctions on EC; failing this, any blocks under these very wide sanctions should be decided on by a wider group than a single admin.

My first encounter with EC, under his previous username, was a civilised to-and-fro discussion at the end of which he "came round to my way of thinking". I have never had any problems in interactions with him - and yes, I am female.

I was horrified to read GorillaWarfare's account of the unforgiveable way she has been harassed on- and off-wiki as an female editor, admin and arb. That sort of thing is a real and serious problem in the encyclopedia and needs to be investigated and stopped, with all the energies of ArbCom, WMF, or whoever.

EC's use of a word which Americans apparently find highly offensive was a problem in the past. His comments in a banned topic area, but in self-defence, on a page which is traditionally a free-for-all, are not a serious problem, except in so far as the over-wide restriction on him has allowed the instiguation of the huge waste of time and energy we see around us, occupying editors' time when they could be building the encyclopedia.

My reading of the infamous EC quote is "Anyone who doesn't want to be called an obnoxious fool should not behave like an obnoxious fool." Not aimed at anyone except the generality of obnoxious fools, of any gender.

Note too that while the word he used is a word for female anatomy, we also commonly use "Cock-up" and "Balls-up" to mean, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "A blunder, a mistake, a confused situation." and "A fiasco, a disaster; a mess, a muddle." respectively, and to the best of my knowledge both "cock" and "balls" in these terms are used in their sense which refers to male anatomy, without being seen as belittling to all men.

PamD 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence length request raised to 1000 words here. Amortias (T)(C) 12:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following chart lists all Eric's blocks (minus procedural, accidental, etc.) from 2008-2015. Notes are directly from the block log comments, so I can't endorse their accuracy.

• The vast majority of the blocks were for incivility/personal attacks, until 2015 when they switched to GGTF topic ban violations. The change is correlated to the sanctions of the 2014 GGTF case, and some have pointed to this as evidence that "the sanctions are working". However, they forget that correlation does not imply causation, and in my opinion the change is more likely to be a result of Eric's agreement to "stop shouting at and insulting people". [63]

• Two thirds (66%) of Eric's blocks resulted in unblocks or reduction to "time served".

• By my count, 32 different administrators have at some point blocked, re-blocked, or increased Eric's block length; and 20 different administrators have at some point unblocked Eric.

 

Note that one 3-month and two indef blocks are off the chart, and two indef blocks are not shown because they were not the original block length.

The average time Eric has been blocked is significantly shorter than the length of the original blocks. Depending how you measure it (how you treat "indefinite" blocks) Eric has served on average between 6-26% of the original intended block lengths.

Eric Corbett has significantly contributed to Featured articles and Good articles much more than the average Wikipedia editor. The following numbers for articles "significantly contributed to" are from EC's user page, and are assumed to be roughly accurate.

Since registering in 2006, Eric has made a total of 175,740 edits, including 109,963 edits to articles. MF EC This places him as (approximately) the 106th highest ranked editor by number of edits. Unlike many editors in that range Eric has made only 621 semi-automated edits using AWB, HotCat, etc., and 1747 Twinkle edits.

This is a complicated problem with many parts, including:

• Eric's sometimes abrasive language
• Eric letting loose at perceived bullying, baiting, or abuse of authority
• A lack of community consensus on how to enforce civility for otherwise productive editors
• Administrators making ill-considered and/or disproportionate blocks
• Administrators unblocking Eric out of process without discussion or consensus.
• Eric's symbolic place and participation in pro-Jimbo vs. anti-Jimbo disuptes, and editor vs. admin tensions.
• The community's unhealthy obsession with Eric in general. (You too, "popcorn" people)
• An an overly-broad "gender gap" topic ban (a solution for the wrong problem IMO).

An ideal remedy would be fair, enforceable, and low-drama. The current remedy is none of the above, evidenced by countless AN/I threads, several AE threads, 2+ arbcom cases, 2 desysops (plus some near misses), retirements, editors significantly scaling back contributions, and hundreds of pages of fruitless discussion.

Limited duration blocks for Eric Corbett were proposed in 2013 when User:Worm That Turned and I posted simultaneous proposals to the same AN thread advocating simple 24 hour blocks for civility offenses. (See [64] and [65]) The proposal failed likely because it was too moderate. "Eric detractors" opposed because it didn't conform to Wikipedia's social norm of exponentially increasing block lengths, while "Eric supporters" opposed because there was no provision for punishing people who goaded and baited Eric.

I proposed the idea again during the GGTF arbitration [66] [67] and this time more of the "Eric supporters" agreed (likely because a site ban was on the table) but the proposal was not adopted. I still believe an upper limit (24-72 hrs) on block lengths would be the best "compromise" solution. It is more in line with current civility policy, is not unfair, and is enforceable since no admin is going to "fall on their sword" to shorten a 24-72 hour block.

I also recommend abandoning, narrowing, or limiting blocks for the GGTF topic ban. However much we disagree with EC's views, the subject of "gender gap" was not the problem.

  Moved to talk page (clerk action)

 – Amortias (T)(C) 12:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to meet the "criteria for evidence" this time:

• 25 mei 2008 00:29 Balloonman overrides block without consent of blocking admin or community consensus to do so
• 19 aug 2008 Gwen Gale overrides block without consent of blocking admin or community consensus to do so
• 7 mrt 2009 Ddstretch overrides block without consent of blocking admin or community consensus to do so
• 7 mrt 2010 Moni3 overrides block without consent of blocking admin or community consensus to do so
• 15 okt 2010 Ucucha overrides block without consent of blocking admin or community consensus to do so
• 26 okt 2011 03:45 Mkativera overrides block without consent of blocking admin or community consensus to do so
• 7 apr 2012 21:59 Steve overrides block without consent of blocking admin or community consensus to do so
• 29 sep 2012 23:45 Black Kite overrides block without consent of blocking admin or community consensus to do so
• 21 okt 2012 21:43 Boing! said Zebedee overrides block without consent of blocking admin or community consensus to do so
• 30 dec 2012 00:07 Floquenbeam overrides block without consent of blocking admin or community consensus to do so

The pattern here is obvious: the root problem is admins that are unilaterally overriding blocks without getting the consent of the blocking admin or getting consensus from the community that the original block was incorrect (which is different from there being no consensus that the original block was correct: to override a good faith admin action requires a consensus that his action was incorrect, not just an arrogant and presumptous substitution of one admin's judgement for anothers).—Kww(talk) 15:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015: Gamaliel submits an AE request regarding EC:

• Eric Corbett: “Do you really think that you've got what it takes to be an administrator on WP, given your vindictive attitude” [68]
• Giano: “I suggest that you don't go trolling after Eric Corbett again, if you want some free publicity for yourself, try writing a page or something” [69]
• Giano: “:PS: Don't revert me to save your own nasty little face. 21:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)” [70]
• Giano: “for some reason (I don't even want to ponder why) you are envious and resentful of Eric Corbett and want him finished here. Now that your fellow admins see what a nasty piece of work you are, they hurriedly close this ridiculous thread. Consequently, I hope you feel a compete fool because that is exactly what you are” [71]
• Giano: “ It matter not how this matter came to your attention, you have brought it here because you are trolling for trouble - nothing more. I have sat idly by for far too long while all this gender gap rubbish (yes, I said rubbish - get used to it, you'll be hearing it a lot more often from now on) and persecution of Eric Corbett has been discussed. It's people like you that give this project a bad name, you are vindictive and obviously obsessed - you need to get a life” [72]

February 2015: Coffee blocks EC for 72 hours:

• Giano: “ It seems very obvious to me that a group of what appear to be militant feminists and their hangers-on have had a target pinned to Eric's back by an Arbcom who clearly hasn't a clue or more likely driven on by a man-hater in its midst. Where's this going to end I wonder - these females and their attendants clearly want Eric off the project and some Admins and Arbs seem to be only too happy to be manipulated into that opinion.” [73]
• Giano: “Stop bleating and trying to cover your inadequacies.”
• Giano: “What a curious name, I've never before heard of you, but doubtless you have now found a way of promoting yourself. “

October 2015 Kirill Lokshin blocks for one month:

• Black Kite: “Oh, and since I've just noticed it, whoever it was that suggested (presumably off-line) that Kirill block Eric for responding to a thread making false statements about him; you're a complete fucking idiot, and so is Kirill for falling for your shit.” [74]

I have no interest in pontificating or posting anything besides diffs and quotes on the above topic. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed evidence involving non-parties as a clerk action per instructions from the Arbitration Committee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I formally protest the removal of this evidence (which of course is not a reflection on Liz personally). I understand and agree that the committee should not consider specific individuals who are not parties, and this evidence was not submitted in order to drag them into the case. It was submitted to establish the context in which editors and administrators are forced to operate. I hope this does not mean the Committee is only going to focus on one or two people, label them "bad apples", and call it a day. This would completely ignore the systematic undermining of sanctions enforcement and once again leave the real mess for everyone else to clean up. Remember when you banned a few people and completely solved the Gamergate problem? Gamaliel (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Giano has, on multiple occasions, cast aspersions in reaction to sanctions against EC. [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]
• A particular gem: "...the Arbcom are a bunch of dicks for passing such a half-baked, contentious motion in the first place... We seem to be becoming a little Stalinist here." [81]
• Another: "It seems very obvious to me that a group of what appear to be militant feminists and their hangers-on have had a target pinned to Eric's back by an Arbcom who clearly hasn't a clue or more likely driven on by a man hater in its midst. Where's this going to end I wonder - these females and their attendants clearly want Eric off the project and some Admins and Arbs seem to be only too happy to be manipulated into that opinion." [82]
  • More stuff about feminist conspiracies [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]
• Giano has been incivil and/or made personal attacks in reaction to sanctions enforcement against EC. [90], [91], [92]
  • Including against a party to this case [93]
• Just plain mockery:
  • Of an admin/arb related to EC sanctions, including saying "I assumed she was female. I suppose it could be a man, but I stupidly thought it unlikely." and posting an image of that person. [94]
  • Of admins related to EC sanctions [95]
• Has battleground mentality related to EC sanctions (see edit summary at [96]). Also [97]
• Giano has interfered with sanctions against EC [98]

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]