Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

To prevent confusion and overlap between existing sanctions,

1. Remedy 2 of the Bluemarine case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case and the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case continue to apply in this topic area;
2. Remedy 2.1 of the Election case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
3. Remedies 4 and 5 of the Free Republic case are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
4. Remedy 1 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience case continue to apply in this topic area;
5. Remedy 1.1 of the Tea Party Movement case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
6. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions or article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.

Enacted – Miniapolis 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Striking my support until we resolve the Vivaldi issue. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC) restoring support now the Vivaldi case has been removed from this motion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. LFaraone 23:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. AGK [•] 23:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Doug Weller (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I agree with all but the last bullet, and that one is enough to oppose this. Courcelles (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Courcelles: Could you explain your particular objection to it? Also, i'm camped here till my note about Vivaldi is resolved. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Courcelles: My understanding of the last bullet is that it is simply saying that all current sanctions issued under authorisations we are retiring continue as if the authorisation was still in force - i.e. the sanction is still valid and it may be appealed in the exact same way as it would be if the authorisation was still active. The only other thing it does is note that our retiring the authorisation is not grounds for appeal of an active sanction. What is it you disagree with about this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Thryduulf:, my vote made a lot more sense before the Vivaldi bullet was removed. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I posted while the Vivaldi bullet was still in place. If you meant "penultimate" rather than "last" (referring to Vivaldi) your vote comment would make sense - if you really do mean last then I am still confused. Thryduulf (talk)

Abstain

Recuse

Proposed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Hut is very much correct below as it doesn't cover probation was authorized on... -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read the results of the Vivaldi case I'm inclined to agree. I think the simplest way to transition from article probation to a more modern remedy here would be to authorise standard discretionary sanctions for all pages related to Jack Hyles, specifically including Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Vialdi from this list and transferred it to the remove pile. They haven't been used in a decade and 50 edits ago is 2012. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure that the sanctions in the Vivaldi case are redundant to the BLP ones. Although the articles in question do have material that falls under BLP there is plenty of material that doesn't. For instance Jack Hyles has been dead for well over a decade, it would be hard to argue that BLP applies to most of the article. Hut 8.5 19:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,

1. Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;
4. Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;
5. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
6. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.

Support

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Yunshi's comment below, I think the small risk that this will flare up without the threat of sanctions is small enough and easily countered enough (cf our recent motion regarding Longevity) that we can take it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. AGK [•] 23:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Enough of these have the potential to flare up that I think this is a bad idea. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. LFaraone 17:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

Proposed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to wait for any community comments before opining here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• These are all pretty old, and a review of the relevant article histories suggests that they may no longer be needed; however I'm mindful of the fact that the sanctions may be the reason that the articles have been so quiet recently. I'm leaning towards supporting this motion, but like Thryduulf would be happier to wait until a few more opinions are in. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sod it, I think the benefits outweigh the risks. The option of reinstatement by request at ARCA does, as Harry points out, make this a reasonably safe gamble. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting Courcelles' objection, but I would have thought that point 6 (allowing the sanctions to be reinstated by request at ARCA if necessary) covers everyone in the event that disruption returns. Some topic areas won't quieten down until real-world events do (the obvious example being Israel-Palestine), but we shouldn't keep discretionary sanctions lingering around where they're no longer necessary or useful. The alerts and warning notices that editors see whenever they edit an affected article potentially deter valuable contributions and give an impression of a dispute that is no longer there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the state of the US and its jaunts into the middle-east (as well as its treatment of Muslims at home) object to the waterboarding being lifted (no comment on the others). 'Closely related pages' effectively means anything involving state-sanctioned torture. Totally cant see how THAT might flare up... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the last sanction imposed pursuant to a remedy in that case was nearly five years ago (by strange coincidence, I was the admin imposing it), and the sanctions can always be re-imposed if necessary. Besides, most subjects to do with waterboarding as it relates to the United States' foreign policy would probably be covered by the discretionary sanctions on American politics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I would generally follow the school of thought that states 'Its calm because of the sanctions'. However you are right American Politics would (probably, someone will argue otherwise no doubt) cover any US based torture problems. Sadly the US does not have a monopoly in torture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to keep bringing up essentially the same thing every time, but once again we have a problem (a minor one this time, but entirely avoidable) this time caused by someone referring to the "last" item on a list that is still having items added and removed. This small issue and a number of large issues to come can be avoided by the simple idea of designing procedures and sticking to them instead of winging it every time. To be specific, in this particular situation, anyone commenting on a list item should refer to "item number 6" instead of "the last item. Anyone removing an item should replace it with "6. (removed) instead of deleting it and letting a new item take the #6 slot. Please Arbom, there are members of the community who are experts at designing these sorts of procedures. Let us help. We won't step on your authority and you will get to approve all procedures. Whether because of lack of skills, lack of time, or lack of interest, you really suck at this. Just give the word and I will start recruiting experts and drafting procedures (on-wiki, so you can comment and veto at any point in the process). --Guy Macon (talk)

Re "easily corrected"; it was corrected while I composed the above. My point about procedures still stands though. If anyone wants to dispute this, I can document previous problems that weren't so easy to fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: What are you talking about? You are the first person to edit this page in over two days --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. When I went back to look at the page I looked at "Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions" (which doesn't have the problem) instead of "Motion: Overlap of Sanctions" (which does have the problem -- in the oppose section) and assumed it had been fixed. Sorry for the error. Does anyone wish to comment on my offer? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't think so. See you next time the lack of procedures causes a problem, and I hope it is a minor problem like this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even after your post above, I still do not understand what your comment relates to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of reblocking following the out-of-process unblocking, solely to allow participation in the case request to which he is a named party, Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) is permitted to edit only the following pages:

1. Any current arbitration case request to which he is a named party, specifically including Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use of external websites, block/unblock of Eric Corbett.
2. The pages and talk pages of any case to which he is a named party
3. His user talk page

Any breach of this restriction will result in a block of 1 month, which may be appealed only by email to the Arbitration Committee. Any administrator reversing any block placed under this sanction without the prior written permission of the Arbitration Committee will be summarily desysopped and blocked from editing.

Unless subsequently amended or repealed by motion of the Arbitration Committee, this restriction will expire at 20:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC) (when the original block was due to expire) or the expiration of any block placed as a result of it, whichever is later.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

Support

1. Support as proposer, Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. At this point, this may be the simplest thing to do, but I do not make the current assumption that the initial block was a good one, I think he might have been unblocked by admin consensus, and I therefore accept NYB's argument. Whether or not Eric needs to be indefinitely blocked or not at this time is something that I have not decided. At the moment, this seems to me a rather typical escalation over a technical violation that was not itself very wrong intrinsically but where the sequence of events is a consequence of what I have always considered our absurdly complicated and manipulable system of enforcement. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just got back to this whole mess. Was reviewing GMO evidence and now this... Regardless we've moved really quickly on the matter (quickly enough I was away for half a day and missed a desysop, second one I've missed...). I think we're acting hastily here. We've been too slow on cases and too fast to act on the last few desysops, at least in my opinion. The unblock was out of process, I myself am not quite sold on the original corbett block, especially of that magnitude but admittedly there have been ongoing civility issues which I"m sympathetic to, and the block seems to have adhered to the letter of the restrictions. Herein lies the problem with the current AE enforcement system, at least in my mind. Corbett is clearly demonstrating it but I think it's generally true for the process. I'm definitely sold on the fact that he should have the ability to appeal to uninvolved admins. Given the circumstances I'm sure hte entire thing will be a bit of a mess if it does happen but I think there's a reasonable chance it would be overturned. He should be allowed to appeal through that venue. We generally don't like to have users blocked during a case in which they are involved and I think that's the motivation for this motion but I'm still not sure on it, and I'm suffering from both fatigue and information overload. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was around at the beginning of this but went off-line just before the vote, and I'm kicking myself for not asking that we not rush it through (thus I'm not blameless). Neither the desysop nor the unblock were that urgent that they couldn't have waited, which is part of the tragedy of this. We (ArbCom) and Yngvadottir could both have explored other avenues before acting. I don't at all like losing Yngvadottir as an Admin nor am I sure that the original block was appropriate, and certainly in this case the length seems overkill. As far as I recall Eric doesn't appeal his blocks so letting him appeal to uninvolved admins wouldn't work for him. And I'm at a loss about what to do about Jimbo's page [ making it a sanction-free zone has its own risks. Having a system where someone under sanctions can request the ability to post there might work, but it would have to guarantee a timely response and we aren't always good at that. I agree that we've been too slow on cases and too fast to act on desysops and I'm certain we haven't made the right decision in all the recent ones. Doug Weller (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DD2K: Maybe I was careless in my wording. By "work for him" I should have said "would have had no effect in this instance". As for Jimbo's talk page, we don't actually have a policy for it. I don't like the idea of it being a sanction-free zone, which is why I suggested we might need a special process if the community thinks there are times sanctioned editors should be allowed to edit his page. Whether the block was appropriate at all depends upon whether you view his talk page as sanction-free. Ignoring that, given the circumstances - an article which had numerous errors and named him publicly, I think it a month too long. If he breached sanctions in a different context, I might have thought it too short. Doug Weller (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just comment that As far as I recall Eric doesn't appeal his blocks so letting him appeal to uninvolved admins wouldn't work for him is entirely immaterial. The fact that Eric pointedly refuses to appeal his blocks does not mean that the rules no longer apply to him and anyone can unblock unilaterally. Eric is completely entitled to refuse to appeal, but that means he remains blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, I fully agree. If Eric won't appeal, so what? That's his choice, and I don't think we should do anything special to find away around what is his decision. Allowing anyone else to appeal for him would just exacerbate the situation. I also see the problem as being the community's inability to decide what to do, not just about Eric but about civility and harassment in general. It's not just Admins, although they've played a big role. I'm pretty sure the WMF is not going to get involved either. Doug Weller (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I never knew that it is acting hastily when we follow up on our word that we desysop anyone who unilaterally reverses AE blocks. It is one of the the brightest of the bright lines in the Admin policy. We don't need three weeks of political hand wringing to follow the policy that has been around since 2008. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments not directly related to this motion will be removed by an arbitrator or clerk without further warning. All discussion of the pending case request must remain on the case request page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should make it clear that while unblocked to participate in a case request or case, that the DS still apply and that Eric Corbett's comments can't be generally be about gender issues and the gender gap eves if the people who are editing the same page are discussing issues related to them. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric's existing sanctions are not suspended by this motion, so they continue to apply. However, people should not be discussing general gender issues or GGTF issues on Eric's talk page at all, nor on Arbitration case/case request pages except to the extent they are directly related to a case (request). Eric may discuss/defend his actions/statements he has made (or is alleged to have made) as part of the dispute resolution process. If this motion passes Eric may not edit any other page, so it doesn't matter what is being discussed on them. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see neither the need nor benefit for this motion at this point in time, other than to show the need for deliberation and not instant reactions, and the need for measured actions rather than emulation of Draco the beloved. Collect (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Had Eric not been unblocked (by a then administrator whose longterm commitment to Wikipedia has been outstanding, in an action that was wikilegally out of process yet awkwardly seems to enjoy majority support so far), he would have had the right to request that there be an unblock review discussion on AE or AN. (Even if he didn't request it, someone might have requested it for him; such third-party requests normally aren't allowed any more, but stranger things have happened.) Would this motion preclude such a review? If so, it should not be adopted, because an editor should not be left in a worse position as the result of an action he was not responsible for and said he did not want. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:AC/P#Standard provision: appeals and modifications only Eric may appeal the initial block. He may do so by email to the committee, and if it is successful we will modify or amend this motion (if it has passed at that point) as required. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the quick reply, but that still means that the unblock combined with this motion would deny the editor the option of an appeal to the AE or AN admins (as opposed to the very busy Committee) that he would otherwise have had, and so my concern remains. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • NYB - you may have missed it, but after a recent AC ruling Eric wouldn't have the opportunity to appeal to AE or AN admins anyway. He could only, by mandate of the committee in one of the last cases they dealt with, appeal to ARCA/arbcom. Any AE or AN admin who broke newly established procedure on this would go through level ii desysop procedures I'm relatively certain (perhaps a sitting arb can clarify) Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a proposal. So, if Eric breaks this new rule someone will,... what? Block him? Good luck with that. He already broke a bright line restriction. Anyone who enforces your rulings gets a heap of shit and little support. No thanks. R. Baley (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Slow down, you move too fast (The 59th Street Bridge Song) - Paul Simon, although the Harpers Bizarre 1967 cover [1] was a bigger hit. (Oh, and I was alive then.) What actual problem is this motion intended to solve?? We've had a toxic J Wales talk page conversation morph into a hasty block, hasty unblock, hasty desysop ... Wikipedia is not on fire, and we ain't legal system per WP:IAR and WP:NOJUSTICE. There is no urgent crisis, just a mess to clean up: once again, "the community" -- actually a tiny subset of 116,790 active users -- now being a great time to keep some perspective -- is dumping on ya'll a Gordian Knot mess. What we really need from the committee now isn't haste, it's wisdom. Be slow, be thorough, consider options, let the furor die down before acting. NE Ent 02:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guerillero:Acting without thinking is always hasty, even if there's a rule, and that's been a rule so big we call it a "pillar" since 2002.
• (Commenting in this section because I'm recused on this issue). I understand that it's difficult to hold an arbitration case when one of the parties is blocked, but this seems like more dancing around to avoid a block. Eric Corbett breached his restrictions, and was rightfully blocked. He was unblocked out of process by an administrator, and the Committee has acknowledged that this was an improper block by desysoping. So why, then, is he not reblocked? This reminds me of the similar dancing around we ended up with to avoid a siteban in the WP:ARBGGTF case, and look where that landed us. R. Baley has a good point also—if he breaches these restrictions, then what? He's blocked? And then when someone cowboy unblocks and is desysoped, will we go through this whole motion again? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @DGG: He might have been unblocked by admin consensus, but he wasn't. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intent of this is that he is effectively blocked, but may participate only in the case request/case (his talk page access was not removed when blocking). If he doesn't stick to that then he is back to blocked and loses his chance to participate in the case. If anyone else reverses a block for this they get the one month block and lose the chance to participate in this case. It's a one-shot deal. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "lose the chance to participate in the case" is about the most (fill in the blank) solution to anything ever found (including the concept that a person who was physically out of the country loses the right to answer charges in a case) - the fundamental base of any rational system dealing with a "case" is that a person has a full chance at rebutting his or her accusers, and not "if he says anything at all, we will simply say he can say nothing at all " which is the apparent desire of at least one arbitrator. Newyorkbrad is "spot on" here. Collect (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: Wait, are you saying that if Eric is blocked for violating the terms of this restriction, and an administrator unblocks him, the administrator will face a one-month block and the inability to participate in the case...? Maybe I'm completely misreading. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly that, yes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So Yngvadottir is desysoped for reversing the enforcement block, but an administrator who reverses a block if Eric violates this restriction is given a month-long block? That seems completely inconsistent, particularly given that altering ArbCom blocks has historically been a bright line that results in desysoping. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @GorillaWarfare: The motion states that the hypothetical administrator would be automatically desysopped and blocked from editing. (The motion text doesn't actually specify the length of the admin's block.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, you're right. Though now I'm even more confused about what Thryduulf just said above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • @GorillaWarfare and Newyorkbrad: (sorry for the late reply, your ping didn't work for some reason) NYB is correct, if this motion passes AND Eric violates it he will be blocked for 1 month. If any administrator reverses that block then they will be deysopped and blocked also. I know I put 1 month into a draft version of this but I rewrote it several times before posting and evidently that specific duration didn't make it to the final version. Sorry for the confusion. The reasoning behind this is that an admin reversing an AE block, despite knowing they would be desysopped, got us here and so the threat of a desysop alone doesn't seem to have worked - hence the desysop and block. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Thryduulf: Thank you for clarifying. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would oppose this on, maybe, awkward grounds. The proposal seems to preemptively declare Jimbo's talk page out of bounds. At least on that perhaps minor point, which is I think one of the points that the arbitration might address, I would hesitate to, basically, make a decision about it here before actually discussing the matter more broadly in the arbitration, if it comes to arbitration of course. Also, much as I hate saying this, given the amount of attention this discussion is having here onsite, I have a really bad feeling that Jimbo's page is going to be awash with comments of various sorts, some including possibly very remarkable unsupportable or unsupportable statements. If that does happen, I think it would be only reasonable to allow Eric to offer testimony in his own behalf there, although this proposal seems to rule that possibility out. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- This whole mess is ArbCom and the current group of active admins fault. Just a quote from above(from an Admin I respect and an ArbCom member I voted for)

  losing Yngvadottir as an Admin nor am I sure that the original block was appropriate, and certainly in this case the length seems overkill. As far as I recall Eric doesn't appeal his blocks so letting him appeal to uninvolved admins wouldn't work for him. And I'm at a loss about what to do about Jimbo's page

  Once again, Eric is special, and we cannot have a normal process for him, so let's overlook the 7 fucking times he's been blocked for violating his ban, and blame the admin that blocked him. It's not Eric's fault that we have this inability to let Eric take responsibility for his own actions, when every time he tries some admin comes in and unblocks him and 'falls on their sword'. The admin is then congratulated for 'doing the right thing', despite Wikipedia rules. Time and time and time again. And what does ArbCom do? They look for more excuses not to act. Ohhhh...Jimbo's page is a sanction free zone and anything goes. For fucks sake. WMF needs to come in here and straighten this bullshit out. It's obvious the current group of admins and ArbCom are incapable. Anyone with one bit of maturity and common sense would say "ENOUGH!". Once again, this isn't Eric's fault, it's learned behavior. Dave Dial (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:The main problem isn't Eric Corbett, it's the community and the reactions to his actions that are the main problem. Eric could contact the Atlantic about any inaccuracies, he stated before he made any comments on Jimbo's page that he already knew he would be violating his ban if he went there and commented on the article.

Given the subject of that article I'm unable to comment.

He then and went to make comments that were a clear violation of that ban. If Eric wanted to challenge the block length, he could do so himself. Because others know that Eric has made threats about leaving Wikipedia 'forever', many admins take it up themselves to unilaterally unblock Eric without discussion or against Wikipedia rules. This happens time after time after time after time. The only way to put a stop to this endless cycle is to make the reactions the focal point of the problem. If Eric refuses to address blocking admins or ask for a review, then that's his choice. If an admin takes it upon themselves to act unilaterally, that's their choice. The actions of the admins are the problem, and make it possible for Eric and his supporters to continuously disrupt this project in an endless cycle of these childish antics over and over and over. If there are no adults on ArbCom that can see this for what it is, then WMF need to step in and put a stop to it. This isn't complicated, it's only made so because too many editors on this project have made it so. Dave Dial (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Doug Weller, Current banning policy WP:BMB and WP:TBAN not only does not support, it contradicts, the Jimbo page belief you articulate. The purpose of bans (which it should be acknowledged are arrived at after extensive consuming of community resources) is to draw a bright line, so a seemingly endless, yes, but discussion does not have to occur. Why T-ban? Well, for one, perhaps, if only the ban had been in place when the quote The Atlantic took issue with was made, Wikipedia and The Atlantic would not be dealing with this contretemps. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'What are hoping to achieve with this resolution? The wide support for the unblock has already proven that the blocking Admin was in error and that the Arbcom are a bunch of dicks for passing such a half-baked, contentious motion in the first place. In this instance, the Foundation and Jimbo openly permitted the promotion of a defaming off-wiki article on a high profile talk page (one can only hope they didn't provide the erroneous material for it) - therefore, they can hardly be surprised if the victim responds. Is Wikipedia now such a place where the right to defend oneself has been abolished? We seem to be becoming a little Stalinist here. Giano (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell there is no widespread consensus that the unblock was correct. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ahem...so if Corbett violates this latest resolution he is blocked and cannot participate in the case where he is a named party? Good grief.--MONGO 08:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this resolution passes, AND Eric violates it then he will be blocked fully. He currently, and if this motion passes, is allowed to participate in the case request and any case that results from it, it is only if he abuses that permission does he lose the right - if he hand't been unblocked, out of process, in the first place he wouldn't have had the right to participate without our explicit action. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good grief.--MONGO 09:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This resolution is pointless. Reblock him. For the month. And get on with your lives. With this and the case you're teetering on accepting you are dancing to his tune. "Ooooo, Eric won't appeal. What should we do? *hand wring* What should we do?" Nothing. You've just been spooked by his chorus. Ignore them. But I guess if you've nothing actually important to do, go ahead and "fix" this thing which your remedies and our policies are already dealing with.

In case you hadn't noticed, we have a sexism and rudeness problem here involving a large section of the community. Not everyone waltzes about calling people cunts but plenty think it's fine for others to do so. And still others are singing to Eric's chorus for political brownie points. Realise this: your current remedies on Eric are working. That his chorus rises up every time the remedies kick in is to be expected - given the fact of widespread support for sexism and rudeness here. Stand your ground and let your existing remedies and the existing policies work. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm tempted to go along with those who have espoused the line of reasoning that Eric stated he has no intention to participate in these proceedings, so this motion does little good. In your shoes, I would reinstate the original block, then consider a motion like this if and only if Eric indicates on his talk page or through email that he has a desire to participate in these proceedings. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Anthonyhcole here. The willingness to argue about Corbett's "cunt" comment with "oh it wasn't directed at Lightbreather" or "oh it's acceptable in the UK to use this term" completely misses the point. You're still using a slur for female genitalia, and the reason it's a slur is because genitalia, particularly female genitalia, is seen as a terrible thing to be compared to. I knew before this article was published that Wikipedia had serious problems with civility and with sexism; the intensity with which people have shouted over the women who've struggled with harassment to argue that Wikipedia is not sexist, and the incessant defense of the use of the word "cunt" to describe others, only proves my point. One does not need to call others by gendered slurs to contribute to the problem; defending those that do only perpetuates the environment that myself and others (both women and our allies of other genders) find so hostile. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any harassment is intolerable, not just gender based harassment. But Eric is likely not the individual(s) that is targetting you with things like the childish marriage nonsense I reverted on your page just a week ago. I completely agree that such things as the C word are completely unacceptable...and Corbett needs to cease that bullshit. You're not alone in dealing with harassment as I have many fine compliments myself on places like encyclopedia dramatica where some buffoon pasted male genitals onto an image I once posted of myself. Years I spent here on this site and behind the scenes protecting myself and others that were harassed including numerous times reporting things to the FBI through private channels. I've done a lot more than many whose sole contribution is a lot of talk. You want a face to attach to this harassment but Corbett is not that thing under the bed you and others seem to want as the posterboy. Your fight seems misdirected or else explain why if his behavior is so unacceptable that there are many female editors that defend him. You mustnt confuse things so.--MONGO 09:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: I have never said that Eric is targeting me with that kind of harassment—I would be shocked if it was him. I don't think Eric has targeted me with harassment at all. My comments here relate to Eric's breach of sanctions, and are wholly unrelated to the harassment I recounted at Jimbo's talk page. I do think that his "cunt" comment and the outpouring of folks defending it contribute to an unwelcoming environment for female editors, but I am not trying to make Eric the poster boy of gendered harassment, and agree that attempts by others to do so are ill-conceived. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the problem is not Eric - but the support he does get for behaving like a 15 year old. I did not follow this particular episode but I did the previous one. At some point those things have to be clear - the restrictions are in place for a very good reason - if Eric keeps breaking them (I am not saying he did with the latest comments - but he did before) a block is the right thing. ChristopheT (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add: May edit in article space and article talk pages regarding article improvements. That's what he is here to do. As for his behavior, it has been said a dozen (or a hundred) times elsewhere that those of us who know Corbett know that he'd be the last person to engage in the horrid, egregious trolling behavior that is actual sexism on and off-wiki. He has been slapped for his incivility multiple times and the punishment for the original crime has been served long ago; now everyone is just going after him when he rises to baiting. This needs to stop. At this point, the GGTF is inactive, the Gamergate problem is one he's avoided, two of his principal antagonists wound up blocked for other reasons, and all the bandwidth we spend here harassing, essentially, a Grumpy old man is taking attention away from the real sexist trolls that are a serious problem here. Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Montana that isn't true though. He has shown in the past that he belittles, and insults other editors all the while going on about how he doesn't give a fuck. It seems people just seem to want to focus on the sexism part. His supporters have made that loud and clear that Eric isn't sexist, I haven't seen him use the c-word in awhile so I agree it is an improvement. What needs to stop are the editors who rush in to create drama when it appears that Eric is being baited. I repeat, he is a full grown adult others have said this as well and feel he is more than capable of defending himself, and knowing when he is being lured into something. Having too many people defending one editor, actually makes the initial problem worse. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KK, Corbett even insulted me once, and I felt he was harsher than he needed to be, but I got over it. There are a number of things going on here, but the one that bothers me is the scapegoating of an individual who is not the right target for the attacks on an entirely different problem. The REAL problem is the stuff that GorillaWarfare and other similarly-situated editors have had to endure; that was completely over-the-top inappropriate. In contrast, Corbett said a bad word a while back, he was sanctioned for it, he hasn't said that bad word since, and so it is really time to move on. If people can't see the difference between incivility and harassment, then WP has an even bigger problem than we have heretofore discussed. Montanabw^(talk) 22:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just in case it isn't obvious or is forgotten because this motion is currently separated from the underlying case request, the comments in both of my statements on the request have equal application here. (I expect that that goes for a lot of other people's statements also, on all sides of the controversy). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]