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

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

→ Important notes for all contributors to this case This case is contentious and has the ability to devolve very quickly. So, this is a heads-up on the procedures that have been adopted. First off, the clerks have been instructed to be very proactive in removing any inappropriate comments. These include: a. any allegation unsupported by evidence and b. any allegation (whether supported or unsupported) against non-parties. Furthermore, the case will use a "single warning" system: clerks are authorised to issue an only warning to any editor who posts inappropriate comments; if the warning is not heeded, the editor may either be restricted from participating in this case or be blocked at the clerk's discretion. This applies to everyone, which includes the parties, involved onlookers, semi-involved onlookers, and people who wander in randomly (whether truly random or not). Finally, to prevent "drive-by" attacks and attempts to devolve this case, the case pages will be semi-protected and additional scrutiny will be paid to accounts that haven't participated in this dispute beforehand. If a new editor or an IP editor genuinely has something that needs to be said, they may ask a clerk to post it on their behalf. For the Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sectioned discussion will be strictly enforced on all talk pages in this arbitration case. With the exception of clerks and arbitrators, all commenters must create a section for their statement in the form "[Username]'s section" and edit only within their own section. Threaded discussion may be refactored or removed by any clerk or arbitrator. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, Liz, and Amortias: Due to the extremely large number of preliminary statements, could I suggest the evidence page be separated into Preliminary statements and new evidence sections? (As I expect many of the initial statement providers will not provide additional evidence). This will make it much easier to view and edit the new evidence/diffs for all involved I think. At this point we could just make the existing content the "preliminary" section, and copy/move the handful of entries that have added in something extra. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will post your suggestion to the clerks list, Gaijin42. If adopted, it would have to get permission from the committee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaijin42:, the decision was made because there were so many preliminary statements, to place them on the Main case talk page. This was standard practice until recently so it's not a surprise to return to it. Thanks for the suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Its soooo much easier to read now. Thanks for following up and doing the extensive grunt work!Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz is the proposed decision still the 12th, or did that get pushed back when the evidence phase was extended? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42, I inquired about this after the evidence phase was extended and was told that the PD deadline will not be delayed. It is still expected to be posted tomorrow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't back this up on evidence without grossly violating a sanction, I just want to ask that the Arb's explain as much as possible why the sudden change of course in actions as relates to EC, ScalHotrod and the news article in question. Everyone in this website was tainted by a POV article that was supplied with a lot of questionable research. I see the committee reacting because of the news coverage. How much is the WMF influencing this and will there be a statement released that helps to explain the back tracking and at least from the outside looking in a revisionist view to preserve their image. Too late, this committee hung itself when it failed to act in the GGTF case and not putting a stop to things there. If the committee had acted on the problems then that were presented and mostly ignored. None of the subsequent behaviors that did lend legitimacy to these claims would have happened. Hindsight is 20/20 but I think we should see some sort of statement explaining what the committee did and how it erred. I think everyone in this community deserves an apology for this bungling. I have tried to respect my sanctions as much as possible but there are vague quotes of harassment by others in the article that has went [[1]] internationally as a community of misogynists. I was accused of this and I have at least some right to say SOMETHING even if it is small because I resented that accusation then and resent it on EC's behalf as well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of evidence restrictions I'll include this as an observation but note that some points touched upon are already supported by diffs on the Evidence page.

The focus is often on particular words used by EC. The defense is often 'content contribution' (although I've encountered no rule that allows this be traded off against WP:CIVIL).

My observation is that the present situation is an extension of WP:OWN that began with those (undoubted) content contributions.

EC works hard to bring articles to WP:GA standard but then those articles are patrolled with an aggressive sense of WP:OWN and the status of the article itself is used as justification for that sometimes in-civil manner.

This article WP:OWN has remained generally unchecked and has spread to WP:OWN over the broader Wikipedia (with the same 'content contributor' defense) manifesting in WP:CIVIL issues with GGTF, Jimbo Wales and others.

Ownership (of articles, or Wikipedia, no matter how much hard work precedes it) needs to be addressed. Particular words are just a symptom of this cause. AnonNep (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note on 'sexism' & 'misogyny':

There are various ways to define the difference between the two, but one I find useful is misogyny = women as a 'caste', while sexism = women as a 'class'. A misogynist will never see women as equals, they will always be defined by the function/s that primarily benefit a male centered world. A male who is sexist may accept a rise in the status of a particular woman, just as a middle class male may accept the social rise of a particular lower class male (usually because that male is willing to play by rules defined by the 'higher' class). Misogynists are often blatant. But even sexist men can work well with particular women while being absolute arseholes to others. The idea that sexism can be discounted by a roll call of selective positive opposite sex testimonials is ridiculous. Those women may not have had any 'problems' but it doesn't mean many others haven't had lots. AnonNep (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies for commenting in someone else's section, but I already have a section on the main page and I don't want to confuse matters. If this is deemed incorrect, just remove my comment, it is not too important anyway.) Your distinction between "caste" and "class" is interesting, and perhaps contains some element of truth. Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that Corbett is sexist but not misogynist. That runs into serious problems straightaway. If one wants to do "class analysis", one has to demonstrate that there is evidence that the behaviour towards a different class is in some way bad systematically. You cannot argue that someone is sexist by simply pointing to a few women editors with which Corbett has had disagreements. Also, there has to be a mechanism or theory behind the charge. For instance, Marxists argue that there is a class difference between capitalists and workers because one class controls the means of production (oversimplifying dramatically). What is the mechanism here? Are women editors not allowed to write or comment on GAs? There has to be much else demonstrated as well, but this is a start. Needless to say, there has been no evidence provided of such a charge, and there is much evidence to the contrary. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Kingsindian: I'm just adding a general note/observation based on some of what I'm reading on the 'Evidence' page. Purely a personal view. AnonNep (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The graveyards are full of indispensable men." In my view, if an editor, no matter how much content they have created, proves incorrigible, ArbCom should stop trying to correct the incorrigible and take the obvious next step. It's sad to part with old comrades. But it's misguided (and ultimately suicidal) to tell the rest of the community that we're not all playing under the same rules. I come late to this particular party, but I'm baffled as to how this whole kerfuffle ever continued beyond "cunt". It's now continued far beyond that. ArbCom, stop enabling this behavior. Stop it. Decisively. David in DC (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got." - Moms Mabley

• "Arbitrators are volunteer users—usually experienced editors and administrators—whom the community of editors at large elects to resolve the most complex or intractable disputes that may arise within the community, "
• The fact that we are here after the ArbCom's wonderful "resolutions" of Lightbreather, GGTF, Civility etc. amply demonstrates the ArbCom has not resolved a damn thing. The continued disruption is the result of their lack of competence in fulfilling their sole duty.
• The locus of the case rests upon ARBITRATION enforcement - application of WHAT THE ARBITRATION COMMITTEE has set up for the community to do.
• The ArbCom needs to present as a finding of undisputed fact that the ArbCom has fucked up, royally and repeatedly in failing to properly address the community's need for resolving this disruption
• if the ArbCom fails to take responsibility for its actions as the primary locus nurturing and sustaining this disruption, they have no moral basis for holding another other editor responsible for the resulting disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and, after the addition of Giano as a party, to his comments in relation to the enforcement of those. And I'm not trying to drag Giano into a case where Eric defended himself Good god. No one with half a brain could see the arbitrary insertion of Giano as anything but a kangaroo court. Get your heads out of your asses. Pull your heads out of where ever you have stuck them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence that the present name, "Vested editors", is ambiguous and not neutral. I have nothing to say under such a name of prejudice. In the workshop phase, I will suggest to forget the GGTF case, completely, release all victims and their absurd restrictions instead of enforcing them, leading to more absurdity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the name change, a little step in the right direction of less bias. As there will be no workshop phase, I suggest right now a radical dream: forget the GGTF case completely: release all victims and their absurd restrictions. Assume in good faith that people can and will treat each other with dignity, if they are granted the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today is reformation day. My heart swims in blood when I think of the amount of thought and writing skill going to arbitration enforcement (AE) instead of articles. One example (of sadly many possible ones): a user formats a malformatted infobox, helping a new user and thus Wikipedia. He should receive a thank you click. Instead, he is taken to AE, first reaction "clear violation of his restriction" (but compare), three noticeboards are busy for a while, in the end we have a female administrator less. - We need a reform of AE, to comply with the principles of "kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion". I tried in the first arb case about AE, on 30 June. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Gorman — Giano is not a party to this case, please redact your testimony against him. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you. Carrite (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one should be thrown back to the community. Reason: the most involved party here is the Committee itself:

1. The Committee is responsible for the GGTF case
2. The Committee is responsible for the Lightbreather case
3. The Committee is responsible for the Arbitration Enforcement case
4. The Committee is responsible for the de-sysopping of Ygnvadottir

The intrinsic problem, is this: The Community is, by and large, pretty forgiving. However there are a significant number of admins who follow the "rules is rules" - operating on a shallow procedural basis, like automata. Due to the first mover advantage we get absurd blocks (and other absurd results).

In the previous Arbitration Enforcement case the Committee set this first mover advantage into stone (in order to nullify a perceived "second mover advantage"). This was clearly a mistake.

The wiki-way is consensus, not more and more rules. Of course had Kirill acted sensibly and blocked for 12 or 24 hours, the block would probably have stuck, and drama been avoided. But that doesn't mean the previous ruling was wise - it should have taken into account the ridiculous (i.e. punitive) blocks that some admins favour.

All the Committee can do here, is rescind or amend their previous ruling, and re-instate Ygnvadottir.

No case is needed for this- just motions.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I was going to add to the PD page rather than here, but, that not being an option, I will say this here.

Eric's conduct can be bad. In many of the cases where it has been recently, including I think the circumstances leading to this case, that is at least in part due to his regularly being goaded by others and pointed out, I believe erroneously, as somehow the "poster boy" for harassment of women here by others. It is hard not seeing that conduct of others as a form of HARASSment against Eric, but there seems to be little if any interest in calling anyone on it.

In this particular case, the issue, as Anthonyhcole has pointed out above, much to my thanks, is a particularly trashy article in the Atlantic where, once again, he has been made the scapegoat for the "wikipedia harasses women" people. The article in its earlier versions, and possibly/probably still in the print version, contained at least some statements which were flat-out wrong and, considering Eric edits under his real life name here, almost certainly violations of one of our core policies, WP:BLP. However, there seemed to be no interest in anyone else in removing the comments. That being the case, and Eric probably knowing he would himself be blocked if he removed them himself, and also probably knowing that complaining to the noticeboards might get no results, considering the comments were on Jimbo's talk page, he took what might have seemed to be the only option available to him at the time and tried to deal with the errors in the only way he could. For this he was blocked. I consider that, frankly, under the circumstances, objectionable, but I suppose understandable.

I believe that, under the circumstances, even if the block was understandable, the unblock was more understandable, even if the issue wasn't maybe clearly identified, and Yngvadottir should have her admin tools restored to her should she want them without needing an additional RfA. We do not have, so far as I can see, any clearly defined mechanisms for dealing with problems of this particular type yet, or even necessarily identifying them, probably because it hasn't happened much if at all yet, and on that basis I would think WP:IAR should apply here.

To date, I do not know that we have ever really acknowledged that BLP applies to editors whose public identities are known, but I don't see anything in the text of the policy itself to say otherwise. I would think that the provisions most likely to qualify for editors other than the obvious are WP:NPF, and it is very arguable that the Atlantic article is not a "high quality secondary source" as indicated there, and, maybe, for accusations of the sort that we are most likely to see directed at editors here, WP:BLPCRIME, although I am sure that particular section will have to be adjusted if it is found, as I believe it must be, that BLP applies to comments about editors here where the real-life identities of those editors have been explicitly or implicitly acknowledged by those individuals themselves. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, I guess, I too would support the idea of having at least some other editors topic-banned from discussing Eric Corbett. It seems to me that seems to be at least a part of the problem here. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis's last comment above makes a lot of sense as well, and addresses the question of whether we are here to build an encyclopedia, which pretty much by definition involves some individuals feeling bad at various points, and have some conflict at some levels, particularly FA and GA levels. So, are we here to build a "feel-good" community that supports some inadequate content, or one with occasional scuffles about good content development which produces good content with, once in a while, a few eggs broken. I know personally I would have no use for the former, and I regret to say that I think many of the other editors here would agree. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The case has now been renamed Arbitration Enforcement 2. There is an issue left over from previous cases which contributes to the atmosphere and short tempers leading to this case and other incidents. I am asking the committee to revisit Principle 13 from Civility enforcement and Finding of fact 3 from Interactions at GGTF.

In the English language a slang word for the most basic essence of being female, the birth canal and entrance thereto, is used as an insult to both sexes: "promiscuous woman" , "a term of abuse for a man", and "despised, unpleasant, or annoying place, thing, or task" according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

It is a "term of abuse for a man" to say that a man might show female characteristics and a complement to a woman to say "she has balls". "Virility, (manly) power or strength; substance, force, vigour. Also: courage, determination" as defined in the OED for those who live where this term for the most basic essence of being male is not in as common use as in the United States.

I am old enough to have grown up at a time when women’s equality was controversial in the United States. Using a term for the vagina and vulva as an insult is a reminder of a time when opportunities for women were limited. It is not necessary to call someone by the term to have a hostile effect. Just having it on a Wikipedia page sets a tone for an environment that we would like to make more accessible to women.

Among men the use of the term among friends can be an affectionate insult. The argument has been accepted at ArbCom that we should understand "local colloquialisms" and "cultural differences in certain expletives" but just be careful about using them. It does not matter how kindly it is used locally; the basic meaning is that female is being used as an insult. When men start using the term to mean a man has just given birth to a great idea, then maybe we can reconsider.

This is not a banning or blocking thing. Instead whenever it turns up it needs to be strongly countered by the community saying Wikipedia does not condone an insult that implies that having a female characteristic is a bad thing. Arbcom needs to make a strong statement that in this "locality" femaleness cannot be used as an insult. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhoark observes that we have still have the classic essay WP:GIANTDICK. However its companion, WP:DBAD is no longer with us. It was moved to meta at m:Don't be a dick after a failed deletion discussion in 2006. The article became m:Don't be a jerk last year after much discussion. Links to the original here on the English Wikipedia now point to the new name. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Preliminary_statement_by_Mrjulesd

I think there are a number of possible approaches that the arbitrators should consider in relation to these problems. Whatever this case is named, the central figure is Eric Corbett, but the case is more to do with how the community reacts to his behaviour rather then his behaviour per se.

1. Reduce or remove ArbCom sanctions.

ArbCom sanctions are designed to lessen disruption in the community. But I think EC's case it has proved the opposite. The majority of disruption occurs not from EC's behaviour, but instead from the response from the community to enforcement of sanctions. This means that the sanctions are a net negative to the project rather than helping.

I really think the easiest approach is to remove sanctions against EC. Sure this might mean that a case at a later date might be needed. But at least the case would be directed towards EC's continuing behaviour, while this case is in fact due to the community's response to sanctions against EC. Meaning that any further sanctions against EC, at another case, would be directly EC's fault, rather than the fault of his supporters and detractors.

2. Don't do much at all.

Well this problem may be unsolvable. Mainly because the case does not directly relate to EC, but instead relates to how the community reacts to problems concerning him. So this case is a reflection on difficulties in the community rather than directly with EC. If EC had been left blocked no case would probably have arisen.

3. ArbCom taking over sanction enforcement.

Earlier I thought this might help. But on reflection I've changed my mind. I think the main problem with this is that it would make ArbCom involved in any enforcement against EC. So, for example, if ArbCom blocked EC due to his breaking of sanctions, and another admin unblocked him, desysopping the offending admin would seem to contravene WP:INVOLVED.

4. Site ban of Eric Corbett.

Overall I think this would be a mistake.

Volunteer codes such as "If you cause disruption and ongoing controversy, whether or not it is your fault, and no matter what your contributions have been, your services are no longer welcome." (paraphrasing Jbhunley's preliminary) seem to support this approach. And to a certain extent WP:NOJUSTICE, as a general principle that the sites policies are geared towards collaborative contribution towards building an encyclopedia, whilst excluding elements that detract from this, even well meaning and good faithed contributors who edit poorly, and productive contributors with civility and other problems.

The main problems being:

(a) Is it enforceable? Most likely any block to EC it would be undone very quickly, by an admin with a WP:IAR approach. The only way around this a locked global account, which as far as I understand would need WMF support.

(b) Would another editor take his place? From what I can tell there are other editors with similar views and styles to Eric's, and they could become a similar bone of contention. In a way Eric's behaviour mirrors that of the Wikipedia community, as the way he has remained here is through a lot of support from other editors, in particular within the admin corp. In fact removing Eric could make civility issues here worse, especially if admins resigned en masse in protest.

So even if Eric Corbett was removed, it might not improve civility issues here, or even reduce the overall number of ArbCom cases on a year by year basis.

5. Increase sanctions.

Again I feel a mistake. In this case, the sanctions themselves are the primary problem, with EC's behavior being secondary to the communities reaction to sanction enforcement. So further sanctions are more likely to exacerbate problems rather than reduce them.

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to watch this case, but I do not intend to be actively involved. This isn't really evidence, but I simply want to comment here that this idea from Gamaliel, made during the case request, strikes me as a very helpful idea that is worth serious consideration: [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what this case is about. I don't buy that this case is about Eric Corbett. From what I hear E C has had issues with incivility in the past. He wasn't uncivil on Jimbo's talk page. What he did per the blocking admin is defend himself against what I consider to be nasty accusations which is understandable. To do so he transgressed the conditions of a topic ban. He was blocked. Then he was unblocked and an admin was desysoped. That's it.

The temptation here is to use past behaviours to inform the present. In fact, the past behaviour, incivility, does not inform us in this situation. Corbett was not uncivil. We cannot in all fairness drag up the past even the recent past and use it now. If we do we are we are using a present situation as a trigger and an open door to punish for past problems. That is a punitive model not one that rewards improvement in behaviour. We must be able to discriminate between the past and improvement in behaviours which move us as a community, forward.

What we have to ask seems to me is what then, is this case about? What is the bottom line. I dislike cliche´s but this seems appropriate. What I come up with again and again is that this case is about the spirit of Wikipedia versus the letter of the law. I believe both Kirill and Yngvadottir behaved within those boundaries of Wikipedia, and I don't believe the job of an arb is to decide which is better. I think it is up to the arbs to point out, in the role of arbitrators, since they are not judges, how all of the parties could have reacted and acted in ways that were most supportive of the encyclopedia as a whole.

Another temptation will be to reject the simple now that a case has been accepted and some members of the community are clamoring for retribution for past transgressions. This isn't the time. In what appears to be the most complex systems in our universe the simple solution or understanding is often also the most elegant. I hope the elegant is what comes out of this, something that will clarify the kind of community, if not what we are then what we want to be as we go forward.

For most of us the punitive is the standard. It is not always easy to see the fine line between punishment and models which aren't punitive, and even harder to, given the ease with which we as human beings have designed multiple and novel ways to punish each other, come up with something that is not punishment based. (Littleolive oil (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not a military historian, and I don't pretend to understand this regularly scheduled war. But I want to repeat the thought that I made in the original discussion Eric posted to: I think Wikipedia may be coming close to serious false light liability issues. The main fault is with The Atlantic, for posting a misleading article in a national forum; still, if it comes to a legal case I expect there will be a lot of blame to go around, and Wikipedia processes could be blamed for misleading them. (Indeed, The Atlantic's most obvious defense is to say that!) And I think Section 230 may be a very flimsy shield if top-level arbitration processes were involved in giving a wrong impression of his actions. To be clear, I'm not a lawyer, I don't know Corbett, I've never heard him threaten to sue - but then again, Wikipedia processes strictly prohibit him from threatening to sue, so I wouldn't have! Wikipedia can't expect a warning. What we can expect is that once a national magazine is involved, the potential dollar value of a suit could be much larger than it would have been without it. And when Corbett's comments in self-defense against a thread linking to this misleading story are deleted, that denies him a fair chance to respond, which I think introduces the "false light" issue.

What I know is that, whatever else is going on, we heard User:GorillaWarfare give an eloquent, detailed description of the ways in which she was harassed, ways in which women on Wikipedia are being harassed, and though they were eclipsed by this political battle, they were an all too common example that has nothing to do with Corbett or a certain dirty word or him making critical comments about a certain man most of us deeply respect. I want any further Arbitration action to come out and recognize that Corbett has been falsely maligned, and clarify that he is not even a part of Wikipedia's far-reaching issues with sexism, except inasmuch as (like myself) he doesn't want us to ban certain 'dirty' words outright [or at least, didn't at one point in time]. Please, ArbCom, try to get our site out of the defendant's box. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this on Corbett's page. Assuming it's true (and some IP posted a snide reply that hinted so), that kind of "opposition research" sounds clearly contrary to how WP:OUTING should be interpreted. ArbCom should take action to find out what happened and to discourage anything else like this. Wnt (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that the previous ruling that closing an AE request is an "administrative action" would lead to individual admins to sidestep the AE discussion process. That ruling should be rescinded so administrators are encouraged to discuss actions. Closing discussion should not be an "admin action" as it obviously doesn't stop out of process actions and encourages admins to bypass discussion by acting and leaving appeals as the avenue of discussion. It's doubtful from discussion that has occurred that Kirill would have achieved consensus to invoke a 1 month block. Admins should not be rewarded for acting in a controversial way without seeking advice from the community but the previous decision, despite saying input should be sought, made it such that not seeking input is more advantageous with no recourse.

Reverse the previous ruling that "closing without action" is an "admin action" so AE discussion is never a barrier to taking action and does not encourage "no discussion" admin actions.

--DHeyward (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This[3] decision is why we find ourselves here today. It is the law of unintended consequences. The goal of ArbCom was to encourage discussion but the decision to make closures an "admin action" has the opposite effect for admins that want to make tough choices that other admins are reluctant to take. It's not hard to see that if Kirill had brought this to AE for discussion, under the new guidance, Yngva could have closed it as no action. This one move look-ahead chess match is not hard to figure out. Kirill is on record for saying he wanted to make a difficult choice and the previous ruling allows that only by short-circuiting consensus and skipping discussion.

Having Yngva close an AE discussion brought by Kirill as "no action" would be just as unsatisfying (but only in Kafka Wiki-rules would the exact same outcome produce a desysop because an admin undid an undiscussed sanction - there is no functional difference except discussion under the current rules).

Choice A: 1. Kirill blocks under AE without AE notice. 2. Yngva unblocks after TP discussion and is desysopped 3. EC is unblocked

Choice B: 1. Kirill brings EC to AE 2. Yngva closes AE with "no action" 3. Eric is not blocked

Functionally equivalent outcomes except Kirill's choice to forego AE discussion punishes Yngva under the rules. The previous ruling has created a Hobson's choice for administrators regarding the AE board.

Really, the only rational course is to reverse the "no action" AE closure remedy. This would have encouraged Kirill to seek input without fear that a closure would be able to short circuit discussion or his intent. Likewise, that discussion would have sought consensus on any type of block and length. By leaving the "no action" closure at AE as a viable admin action, we end up with no AE discussion because it is likely that it would be closed. This was predictable. --DHeyward (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee has decided to extend the evidence phase by 5 additional days so the new deadline is November 10, 2015. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions in the edit notice clearly say "First off, the clerks have been instructed to be very proactive in removing any inappropriate comments. These include: b. any allegation (whether supported or unsupported) against non-parties." At 20:41 UTC an editor posts a bunch of stuff about non-parties, including Giano [4] ... and at 22:20 UTC Giano is made a party [5].

Which begs the question what is the actual scope of this case? If arbcom would like evidence of administrators routinely and casually treating users in a manner similar to the alleged "harassment" just added, I can oblige. (In other words, the "harassment," rather than being exception, is pretty just bog standard for Wikipedia ... deju va all over again from the last Civility case Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common . ) Alternatively, if this isn't an actual evidence phase of an actual case arbcom is trying to decide, but rather precursor window dressing to a predetermined outcome, speaking for myself if not others, it would be courteous just to let us know so I can unwatch the pages and go find something else to do. NE Ent 22:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can show that the types of comments presented in Examples of incivility and harassment directed at editors and administrators enforcing sanctions or suggesting that they be enforced, rather than being extraordinary, are what passes for run of the mill discourse in Wikipedia::, frequently from administrators (who are supposed to be held to a higher standard), but I'll need permissions to go over the 500 word limit. Probably not all that much, can keep it under 1000. NE Ent 12:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Salvio giuliano?NE Ent 12:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but, somehow, I didn't get your ping; anyway, your evidence does not seem to be in scope and probably concerns non-parties. Am I correct? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have incorporated evidence for my main points via reference, rather than inclusion, so I no longer have need of additional words. Given the designation of parties during this case has been fluid -- specifically in the case of Giano who was not a party when evidence was presented -- I am unable to answer your question coherently. NE Ent 02:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I made no request regarding nor do I have any interest in adding parties to the case or having them sanctioned. I added the evidence to establish a pattern of harassment directed towards those who attempted or requested that sanctions be enforced to bolster the case I made in my preliminary statement for preventative measures such as topic bans or discretionary sanctions to prevent this type of behavior from reoccurring and disrupting the encyclopedia, not to retroactively sanction particular individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)Offensive comments like that have a chilling effect on the willingness of editors to submit genuine requests for enforcement. AE can cope just fine with allegedly frivolous requests without contributions such as yours. Gamaliel (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) Are you seriously claiming that your comment is inoffensive? Gamaliel (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having received a length warning, mine is far from the longest, at least has presented diffs, and I'll probably never get around to cutting it. I'd simply ask that it stands as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Eric is banned or Indef blocked, any admin that tries to undo this action should be desysopped unless a solid consensus like the one that involved the title change from Bradley to Chelsea Manning can be reached. If he stays then behavior really needs to be looked at all around, in the end I echo other editors in saying that PLEASE clamp this issue shut one way or the other. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The understanding was that the clerks would aggressively remove evidence against those that are not named parties. Both Gamaliel and EvergreenFir have posted evidence that is not about named parties under the pretense that anyone blocking Eric Corbett is subjected to harassment. While not arguing about that position, it still seems to be in violation of SCOPE. Cases shouldn't be made to seek more blood and part of the problem the committee may have is that all this peripheral information makes it harder to find a specific remedy that works and is enforceable. I suggest if EvergreenFir has issues with certain editors, they give said editors time to cool off and perhaps then reapproach them and seek a mature, polite and reasonable resolution before they bring in barely related evidence of past grievances. Gamaliel posted evidence against Giano and while he has stated he is not seeking sanctions against him or others, the committee has now added Giano to this case.--MONGO 07:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. No "evidence" here, so arb clerks s/ move my comments to Talk. But they s/ also move all the comments by Aquillion and Kww (and Gamaliel, Jesus!) to Talk, since those "evidences" do not correlate with any aspect of even potential issues. (Their comments are drags versus EC on WP:CIV issue, but none of EC's six posts to Jimbo's Talk were uncivil or have anything to do with CIV. This forum seems to be a bashing ground for EC, under pretense of officiousness of an arb proceeding. Arb clerks s/ note: You removed user entries because they did not contain any evidence diffs. But that is a hollow and superficial measure; you are overlooking entries that contain diffs, but the diffs aren't related in any stretch to the potential issues of this case. [How does Eric & CIV become an issue, when all his posts that have anything to do with this case were completely civil?! This is like a restaurant denying entrance over lack of coat & tie, while the same requirement overlooks and allows others to enter who have coat & tie, but the coat is worn around the legs, and the tie is worn as a bandanna. Arb clerks need to register additional attention to spirit of requirements, not just the superficial letter.]) IHTS (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Please remove all EC sanctions. (Any of them can be controlled via normal administrator actions, like blocks for one day or two, to prevent perceived disruption. The concept of escalating blocks & technical violations invites poison. [Have any of you arbs edited under sanctions that disallow you from expressing yourself legitimately under threat from the barrel of a month-long block or more?!? No you haven't. So you cannot possibly understand or appreciate the demoralizing effect said sanctions have on editors, not to mention a former prolific editor.]) IHTS (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: What's a "bog standard"? (hehe) IHTS (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cite Awilley's numbers by reference: his numbers appear accurate, but if there's a minor error, I disclaim responsibility.

What is painfully clear is that if people had not unblocked Eric Corbett repeatedly, we would not be having this problem today. Eric would be gone, and Wikipedia would be a better place. The issue that Arbcom needs to address is the cowboy unblock problem, where an admin places a block in good faith, and another admin unilaterally overrides that. That's not how reversing another admin's action is supposed to work.

I'll take a single block as an example: My block of Malleus Fatuorum on 12/30/2012. I had acted within the normal definitions of when a block is necessary: confronted with an editor that habitually violated policy and indicated that he had no intention of following policy, I indefinitely blocked him. 7 minutes later, Floquenbeam unblocked, citing that there "wasn't a consensus at ANI". That's a gross misreading of policy: there's no need for a consensus that a block needs to be maintained. WP:RAAA is clear: Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. In the course of those seven minutes, I had not become unavailable, and Floquenbeam certainly had no reason to believe that his unblock was "unlikely to be objected to". The discussion at that time ran 2:1 that my block was good. He also had no reason to believe that Eric was suddenly going to behave himself: history shows that he never has, never will, and it is apparent that he delights in the level of uproar that his supporters create for him.

This needs to stop. Overriding an administrator by reversing a block over that administrator's objections requires discussion, and should require a consensus to do so. If there's no consensus that the original block was bad (which is typically the case with Eric: while it's difficult to get a consensus to block, it's equally difficult to get a consensus to unblock), the block should hold for its original duration.

Looking back in time, wouldn't it have been wonderful if my 12/30/12 block had not been foolishly and arbitrarily overridden?—Kww(talk) 17:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dennis Brown presents a false dichotomy: there's no shortage of content-creating editors, and the ridiculous bloat Wikipedia suffers argues strongly to the contrary. Getting rid of the behavioural problems (of which Eric is far from the only example) would go a long way towards allowing Wikipedia to increase its average retention period for useful contributors.—Kww(talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new evidence from Kww has nothing to do with the case either - as I understand it, it is about the GGTF remedy. I wish ArbCom would clarify the scope of this case: people are totally thrashing around in the dark here. The addition of Giano as party, based on evidence which even Gamaliel says was not meant to add him to the case is even more confusing. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which restrictions are we talking about? If they are the remedies passed by ArbCom, almost all of Kww's evidence is still irrelevant, as I pointed out above. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel (talk · contribs) I can't see the Cassianto comment you cite (your diff is incorrect). I would point out though that my comment was directed at EvergreenFir's literally vacuous request for enforcement against EC, giving no reason for this other than that EC had mentioned "WMF's workshop related to gender issues" and a misquoting of his use of the word "offensive". GorillaWarfare wasn't even involved for some hours, so I fail to see how my comment can be construed as a reaction to their block of EC. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel (talk · contribs) Which comment are you referring to? The only one that has previously been described as "offensive" (WMF's comment that EC found offensive)? EC's comment, which is the only thing within the scope of discussion here? Mine and Cassianto's coincidentally similar comments that far too many editors (not any one editor in particular) are more interested in self-aggrandisement by finding pointless things to either enforce or complain about than they are about furthering the project. No-one has previously complained that they're offensive and they're far from relevant here (despite your attempt to invent a connection to GorillaWarfare), but perhaps you had better raise another Arbcom case to complain about them separately. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel (talk · contribs) Offence is subjective. I have little control over what people choose to feel offended over (and I said as much to EC at the outset, although you ignored that). I certainly stand by my comment though.

What I do find offensive is when people post "evidence" to an AE and they are so "careless" [sic] over it that they accuse another editor of reacting to an event and an admin where the very clear audit trail shows that the action took place after the comment. Care to explain why you did that? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To address MONGO's comment, I have removed the name of the person making those comments as they are not party to the case. However, the title of the case, "Arbitration Enforcement", suggests that issues regarding enforcement of arb sanctions is indeed within the scope of this case. If it is not, the scope needs to be made explicit and narrow and the title changed. Last time this came up, the case was extremely narrow and clearly nothing came of it. I strongly recommend the committee does not make the same mistake again. The issues of enforcement of sanctions, especially against EC, needs to be reviewed as a whole. The individual actions here cannot be separated from the larger milieu. Doing so would be treating the symptom without addressing the cause. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: why were my diffs redacted exactly? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: They were redacted because they represented allegations against non-parties (specifically, Drmies and the other editors whose diffs are linked to), by direct instruction from an arb. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were not allegations against any particular individual but rather an example of the problem in general. But it's your party. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The clerks are removing evidence left and right. Many of Gamaliel’s diffs and EvergreenFir’s diffs are the latest to hit the dustbin.

This strikes me as an irregular way to proceed. The arbitrators apparently know what this oft-renamed case concerns; we don’t. The arbitrators apparently know what evidence they want. We do not, and as Arbcom has said elsewhere that they rely entirely on volunteer-supplied evidence, the consequences may be undesirable. Others have speculated that the arbitrators already know what conclusion they expect to draw in this case; I myself doubt this, because that would be efficient if nothing else, and that seems inconsistent with Arbcom’s habits.

The underlying problem here is not an individual but an organization or collaboration -- what EvergreenFir calls "the larger milieu". The Community is unable to address the damage this organized effort does to the pillars, and it is also unable to accept the damage. The result, plainly, has been that the pillars are much bruised while very great damage has been done to what we call the Community, but which clearly is being broken apart. If Arbcom has a role in modern Wikipedia -- a proposition this specific Arbcom has led many observers to doubt -- this is its role. You won’t learn what you need by forcing volunteers to pore through mountains of unpleasant prose, piled up over many years of this sorry spectacle, while guessing what you might condescend to inspect and what evidence -- the result in some cases of hours of volunteer research -- will be cast aside on a whim. Nor will you mend the Community through narrow or transient adjustments in the special treatment of one or two special individuals.

I also observe that on October 27 Lightbreather asked your leave to provide evidence and to offer a statement. In your place, I myself would be curious to know what she has to say, and I’d be very reluctant to seem so incurious or so careless as to think that a reading a few hundred additional words would pose a burden. Certainly, plenty of people have advocated waiving or modifying policy for the benefit of one editor and his faction. Once you've gone down that road, well, there you are. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein She was given leave to submit evidence via email. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=688236247&oldid=688232786

However, since she has been banned for some time now, any evidence would be by its nature stale, and is already generally known in any case. (Indeed, many people are already including the relevant diffs).

While you (or I, or others) may have an interest in what she has to say (eg we may like her statement to be public) ,that is not an issue for the case, which can continue on its merry way with the evidence being private.

To the degree there is valu in fiving her a platform to speak about incivility in general or give her opinion, she seems to have a number of those already (twitter, the atlantic, WPO).

I think it was a mistake to cut the workshop phase from this case, as people just put all those type of statements into their evidence. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request a length increase for my evidence section. A large portion of my section is devoted to combining useful data for Eric Corbett's two accounts in a reader friendly way. For instance, I have a table that combines EC's two block logs, presenting the data in a way that makes it comprehensible to human readers, including columns showing the "original" and "actual" duration of each block. I also have statistics, numbers, and excerpts from current policy that could theoretically be pointed to with a couple of links, but I think presenting them simply in tables is more efficient than asking readers to follow links and dig for the information. Specifically I am asking for a 1000 word limit, not including the block log, which is inside a Collapse template, and is ~700 "words" by itself (including numbers and dates). This would still require me to do some trimming and curtail what I still wish to present (current length without the log is >1100) but at least I won't have to use the chain saw. ~Awilley (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, can you respond to NE Ent's request for additional space at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence#Evidence length request? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the case is the enforcement of Eric's restrictions. I hoped that the clarifications we made during AE1 would have been enough to avoid another case, but I was wrong, so this case is basically the continuation of that one, but this time we specifically focus on Eric's restrictions and, after the addition of Giano as a party, to his comments in relation to the enforcement of those. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I am not out of line by commenting here instead of in my own section, but I think that it is helpful for me to link to a further clarification at Salvio's talk: [6] and [7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, maybe I'm naive, but if you look at what I added, I'm not seeing it exactly that way. There's no question that the case has been sorely lacking in clarity, but I don't think that it's as bleak as the way you just described it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that EvergreenFir's question about the time-frame of events that are in-scope is a very important one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio - I'm sorry, as much as I respect all you've done for wiki ... this statement makes no sense what-so-ever. I get that you (and others) would love to ban-hammer Eric, but trying to drag Giano into a case where Eric defended himself over a ridiculously poor article is absolutely absurd. Good Lord man .. take a step back and try to be just a bit objective about what is presented. If you want to see a "case" of Giano .. fine ... bring it; but don't try to shoehorn some old grudge into a case simply because 2 people share agreements about the project. Damn. — Ched :  ?  19:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You're right, I couldn't wait to ban Eric (note for the "irony-impaired": this is not actually true). And I'm not trying to drag Giano into a case where Eric defended himself. As others have already pointed out before, Eric was not blocked because he defended himself. Rather, he was blocked because, after defending himself, he moved on to making edits which could reasonably be construed as relating to the gender gap on Wikipedia, something from which he is explicitly topic banned. This was not his first violation. This was not even his second or third violation. Anyway, the block was lifted out of process, as has happened before (the last time something like this happened, a couple of months ago, it led to WP:ARBAE), and that goes to show that the enforcement of Eric's restrictions as it is now, doesn't work. That's why we are having a case, not because we can't wait to punish Eric and those who agree with him. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must take a moment to say that this is a fantasy, and if this is what the arbitrators believe, then I'm sure this case is going to end badly. Eric was blocked in the course of discussing an article about himself, an article we all seem to agree got some things wrong, and was engaging in such discussion quite legitimately, as we all seem to agree. To block him in the context of that discussion cannot in any way be seen as "reasonable"; it was straightforward abuse making a laughably poor attempt at hiding behind the fig leaf of arbitration enforcement. Nor can the unblock be meaningfully characterized as "out of process", as it was simply undoing an act of blatant abuse, not a legitimate act of enforcement, and I hope the ArbCom will back away from this awful misreading of policy that protects abusers and punishes good actions. Everyking (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Eric really wanted to address the issue he would have gone directly to the source, and made a fuss. What good would replying on Jimbo's talk-page do, do you believe anything would have been resolved? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So an article is published about Wikipedia, discussing specific editors, at some points saying false things about them, and you don't think one of those editors should be free to discuss the article on Wikipedia itself? It's a useful rule of thumb that if someone is trying to use policy like a knife to stab someone who's done no wrong, they are misusing policy—and they are the ones who should be sanctioned for it. Everyking (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that discussing the article on Wikipedia itself wasn't going to get anything done. Jimbo wasn't about to drop everything, and take the issue to some courtroom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that had Eric continued unblocked what outcome was he, or anyone expecting? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the time frame scope of this case? I assume the scope is also limited to events occurring after AE1 until present? If not, many more people should be added as parties (myself included). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I think we're supposed to create our own sections here. I ask because there are many many people involved in "the enforcement of Eric's restrictions" if you mean to include people at AE, filing parties, people at ANI, etc. If this is just admin enforcement, that's different and should be specified. Again, the timeline matters too. Clarity is needed here and is coming quite late... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the case is events occurring after the Interactions at GGTF case; however, my general policy is that an editor is only added as a party after preliminary evidence has been provided that shows his or her conduct should be investigated. It's not enough to have been involved in the enforcement of Eric's sanctions to be listed as a party. So, basically, if you think other editors should be added, please explain who and why, providing diffs, although I'll clarify that, since the evidence phase is about to close and it was already extended once, I'd require evidence of significant disruption to grant such a request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Thanks for the clarification. I don't think I have much beyond what was said in the first AE case. Can I assume that evidence presented in that case related to parties (specifically EC and Black Kite) to the current case will not be ignored/disregarded here? Seems unnecessary to reiterate the evidence, but thought I'd ask. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you posted here what you'd like me to take into account, just so the parties have a fair idea what I may end up basing my proposed decision on, although, in the interest of avoiding wastes of time, I'll admit that I don't really plan on focusing too much on the previous violations individually: I'll certainly intend to mention them by way of background, and will link to the AE threads where they were originally discussed, but that's probably going to be it. Also, incidentally, when a FOF has been passed concerning a certain event or set of events, I'll generally refer to it, rather than to the evidence provided during the case. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this is "AE". So whatever the timescale, it's still limited (or should be) to aspects involving Eric's "breach" of ArbCom restrictions and any enforcement around that. Anything else, whatever the timescale, is out.

Even if it's Eric, if it's not a breach of restrictions that would fall under an AE, it doesn't belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a notice to remind all parties and interested editors that the Evidence phase of this arbitration case will be closing at the end of the day (UTC time) tomorrow, November 10th. Please post any remaining contributions you might have prepared before then. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I hope this case brings closure. The community looks to the arbitration committee when it comes to things that they cant handle. In the words of Bill Belichick "DO YOUR JOB" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there is disagreement on what doing your "job" means among the community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree that part of arbcom's job is to break deadlocks and settle issues that repeat forever. How they accomplish that is up for debate. HighInBC 15:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]