Open main menu

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Contents

Requests for arbitration

Eric Corbett

Initiated by MJLTalk at 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by MJL

Hello. I am MJL. Today, I ask you open up a full case on Eric Corbett.

Incivility

This is written from my perspective as a newer user that started being active only in 2019 and has never interacted with Eric before June 2019. Eric Corbett is not the most civil person I know.
Some of these diffs were collected by Levivich for the recent AE thread except I obviously modified them and added my own. They most just quote Eric's edit summary at the time.MJLTalk 02:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Interactions with me
  • Comment on MJL's comment/says I can't read sources/uses wrong pronoun for me* — [1] (7 August)
  • seems OK to me/refers to me as "some clown" — [2] (7 August)
  • I have not even the slightest interest in the outcome of this case[3] / [4] (22 June)
August
  • more insults** — [5] (17 August)
  • And herein lies the stupidity of ArbCom and its unpaid goons like Sandstein.[6] (10 August)
  • [this is] beyond stupid[7] (10 August)
  • stupid, stupi, stupid[8] (9 August)
  • think again/gutter-snipe — [9] (9 August)
  • nothing will change/Eric's take on changing his ways — [10] (8 August)
Other 2019 diffs
Footnotes

* If you think I need to actually correct every single user who does this, I don't know what to say. It's on my userspace under userboxes, listed as my preference using the gender magic word, and my username has no male connotations. The only reason I suspect Eric Corbett said he here is because I suspect he was trying to bait me. I willfully ignored it until now.
** Facts: Eric Corbett considers it insulting to be called by his last name...  

Protracted dispute

I almost wanna say that it is a well known fact that if you block Eric that you'll get attacked. Though, of course I have to say more than that.

Cases involving Eric:

  1. Interactions at GGTF - 4 findings; 2 remedies; 8 enforcements
  2. Lightbreather - IBAN taken over by committee
  3. Arbitration enforcement - locus of dispute was a comment made by Eric
  4. Arbitration enforcement 2 - super involved Eric and created the special 24hr AE rule
  5. Civility enforcement - 3 findings; 2 remedies; 1 enforcement

Between these five cases, it's been found that time-and-time-again, the community just doesn't quite agree on how best to handle Eric. In 2019, it's consumed several weeks of our time already. In years past, this issue has taken many months to discuss. We all agree on the fact that none of the previous remedies are working quite right, but that's where agreement ends and drama begins.

Trimmed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Parties

  • Cassianto opened up the recent AN thread about Eric being baited.
  • EEng's dispute with Eric is what let to the most recent 72 hour block.
  • Cassianto and others have made it known they feel Scottywong baited Eric in the AN thread.

Within Arbcom remit?

Yes.

Final thoughts

There's been no signs that this dispute will end anytime soon. I know this request opens me up for criticism. I've never really been exactly admin material, though.

I never want to regret not doing something when I know I can; nor do I ever want to get complacent with our ability to handle incivility/harassment issues on this site. This dispute, no matter who is truly to blame, stands in the way of the constructive editing environment I feel we so desperately deserve.

Submitted, –MJLTalk 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Amendment

Edited to include:
Eric is an uncivil individual who has attacked me and others on various occasions. I've said as much before.[13][14][15][16][17] The request is to review the matter in its entirety. Eric as an issue or as victim; irrelevant. I just want it settled conclusively by arbcom, please. –MJLTalk 19:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: My apologies. –MJLTalk 03:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Per feedback, I've renamed the case.[18]MJLTalk 03:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Eric Corbett

I know from experience how these affairs always end up with a proposal to ban me for whatever trumped-up reason, and that anything I might say will be twisted to suit the agenda of those whose single purpose is to hound me off Wikipedia. So I'll do everyone a favour by leaving voluntarily. After this post I will be scrambling my password, and you will never hear from me again. Eric Corbett 17:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EEng

[19]

Statement by Cassianto

I have nothing meaningful to say about this utter tripe. CassiantoTalk 04:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • GorillaWarfare, your accept is disgraceful. What axe do you have to grind I wonder? CassiantoTalk 18:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is starting to turn into a peanut gallery, with people like WanderingWanda, who has admitted not even knowing Eric from Adam, but thinks it fit to not AGF and instead offer an opinion and character assassinations based on previous incidents that have already been dealt with. This needs to be quick closed now and MJL admonished. CassiantoTalk 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just marking here arbitrator Joe Roe's inappropriate use of quotation marks as if to suggest Eric's departure is one that is designed to avoid scrutiny. WP:AGF and WP:GRAVEDANCING are two that spring to mind. CassiantoTalk 18:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Scottywong

Statement by SN54129

I've added myself as a party, as I suggested MJL be indefinitely blocked for...I don't what, consistently generating more heat than light probably sums it up. This is not the first arbreq they've started only to see it fail, and I assume it won't be the last. ——SerialNumber54129 03:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I apologise, I added myself, but I am very slow. Slow beans! ——SerialNumber54129 03:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

I believe this case is necessary. The common refrain we hear around Wikipedia and elsewhere is, "If Eric were anybody else, he'd have been indeffed or banned by now." And, it has been stated, as a result of this attitude, there have been cases where people make sport of Eric, to the point that it has been claimed that there are individuals attempting to bait him into violating his GGTF civility restrictions. And I don't see this as an accusation of bad faith, in the same sense that I wouldn't see it as an accusation of vandalism—I believe that if there are people who seek to have Eric driven off the project, they believe it is in the project's interest to do so, that Eric is a net negative, and that it is appropriate to use means other than the typical ANI thread or Committee proceeding to drive him out. There are further allegations being made that Eric is being harassed. I have no opinion at this time as to whether there is any truth to these claims. Rather, I believe it falls to the Committee to perform factfinding to determine if there is any truth to them.

This matter extends quite a bit beyond the ongoing AN thread concerning Scottywong's rude, somewhat inflammatory comment at Eric's user talk. Just last week, we had an incident at AE where Eric was blocked for three months in direct violation of this Committee's directive that threads concerning Eric at AE must remain open for 24 hours (see AE2), and in violation of the rather unique escalation requirements for blocks of Eric under the case-specific enforcement in the GGTF case.

I believe this matter falls squarely within the Arbitration Policy as one requiring arbitration given the community's perennial impotence to resolve the problems that surround Eric Corbett. I believe the Committee's unique factfinding role is essential to resolving this, to cutting through the hype and the hyperbole, and bringing an end to this years-long mess. I urge the Committee to accept a case concerning Eric Corbett, scoped not only to him personally, but also his companions and detractors. Thank you. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Joe Roe: The scope of this case would not be focused purely on the conduct Eric Corbett, and so suspension pending his return would be inappropriate. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
As regards the arguments about MJL and the quality of the filing, as people are fond of shouting lately, Wikipedia isn't a court: We aren't bound by strict pleading rules. Sure, notice of what's at issue is good, but that could be handled at the time of acceptance rather than the time of complaint. Many who criticize the filing also seem to accept that the status quo is not working. A case would give the chance to resolve this in an orderly fashion rather than another dozen AE/AN/ANI threads. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I request an extension of the wordlimit to address additional comments. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

This case is not needed. The sanctions previously held were enough and the next block triggers a review of the sanctions. EC is no saint but compared to previous times improvements have been made. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • User:Softlavender, I've been on the receiving end of User:SlimVirgin disapproval for a situation similar to this and her conduct has been remarkably even in this regard both then and now and her consistency has made me gain a lot of respect for her, how is she an involved party other then she has commented on an ANI thread? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Sandstein, I find actually reading the discussions and being familiar with the sanctions are very helpful, both seem to be a challenge to you but I do find it refreshing you've shown just enough courage to state you want EC banned. Been waiting for that a while. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

Why do I find weird comments like this, "I almost wanna say that it is a well known fact that if you block Eric that you'll get attacked. Though, of course I have to say more than that", in this case? What strange and redundant colloquialisms. And MJL, since you seem to be here in all your verbosity to enforce civility, would you please do Eric Corbett the courtesy of using his full name? I doubt y'all are on a first name basis, and that bit of formality is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

I don't really have a formed opinion on whether ArbCom should accept this case. However if it is accepted, then based on the statements by EEng, Only in death, David Eppstein, and Nil Einne in one or both of these two current AN threads: [20], [21], I would say that SlimVirgin should be a named party to the case and that her actions should be examined in addition to the actions of the currently named parties. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging MJL to inform. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • MJL, why is Serial Number 54129 a named party to the case, but he has no notification and no section for a statement? Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • MJL, you wrote: "my perspective as a user who only joined this project in 2019", but I think you meant 2016. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

Talk:Elizabeth Mallet#Elizabeth Mallet widowed at 11?!, Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games#Reliable source?, Talk:Moors murders#Recent edits, Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1#Moved to talk, the two AE cases at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive253, the one still unarchived at WP:AE#Eric Corbett, and yesterday's WP:AN#Further attempts to bait Eric Corbett... that's some of the disruption on the project since EC's return in May 2019. You'll see in the AE cases that there is disagreement among admin about (or with) the current sanctions. Perhaps just a clarification of the current sanctions, or some other motion, would be helpful, if not a full case. Levivich 03:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


@Sphilbrick:

  • Can we stipulate that Eric Corbett occasionally says things that others don't like and move on? NO!
  • That places him in a category that contains far too many editors. NO! It's just a few. 99% of the thousands of editors here have no problem whatsoever with not saying terrible things to other editors.
  • As a community, we need to wrestle with the problem of tone and style in interactions ... Maybe, but we don't need to wrestle with "How about you fuck off?", "odious", "unpaid goons", "like some evil bird of prey", "incompetent gutter-snipe like yourself", or even the mild-in-relation-to-the-rest "some clown". Levivich 18:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW SW's comment was in response to a thread on EC's talk page in which I and others were called "obvious fucking morons" and "fuckers" for our participation in the third 2019 EC AE. While no part of it is nice, I don't think any part of that particular thread is sanctionable–it's not an ongoing pattern of behavior, unlike the diffs above. Levivich 18:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


If a suspended case is accepted, EC should be the only party. For the other currently-named parties (EEng, Cass, SV, SN), there's never been any other form of dispute resolution attempted yet. For SW, the AN thread is still open. Levivich 19:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

Oh dear. A single recent instance of baiting by Scottywong has now been escalated into a "let's all throw mud at the victim" case request by a (self-admittedly) somewhat clueless newbie. MJL can't even really work out what they want the case to consider - see this. Do we really need this? And if we do then surely it should by Scottywong's name in the title, not Eric's. After all, there is consensus in the current AN thread that Scottywong was baiting. - Sitush (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • If Sandstein's thoughts carry any weight then that is someone else who should be added as a party. An admin acting in cavalier fashion at AE, seemingly without even reading the comments of others, is a disruptive admin. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems now that people such as WanderingWanda are keen to relitigate stuff that was dealt with years ago and which is arguably being taken out of context now. Eric was right in his comments here - it's just another excuse to throw the kitchen sink at him. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Will the ArbCom be able to confirm that they have had no contact with Trust & Safety in relation to Eric? I'd hate this to be some sort of fit-up. - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Leaky

This is all wrong. Too many people here have grabbed the wrong end of too many sticks - in some cases inadvertently in others perhaps with a motive. This title here is completely wrong. The AN report was in connection with a wholly inappropriate and deliberate jibe at Eric who had just returned from 72 hours off. AFAICS he had barely edited. There was no need to draw high profile public attention to the jibe by the Admin. at WP:AN. Words, justifiably harsh, should have been exchanged on his talk page, with a possible escalation under WP:ADMINACCT if required. This case, headlined in this way, at this time is wholly inappropriate. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

This should be renamed "Moors murders FAR" and widened to review the conduct of all involved. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

As one of the administrators taking part in the most recent enforcement request currently still at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric_Corbett, I ask ArbCom to take this case and resolve it in such a manner that no more enforcement by individual administrators is necessary – that is, either by lifting the existing sanctions or by imposing site ban(s) as deemed necessary. When attempting enforcement of the existing sanctions, I experienced – in addition to good-faith disagreement with how I went about it – an extraordinary amount of bullying and harassment by what I assume are friends of Eric Corbett, making clear that he is one of the WP:UNBLOCKABLEs. Under these circumstances, admins cannot be asked to do ArbCom's job, which is to deal with intractable disputes in a lasting manner. It doesn't help that the sanctions are now so encrusted with weird exceptions, special rules and codicils that any attempt at enforcement can be wiki-lawyered about forever. In view of the Fram case, the Committee should seek to resolve this case speedily to demonstrate that the community is in fact capable of dealing with longterm incivility and harassment by established users. Sandstein 08:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by ComplexRational

From my (an outside observer’s) point of view, this case is unfortunately necessitated because it is evident that aside from the mandates of arbitration enforcement, various parties are given exceptional amounts of leeway, and some more than others. In concurrence with Mendaliv above, Wikipedia’s fundamental policies and guidelines should apply equally to all editors, regardless of their status. I’m not inclined to take sides on this case, as the real problem seems to be that there is no agreement on how to uphold these policies for vested contributors, who have a history of positive content contributions but also one of quarreling. Ideally, there should be no difference or prejudice. That said, I would strongly recommend that every editor’s comments, conduct, and interactions be imparatially reviewed, and any sanctions be entirely policy-based (i.e. such that no editor is exempt from basic code of conduct or otherwise treated differently). A review of past ANI and AE repors suggests that this has not been done effectively, and I hope that an unbiased agreement can be reached concerning every involved party. ComplexRational (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Paul August

As far as I can tell the impetus for this case request is this ANI thread "Further attempts to bait Eric Corbett", criticizing the actions of the administrator Scottywong. Requesting a case against the victim is ... let's just say inappropriate. Accepting such a case would seem to reward such apparent bating. Paul August 10:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dave

I get the sense MJL is bored today and figured "hey instead of improving articles (which is why we're all here btw) I'll create fucking pointless drama for the sake of it :)", Decline this pointless no hope of a case. –Davey2010Talk 11:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

+1 to Serial Number 54129s comment here too. –Davey2010Talk 12:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Haukurth

If we're going to discuss baiting Eric then maybe some comments by User:EEng could be examined. EEng has found some legitimate issues with the Moors murders article but it is both inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory to insist that it is some sort of "fraud":

  • "Featured article complete fraud!" [22]
  • "fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud" [23]

More generally speaking, it seems to me that EEng has a rather cavalier attitude towards policy and frequently engages in attacks and BLP violations. A handful of recent examples:

  • "You have proved yourself shameless and wholly lacking in honesty and integrity" [24]
  • "that you can't see that speaks to your ignorance and lack of sophistication. ... if you keep this up you're gonna get one of my patented beat-downs [25]
  • User:EEng/Museum Annex
  • My short-lived block of EEng on July 22 for what I still think was a wildly inappropriate (though, I concede, well-composed) schoolyard taunt. Note, however, that I accept the criticism presented at ANI that I was too rusty to be making blocks like that. [26]

I think EEng gets away with a lot because he has a lot of friends (understandably, he's a fun guy to be around) and he has a gift for comedy and good writing. But maybe ArbCom could offer him a little bit of guidance here. Haukur (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by BabbaQ

All I have to say is that MJL is making a good case for a full arbitration review. At what point will enough be enough. The alleged baiting of Eric seems to have plenty of background which are not necessarily in Erics favour. For example the wording: For myself, I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire, is just one of the many examples of Erics complete disregard for a civil and normal tone on Wikipedia. EricCorbett has been given more chances than most not to react to baiting or to not bait himself, the notion that Eric is always a victim of other editors baiting and that he is never at fault are absurd. Now Eric have apparently left the project in a as usual dramatic fashion for the 90th time or similar. I agree with Toa Nidhiki05 that Eric has no interest in following his sanctions and should be indefinitely banned until he does. BabbaQ (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

Recommend that arbitrators reject this proposed case. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

(If someone feels I need to add myself as a party, given that I attempted to intervene at Talk:Moors murders, feel free to tell me so) I've said this already elsewhere, but for the record, the conduct of several parties at Talk:Moors murders was rather depressing, and escalated the situation quite needlessly. The storm appears to be blowing itself out, however; some editors have chosen to remove themselves from the proceedings (not what I would have wanted, but oh well); an AE discussion led to EC being blocked; an FAR has been opened; and after a quite unnecessary amount of wrangling, the content issues are actually being discussed. I don't see that there's much for ARBCOM to do. If you're so inclined, it wouldn't hurt to trout everyone involved by motion, and double-trout the OP for a quite unnecessary escalation in a situation they are not very familiar with. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

In case it was unclear; I don't see Scottywong's comment as anything more than an isolated matter for which they should consider themselves suitably admonished at AN. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Joe Roe: We've been here before, though, and ARBCOM passed an Eric-Corbett-specific remedy. Is there evidence that this remedy isn't working? I'm not seeing such. Then again, if the case scope you're looking at is broader, where is the evidence that other forms of dispute resolution have been tried, and have failed? Yes, civility enforcement has been a headache on Wikipedia, since longer than I've been here; but looking at it just after a civility restriction was enforced at AE seems...odd. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

There's nothing in the AN report that triggered this that a) the community isn't handling and b) indicates any bad behaviour by Eric Corbett. Eric was baited, he didn't rise to it, and that should be the end of it as far as ArbCom is concerned. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and Vanamonde seems to have summed up the Moors murders issue, which is being dealt with by the community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

I do believe there is a general issue with trying to steer discussions to follow generally accepted behavioural norms for English Wikipedia. There is a tension between trying to avoid frivolous complaints by limiting who has standing to raise a complaint or proscribing specific methods to raise an issue, and encouraging valid issues to be dealt with, even in cases where the aggrieved party is reluctant to initiate a complaint. However I feel this matter would be better addressed in the Request(s) for Comments that the arbitration committee is planning to start. isaacl (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Looking at the overall picture, if there is poor behaviour still occurring (such as unwarranted aggressiveness on anyone's part), then there is still a problem; it's just not being dealt with. (For example, I highly suspect most newbie editors wouldn't want to start their Wikipedia career with filing an arbitration enforcement request, even if they could truly understand the nuances of this step in the first place.) This is why I feel the issues raised in this case request should be folded into the overall discussion on how to handle behavioural issues and reporting of behavioural issues. The current remedy has exhausted the range of options currently available to the arbitration committee. We need something new. isaacl (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sphilbrick

Please reject this case request. (Ideally, unanimously, and quickly)

I can't help thinking of World War I where the assassination of an Archduke led to just barely related dominoes falling, and the entire world in flames. A discussion about an inappropriate comment by Scottywong has somehow led to a coat rack of Eric Corbett comments in a request for a case that doesn't even contain a coherent case request.

Can we stipulate that Eric Corbett occasionally says things that others don't like and move on? That places him in a category that contains far too many editors.

As a community, we need to wrestle with the problem of tone and style in interactions, but I'm not sure that ArbCom is even the right body to take that on, and this particular case request is not remotely appropriate as a way to address that issue.

Statement by Toa Nidhiki05

I’m pretty sure this is Eric’s 70th time he’s said he is leaving so I take his comment above with a ginormous grain of salt. If Eric has no intention of following the sanction he agreed to, he should be indefinitely banned until he does; if the committee has no intention of enforcing his sanction, it should be lifted. Hundreds and hundreds of hours have been wasted on this and we need an actual solution rather than constant relitigation. The idea that Eric is always baited and none of this is his fault is quite frankly ridiculous and belittling of Eric, who is a real human with complete agency over his actions. Toa Nidhiki05 18:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • ArbCom needs to decide, as soon as possible, whether or not his sanction is actually enforceable and establish whether or not Eric has any intention of following them. Eric has been blocked over 30 times. It is clear the blocks are not working and likely never will work. So ArbCom needs to make a choice because clearly nothing is ever going to change until them. Toa Nidhiki05 23:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

Not actually a "statement", but one of your clerks went absolutely batshit crazy last time I dared to use a non-standard header here.
@GorillaWarfare (and any other arb that accepts), if this is accepted—expecially in a suspended form—you need to clarify beforehand what the scope of the case actually is. This is possibly the most incoherent case request I have ever seen and at no point does it specify what the filer actually thinks the problem is or what an arb case is expected to achieve. It's not fair on Eric Corbett, Scottywong or EEng to leave hanging over them the prospect of an suspended case which could be reopened at any time; it totally disincentivizes anything potentially time-sensitive such as setting up an ILL to know that at any time one may be expected to drop everything at the whim of this or any future committee, and that any one of them could find themselves potentially sitebanned in future as a result of something that happened months or even years before. (The same applies to MJL, but on that count I'm not concerned—if someone gets their kicks from starting forest fires I'm less concerned how they make it out of the woods.) If you're going to accept this—which I strongly think you shouldn't, as the existing discussion is doing fine and I firmly consider this request a pointless and disruptive escalation—it should be held now when people can still remember the timelines and who said what to whom. ‑ Iridescent 19:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SC

Oh dear. Eric baited by Scottywong, but doesn't react and is now brought to ArbCom? I agree with Iri that this is one of the most incoherent case requests I've seen in a while, and some of MJL's 'evidence' seems to be based more on the fact that Eric doesn't make the project a sacred icon ("I have not even the slightest interest in the outcome of this case", "nothing will change": oh no - that's outrageous! How could he, the dastadly wretch!) If you decide to accept the case (which you really, really shouldn't), then you have to make it extremely clear what you are accepting and on what grounds.

Sometimes it's easy for people to cast Eric as the villain. I have never been an apologist for him (he's big enough to say what he thinks regardless of what my opinion is, and he's big enough to take on the chin any twisting of circumstances that make him out to be the pantomime bad guy). Personally I think him more sinned against than sinning: on the fairly few ocassions I've intereacted with him, I've found him extremely helpful, he's provided excellent advice and been generous with his time. There again, I've never tried to bait or poke him, or engaged in the bloodsports that many others do.

Use common sense ArbCom: reject this flimsy excuse for a case, move on and let a little normality fall once again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

I urge the Committee to reject this case, because the basis for it having been filed at this time, fails in a number of ways. El_C 20:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see members of the Committee opt to accept this case. As mentioned by multiple editors, I think they are not giving enough credence to the following: EC was baited, they did not rise to the bait. That's what precipitated the discussion at AN. The timing for facing an Arbitration case is just not right. Penalizing someone for doing what's right is not right, even if there's other persuasive context. Please reconsider. El_C 18:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by IHTS

There s/b some filter before anyone with a computer can open an RfAR (or an AN or ANI for that matter). How does a third-party complaint re a Talk page drive-by insult by long-term EC harasser Scottywong morph into this?! (Answer: WP dysfunctionality + ECDS/Eric Corbett derangement syndrome.) --IHTS (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Mendaliv: "Shouting" is evidently something sanctionable. Who are you accusing of "shouting"? And do you have any diff to support (or is it just a baseless accusation you like to throw on a public board)? And tell me, do you label this "shouting"? --IHTS (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Yngvadottir

I write reluctantly since Mendaliv has spoken of "companions" of Eric Corbett, to urge the Committee in the strongest possible terms to have the wisdom not to be baited into taking this case, which cannot be formulated so as to be "settled conclusively" and will merely further entrench the divisiveness. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WanderingWanda

I've never interacted with Eric Corbett, at least as far as I can recall. Reading through this case, though, it's obvious he is someone who ignores our civility rules, with glee, over and over again. He literally called the co-founder of the encyclopedia a "cunt" on his own talk page, for chrissakes. I would've been indeffed for pulling even a fraction of what Eric Corbett has pulled, and, personally, I think the longer someone's been on the project, the more that should be expected of them, not less.

What's really troubling to me, though, is that some people (specifically: SN54129 and Davey2010) are calling for MJL to be banned for bringing this case forward. It's one thing to defend Eric Corbett, or to argue that this case shouldn't be taken up: that's fair play. But it's shameful to argue that someone should be banned for reporting another user's bad behavior. It's clear that MJL is acting in good faith, and it took courage for them to step forward.

In the end, the question here is what kind of environment do we want this community to have? Do we want this to be a place of mutual respect and cooperation? Do we want it to be civil? Non-hierarchical? Or do we want it to be a lion's den? WanderingWanda (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Immediately after making my statement, Sitush popped up on my talk page and asked me to retract said I may want to retract the stuff about Eric Corbett calling Jimbo a, well, you know what. (diff1, diff2). In response I'll just say that I admit the the Jimbo thing was a long time ago, I don't know the context, and I don't know Eric Corbett. *Shrug*. It's also, obviously, far from the only piece of misbehavior that's been pointed to. My jaw dropped at this "fuck off" comment (made less than a couple months ago). And at his aggressive nose-thumbing when he was sanctioned for violating a topic ban. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Senegambianamestudy

Tone and style seems to be an issue here. Besides, there are other noticeboards that deals with civility issues on a routine basis. I do not believe the Arbitration Committee is the right place to bring this, at least not yet. As such, I urge the Committee to reject this case. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

I would urge ArbCom to reject this case as there is no nexus with an active issue. He's already been judged for his actions up-to-this date; the time to issue a more severe sentence for a career pickpocket is the next time they do something, you don't just get to pick them up based on things they were already busted for in the past. What little is actually new here is a scant skeleton indeed, mostly heated discussions that are clearly two-way or simply normal objections that contain an expletive, which aren't sanctionable in themselves. And stuff like "grave dancing is suitable for gravedancers" are ridiculous to be bringing to Arbitration. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

The only advice that I have is to rename the case if it is accepted, or accepted and suspended. The trend away from naming cases after individual editors is a trend that should continue. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement from Newyorkbrad

"As you value your life or your reason keep away from the moor." Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement from Cas Liber

Pretty much per Iridescent. The latest flareup(s) are some aftershocks of significant acrimony at the talk page of Moors Murders, which is (slowly) subsiding with some structure applied there (and FAR). Hence this is no last resort and opening this creates a truckload of extra work, straining resources that could go to encyclopedia-building. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

Hmmmm ... let's see. You've got 4 ex-arbs saying decline, and 0 that I see saying to accept. You might want to let that sink in a bit. — Ched :  ?  — 01:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Kudpung

There must be some reason why Eric Corbett (together with his previous account as Malleus) has the longest block log in history. He has been a very prolific content provider and improver, but I have learned to stay well out of his way for several years. Scottywong has also provided excellent service to the project - without it we would probably not have NPP as it is today, or ACPERM. That said, I wholly concur with Iridescent that this is " not fair on Eric Corbett, Scottywong or EEng to leave hanging over them the prospect of an suspended case which could be reopened at any time", and that "this request [is] a pointless and disruptive escalation. There should be no need to accept this case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon

  1. I think Arbcom should accept this case. WP:A/G says that arbitration aims to break the back of the dispute, and the fact that we're here means the dispute is not resolved, i.e. previous remedies were insufficient.
  2. Accepting the case can also help settle what "baiting" means. This word has been getting thrown around a lot. If it unambiguously happened and is undesirable, then Arbcom can both clarify what it is and warn others off doing it (notably WP:BAIT right now even says baiting is "nearly risk-free").
  3. Accepting the case makes things easier for AE admins (c.f. Sandstein's statement above).
  4. Declining the case now because the dispute is over seems like a shameless cop-out. I would interpret it as illustrating how our DR process doesn't actually solve disputes if they can be shoved under the carpet (which in turn might make some use it less, c.f. the Fram case).
  5. Accepting the case but suspending it also seems inappropriate. If other people involved have acted poorly, they should be judged together with Eric Corbett. Suspending it implies one and only one person can be sanctioned.

Based on a cursory look, I would examine everyone who participated in the talk page at Moor Murders. Presumably some people will have done no wrong. Arbcom has historically handed out far more guilty verdicts than innocent ones (has arbcom ever handed out innocent verdicts?) which has made arbitration an unpleasant place. This would be a chance to do so. Would recommend renaming the case regardless, to avoid anchoring.

Banedon (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dr.K.

This has become a very politicised event. I am disappointed that otherwise intelligent and capable people/editors have chosen to dig into many places to find faults with Eric's behaviour but the very same people have not found many instances when Eric's behaviour merited at least some understanding given the particular circumstances of the incident. The opposition also somehow did not see fit to acknowledge cases where Eric was belittled and insulted despite his stellar record as a premier FA-level editor. This black-and-white approach is both simplistic and transparent. I know politics have a tendency to dumb-down intelligent analysis but in this case many of the cries of Eric's opposition sound particularly hollow. I am very disappointed. I expected better from a crowd involved in building the best 'pedia in the world. In any case, this may well become moot in the short to medium term. In the final analysis who really knows what Wikipedia may become. The writing is on the wall or, if you prefer, on more obscure places. Dr. K. 04:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

Multiple parties at some degree of fault - EC gets some degree of baiting, he reacts, quite possibly to a degree not accepted as reasonable. There may also be instances of baiting without response and uncivility by EC without baiting. Those should also be looped in. One of the issues that stopped this being resolved in the messy ANI thread was a failure for parties to engage.

I do not think the only legitimate results are "indef or remove sanctions, because it's too complicated for AE/community otherwise" - that encourages kicking out editors because the research becomes difficult, which is a weak argument.

Case would obviously need to be suspended per EC's return in any form, though looking at some parties' actions would still be worthwhile, it'd probably viewed as punitive/risking duplicating a case (one bit now, one further down the road) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

If this is accepted, I should probably be added as a party. I blocked Eric Corbett for 72 hours ([27]diff) for violating his restrictions and removed what I saw as baiting or provocation by ScottyWong from EC's talk page.

But I urge the committee to decline this request. There may be a case regarding EC to be had, but this is not it. EC was reported to AE. After the requisite 24 hours had passed, I blocked him for 72 hours, as my reading of the arbitration remedy required. Contrary to "unblockable" commentary above, I have experienced almost no push-back whatsoever from either side; I believe the only ones to have commented negatively are Giano (that it is pointless; diff on Eric's TP) and Levivich (that it's not long enough; diff at AN). As far as I can tell, the opposition Sandstein faced was because his action was precipitate, disproportionate and procedurally incorrect; in other words it was warranted. In short, the remedies arbcom put in place last time should be given a chance to play out as regards Eric Corbett.

ScottyWong posted what appeared to me (and to many others) to be provocation on EC's talk page; I removed it (diff) as provocation that at best could draw no response, and was in fact likely to inflame the situation. Again, this action has been almost universally endorsed by editors commenting on it (I believe Levivich is the only one to have commented negatively on this, in the diff above). SW's action was pretty disappointing for an admin and his response to concerns a fairly abject failure of ADMINACCT (as documented by others above), but AFAICT the community has made its views on this clear at AN and unless you think an IBAN or a desysopping is a plausible remedy for a single comment, there is no basis for a case here.

Why a completely uninvolved editor felt the need to post a case request here is beyond me. It certainly looks a lot like drama-mongering and the committee should not rise to it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Eric has only been blocked twice since 2015, once for a TBAN violation and once for a civility violation (discounting Sandstein's recent, abortive 3-month block). That seems to indicate that the current sanctions are doing a reasonable job. If there is extensive evidence that Eric is not being sanctioned for behaviour that should be sanctioned, the reason for that is that other editors are not reporting it at AE and Eric's restrictions require that they only be enforced after an AE report has been filed and open for 24 hours. GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

Indefinite block MJL, who is sadly devoid of any of the competency needed to be editing, is an entirely disruptive influence and who has little redeeming qualities to make their retention as an editor here remotely sensible. Nick (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I generally keep away from Eric-related stuff since that ArbCom case, and if this is accepted I won't take part in this one either, but the only person that needs to be looked at here is the filer, because this is the most incompetently-written case I have ever seen, and I'm amazed that anyone's accepted it. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Govindaharihari

Agree with Black Kite and others, this is a case request even worse than the mistaken case I opened recently that was correctly roundly rejected. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Giano

Amusing as it would be to see numerous bullying Admins, non-writing editors plus the usual Wikipedia vocalists and dregs wasting hours of their less than valuable time contributing their dull opinions as to why Corbett should be banished into the darkness for ever, regrettably, I don’t see how a case can be accepted based on Corbett failing to respond to clear baiting. Sadly, Corbett didn’t even tell Scottywong to take a running jump. Too bad! How immensely disappointing that must be for so many. Giano (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Reading and rereading the request leads me to believe that the goal of the case is only to be "a case" - that is, there is nothing to be gained by the perpetual rehashing of the same evidence in the belief that any real solution is being sought. This has been done successfully in the past on far too many editors by various and sundry "subgroups" of editors and "friends" thereof. As no solution will result dealing with a real and present possibility of a rational result, it ought be dealt with by a summary dismissal. Collect (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Neil S Walker

To the best of my recollection, Eric and I have never crossed paths or swords. Likewise, myself and Scotty Wong. I have, however, looked at FAs written by Eric (and his posse - lol) for guidance and pointers in my own writing. This request is a joke, surely? Sanctions as previously agreed were applied - apart from Sandstein having a comprehension failure... - and then a thread is started about SW's behaviour; resulting in Eric being dragged back in to the Star Chamber. Get a grip. Are you all children in the playground, ganging up and settling old scores? Did Eric steal your lunch money? Or was it Cassianto? I urge the committee to decline this childish, pathetic, unwarranted and ill-formed (and ill-informed) request. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Besides, if Eric Corbett didn't exist, we would have to invent him ... Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso: You nailed it. Exactly what this whole charade feels like. Viddy well, little brother, viddy well. Neil S. Walker (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Javert2113

I don't see a good reason for the Committee to accept this case. Quite frankly, MJL is wasting everyone's time, and should be admonished (at very least) for disruptive behavior. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think this case should be declined, but things should be looked into before this turns into a fustercluck, to put it mildly. Trouts should be given all around, and EENG should be reminded to watch his words. I do want to point out something odd about Toa Nidhiki05's statement here because it doesn't make sense to me at all. Eric, to the best of my recollection is not under sanctions at this point. He was blocked, and then he was baited and didn't respond. Why is the entirety of Toa Nidhiki05's section on how Eric has been behaving? To me that just shows how bad the case creation was written. We're here because an admin baited Eric, and Eric did not respond. While he didn't respond, other editors tried to ask the admin why he baited Eric, and got no response, and took the admin to ANI and continued to get no response.

To me, this just shows why the whole Eric situation is a minefield, it doesn't necessarily have to do with behavior, it has to do with teams and people have already taken sides. Even here where Eric has done nothing wrong, people have taken sides. So I don't think anything good will come of ARBCOM taking this case. A huge trout to the filer and admin for the baiting. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Girth Summit

I think everyone on both 'sides' of this debate can agree that EC can be a grumpy so-and-so, and he probably has a long-term habit of being so? I just took a look at his recent behaviour though - i.e. since his last block. The only vaguely spicy comments I found were directed towards EEng - who, and I'm fairly confident that he would agree with me on this, seems pretty much flameproof, and who is quite capable of breathing hilarious-but-scorching flame himself when the need arises. His brief, eloquent post above, to my reading, suggests that he has no interest in pursuing this dramah.

What then led to this proposed case? A report about someone else leaving unnecessary snark on EC's talk page. Snark that EC didn't respond to in any way. That's progress, right? He didn't respond at all, and another user (the very admin who last blocked him) removed it from his page.

I am no friend, defender or 'enabler' of EC: we have never interacted at all, AFAICR. I am concerned though about what it would say about our approach to behaviour management if, when someone returns after a block and does not repeat their earlier problematic behaviour, we say "Ah, but we will block you again for things you did before your block!" The signs were there that if everyone had just left EC alone to do some content work, and not made their entire experience here about behavioural issues, this could have been avoided.

Sandstein and others make reasonable arguments about the need for clarification about how to deal with EC going forward, and so I do not ask you not to take the case. Just please don't make it a case where we relitigate behavioural stuff that took place prior to their last block, when it looks like they were making an effort to improve their behaviour. GirthSummit (blether) 00:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Johnbod

The case should be declined, mainly per Iridescent, GoldenRing and, by implication, EEng above. Just to add that it is remarkable that User:MJL as initiator a) gives this: "*Please don't refer to me as "Corbett". I find that most insulting.", as one of his example diffs, and b) then proceeds to do something very similar several times himself on this page. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Victoria

One of the many things we've learned this summer is that the WMF wants to give voice to underrepresented groups, i.e women, the LGBT community etc. Notably lacking is any discussion of editors who aren't young, specifically 50+. A decade ago I broke the mold of the typical Wikipedia editor (middle-aged, married, female, raising a family), now I'm ten years older, still female, and well you get it. The point I'm making is this: age brings all kinds of unexpected challenges, some like health issues more difficult that others, but there's the simple fact that some of us become less patient, cranky, grumpy, whatever you want to call it.

At the end of the day this is a writing based project and Eric's writing skills are strong; his interpersonal skills not so strong. Can we as a community judge him for the second and kick him out, yet take full advantage of the first? Is it necessary for editors to belittle contributions because he's grouchy? I know someone with Tourette's syndrome - hypothetically what if that were the case here? Could we find a place for him? Ironically Malleus/Eric is incredibly patient and helpful with new editors but he's like one those professors who's snappy (very snappy) and yet from whom students gain the most.

This comment will probably come across very stupid to most of you and you all will flock to my talk page to berate me. But it needs to be said. Leave the man in peace. Ideally we'd milk him for all he's worth and get as much content from him as we can, but that's not the Wikipedia way. In my view the Moors murders issues could have been worked out; in my view MJL could have learned how to write good content from Malleus (I've seen it happen). It would be best to drop this matter altogether and move on. It's just too exhausting.

One last thing: there was a comment about spending most of one's time writing content vs. commenting on talk pages, or something to that effect, that resonated with me. Writing content is hard, time-consuming exhausting; I've not been able to do it for a while. I do, however, apologize for getting involved in the Moors murders. I thought I might be able to help. I apologize to the community for any unnecessary drama opening a FAR caused. Bowing out now, Victoria (tk) 03:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Modernist

I think this case should be declined. I wholeheartedly agree with Johnbod, and Victoria...Eric's value to the project, his ability to create important and well sourced material to this encyclopedia is essential to it's existence...Article after article sometimes creates arguments and disputes regarding the rules and regulations rather than the truth and value to the truth...Hopefully Eric returns soon...Modernist (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Per El C please decline. Don't accept controversies that have been sought out as a platform to prove a point, even if the point is valid. We know Wikipedia has issues with civility and inclusiveness. The way forward is to encourage people to be more polite, more inclusive. Cases like this will just fragment the community and make things worse. Jehochman Talk 15:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Eric Corbett: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Just a gentle reminder that case requests have a limit of 500 words per participant. MJL, your statement is currently 833 words — please trim it. – bradv🍁 03:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @MJL: Since there has been substantial comment on this case already, it probably isn't wise to change the case name without consent of the Arbitration Committee. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Recuse. Thoroughly involved. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Eric Corbett: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/1/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Recuse WormTT(talk) 07:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Accept the case, with it to be suspended. If at any point Eric decides to return, we will reopen the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Accept. Putting aside the immediate background to this request, based on Eric Corbett's block log, the long list of AN & AE discussions, and the diffs above that show violations of his sanctions that were not followed up on, it's obvious that this is a long-term problem that neither the community nor previous ArbComs have been able to solve. I'm especially mindful of Sandstein's statement; highly personalised sanctions like EC's only work if they don't place an undue burden on other editors to enforce. The scope of the case should be Eric Corbett's conduct plus the issue of 'baiting' by other editors. I'm not sure about suspending: EC has 'left' the project before. – Joe (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93: I don't want to prejudge the evidence, but I would say that the fact that EC has been blocked at AE ten times, and that diffs above apparently show further breaches, is at least enough for us to reevaluate whether the current sanctions are effective – bearing in mind that an effective sanction is one that stops the disruption happening again, not just meets it with blocks. – Joe (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm persuadable, but on the request as currently presented I'm a decline. Nothing about the conversation on the Moors murders talk page does anyone involved any credit, but the content dispute, and questions about the article's featured status, seem to be being handled by normal community processes. The personal disputes touched off by that discussion - well, that doesn't do any of the participants any credit either, but I don't think it adds up to a coherent case needing arbcom intervention. I will say that the traditional judgment of "net positive" - the argument that someone's large amount of good content work should balance out their occasional annoying personal habits - really does rely on ongoing good content work. If you start to spend less time writing content and more time getting into fights, eventually that shifts the balance of that judgment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Motion enacted. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Nyttend at 01:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Nyttend

This is not some sort of complaint/argument/etc. Just trying to get an authoritative statement on this decision's scope.

Airbnb is a US-based company that acts as a broker for people who have spare rooms in their homes and people who want to rent those rooms. Apparently there was some controversy related to Israel-Palestine and this company, so the article has a section on this issue. Ymblanter recently protected the article under ARBPIA following some disruptive editing to this section. I questioned this action, saying basically "did you accidentally protect the wrong article", and Ymblanter responded basically "I protected it intentionally, because the disruptive editing was related to Israel-Palestine". His response mentions some consultation with Galobtter regarding the duration.

So the question...are this decision's stipulations on page protection meant to apply to all articles that have bits related to Israel-Palestine, or is it only intended for pages to which Israel-Palestine is an integral component? This article is definitely the first — one can understand the company quite well without a tiny Israel-Palestine section sourced only to news reports and an advocacy organization. By the latter, I'm talking about Israeli politicians, places in the West Bank, events in the history of Gaza, etc. The situation here reminds me of the "weather" situation at WP:TBAN — if we had similar sanctions on the topic of weather, I suppose we'd not consider all articles with "climate" sections liable to ARBWEATHER protection.

If we assume either Ymblanter's perspective or mine, there's no room for dispute over whether this is an appropriate protection; if Arbcom meant to include all pages with Israel-Palestine sections, of course this is an appropriate protection, and if you didn't mean to include pages like this, obviously this should be treated like any other victim of disruptive editing rather than an Israel-Palestine issue. So once again, no hard feelings exist yet, and I don't envision them arising in the future; I just want the scope to be clear.

if the result of this clarification request is that only dedicated articles can be extended-confirmed protected (or anything else) this is perfectly fine with me says Ymblanter. I agree — if the committee intends ARBPIA to apply to articles in an Airbnb-type situation, that's fine with me. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
By the way, at User talk:Ymblanter#Protection of Airbnb, Ymblanter said I am not sure I can now so easily remove or lower the protection. I do not think we have a mechanism of lowering ARBPIA protections. If an admin levies an ARBPIA sanction and then changes his mind, is there something preventing the admin from self-reverting? If this is indeed the case, and it's specific to ARBPIA (I don't know; I don't do WP:AE), it would be helpful if you implemented a mechanism for lowering ARBPIA protections or allowing other self-reverting. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

The consultation with Galobtter which Nyttend mentions is at my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#Protection of Airbnb. Concerning the issue itself, I indeed interpret the decision such that if an article contains a significant part (in the case of Airbnb, this is a dedicated section) the discretionary sanctions apply. However, I do not hold strong opinions here, if the result of this clarification request is that only dedicated articles can be extended-confirmed protected (or anything else) this is perfectly fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Huldra: Without giving my opinion of the motion you mention, if someone compiles a list of articles where the notice must be placed I volunteer, after a reasonable check, place the notice to all these articles (which obviously is going to take time but it is still better than nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: Yes, it is time to conduct review of all remedies. We are slowly moving towards professionalizing of AE in general and PI in particular, when one first needs to study for five years and then run an internship in order to be able to act there responsively. This is not really good.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

Statement by Doug Weller

It looks as though this problem is going to continue. It's been discussed for over a week at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Some issues relating to the IP area which I urge everyone to read (and User:Huldra has found a slew of articles that need templating and edit notices given the current sanctions). Towards the bottom of the thread I've tried to outline how I understand ARBPIA sanctions are meant to work. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It's also virtually the same issue as I raised a few weeks ago which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, isn't it? Doug Weller talk 09:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I'm pretty sure that my understanding as outlined at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Some issues relating to the IP area is in line with yours, if not please tell me where I have it wrong. What's needed now to clarify "reasonably"? I presume a motion, right? Doug Weller talk 14:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I'd like to see a discussion of your suggestion to remove the "blanket 500/30 of "reasonably construed" pages in favor of discretionary but liberal use of 500/30 to combat abuse across all "broadly construed" pages." In the last two days I've had to disappoint an Admin (User:El C and an experienced editor(User:Nableezy) who thought IPs couldn't edit anything to do with the conflict. I also like rewording somne DS alerts to mention 1RR. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

This is not related to the issue about parts/whole of the article being under ARBPIA, but it relates to the imbecile motion added March this year. Yes: imbecile!

After that motion, no-one can be sanctioned for 1RR unless an admin has placed an edit notice on the article in question. Since there are thousands of articles, and only a few hundred of them have edit notice, the result is that clear cut violations of the rules goes unpunished; see this example.

So while "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted" are placed under "discretionary sanctions", the 1 RR rule has become unenforceable on most article.

This is a totally untenable situation, I hope that arb.com either:

  • 1. Undo their March 2019 motion, or
  • 2. Start templating the thousands of articles which need to be templated. (In addition to the ones I have already mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, we can add all the ‎Israel settlements on the West Bank and the Golan Heights, all the kibbutz, etc built on the 48 villages land (they will be found in the "current localities" in the infobox, see eg Suruh.....you would be amazed as to how often that information "disappears"...)

I would prefer that you chose option 1, that's because admins are not the best persons to see what is under ARBPIA, or not. Case in point: Solomon's Pools, where both, say, Icewhiz and I agree that it comes under ARBPIA, but "outside" admins have a difficulty in seeing that. (For those of you who don't know us: Icewhiz and I disagree about just about everything regarding the I/P area...) Huldra (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter: All articles mentioned in Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus (and the Israeli localities on their land), all Palestinian localities on the West Bank; listed under Template:Governorates of the Palestinian Authority. I would also say all localities listed in [[Category:Arab localities in Israel]], and all localities in the Golan Heights: Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab–Israeli conflict, and the places mentioned in it and Template:Golan Regional Council. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That old expression: "Don't fix it if it isn't broken" should also be the guiding words for arb.com. This 14 March 2019 change basically changed a structure which was working..sort of..to one with lots of complications. I cannot recall any editor wanting to edit ARBPIA articles, achieving 30/500 status, and not knowing about ARBPIA sanctions. What normally happen, is that they wander into ARBPIA territory before they reach 30/500, they are promptly reverted, most with a note on their talk page. Then, if they are mature enough, they stay away until they have reached 30/500, and then they return.User:SilkTork: yes, the 14 March 2019 added "This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice." I just became aware of that, as I reported an obvious offence, but the editor walked scot free, thanks to this. See here.
User:AGK yes, it is a patchwork, and I would love to see one standard. Especially what "broadly constructed" and what is not. (I think User:BU Rob13 is the only one who understands it!) 1RR is one of the best things there are in the ARBPIA area, alas, the 14 March 2019 change was horrible: it made 1RR unenforceable on most ARBPIA articles. Why have rules if there is absolutely no punishment for breaking them? Huldra (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, User:SilkTork, I hadn't seen the January 2018 note: [29].(I don't follow the "Discretionary sanctions" page), that makes me more understand the 14 March 2019 changes. We have two set of rules for ARBPIA, and I have given up hope of ever understanding those rules....
Also, according to these idiots, I have a IQ of about half a zillion, I don't know if I would trust them, but I tend to understand things that have a logic to them. And as a corollary to that: when I don't understand a thing, it is usually because there is no logic to it. I would love to see some logic to the rules in the IP area...Huldra (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Well, I went to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor, and got pagemover rights. So now I see a "Page notice" on my editing screen, where I can put {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}. I will advice everyone (who is not admins) to apply for this, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

To SilkTork: I think you missed the point when you wrote "If someone feels that there is significant enough content which falls under a DS topic on a particular page/article then they can place a DS template." No they can't; only administrators and template editors can add the editnotice that arbcom decided is needed for enforcement. Zerotalk 10:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

To BU Rob13: Before 500/30, IPs and new socks would cause disruption because they don't care about rules while the good editors trying to preserve article integrity were constrained by 1RR from reverting the disruption. The combination of 1RR and 500/30 has proved very beneficial to the area and I don't understand why you think removing 500/30 would be an improvement. Zerotalk 07:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think that articles that are not broadly about the conflict should not be locked down under ECP, they can be locked down temporarily, they can be IP protected, etc and then when the vandalism passes, it's good to go. We should not have many articles under a patchwork of horrible ARBCOM rulings that are terribly confusing to enforce and understand. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Davidbena

I think that it is wise and pertinent that no-one can be sanctioned for 1RR unless an admin has placed an edit notice on the article in question. If the 1RR edit-notice were to apply to all articles in the I/P area, and if ordinary editors could add such notices, who would prevent them from adding these notices to every town and city in Israel (Palestine), irregardless of whether or not the town had been involved in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle? Editors would still find a way to include it, since both sides vie for the control of the same country. This would greatly impede progress and make the simple task of editing much more difficult, just as we found in the article Solomon's Pools, which to my dismay came to be associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although it has absolutely nothing to do with that conflict other than the fact that the pools lie within territory controlled by joint Israeli-Palestinian Authority officials. In my humble opinion, we should avoid making the task of editing bogged-down in red-tape and litigation, whenever possible, and only in those articles where by their nature they spark heated debate or POV views should these 1RR edit warnings be added.Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass

I have long argued that discretionary sanctions should be applied not only to articles within the topic area, broadly interpreted, but to edits clearly related to the topic area in question, regardless of whether the article topic itself is related. This is because the topic area to which discretionary sanctions apply can be referenced peripherally in almost any article (falafel, anyone?) If somebody is making edits somewhere, anywhere, that can be reasonably construed as pertaining to the topic area, then surely all the usual discretionary sanctions should be applied to those edits regardless of which article they were made in. It seems to me that if this approach were to be adopted, the regular tiresome debates about whether or not a given article belongs in the topic area could be avoided altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add, with regard to extended-confirmed protection, which is a special case because it works to automatically block anyone who doesn't meet the editing criteria on a given page, that an alternative approach might be to manually enforce extended-confirmed on articles which only peripherally relate to the sanctioned topic area (such as Airbnb in this case), in order to avoid penalizing the vast majority of users who are not making edits that pertain to the sanctioned area. Or alternatively, to use the automated protection only for limited periods, until the related dispute cools down. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

@AGK: In response to your question: yes, ArbCom rules in the I/P area are too complicated, to the point where I'm reluctant to help enforce them because of the likelihood that I'll do something wrong and/or need to spend too much time reading up on the rules. I agree that the relevant decisions should be reviewed. Off the cuff, it might be worth it to consider reverting to basic discretionary sanctions. That's because drive-by disrupters using new accounts can be easily dealt with without the need for complicated rules, and AE regulars who are playing long-term games with the I/P content are quite capable of gaming complicated rules to their advantage. I could be wrong, though, and maybe the rules are actually helpful. Hence the need for a review. Sandstein 09:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

WP:NOTBURO. Yall have made this more complicated on each iteration. You have made it so what was intended to be a way of limiting edit-wars for the topic and limiting the sockpuppetry into one that on too many pages is unenforceable due to a technicality or not applicable because of this reasonably or broadly dispute. To me the answer here is obvious, divorce where extended-confirmed is applied (reasonably construed), but apply the rest of the prohibition to the larger set (broadly construed, with only the sections about the topic area covered). And remove the edit-notice requirement. What is important is that a person know that the edit is covered by the 1RR. Having the {{ARBPIA}} banner on the talk page and having been notified of the sanctions is enough of a notification, and requiring the edit-notice is allowing for some of the sillier games to be played without a hint of shame. Besides, I have yet to see an example where an editor was not asked to self-revert prior to being reported. By the time a report is made they are effectively notified and their refusal to self-revert should be enough to consider sanctions. This was supposed to be simple, and for years it was successful. The last several "clarifications" have undone a decent chunk of that success. nableezy - 09:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Or at least make me a template-editor so I can add the edit-notices myself. nableezy - 09:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

Rob's suggestion to make 500/30 conditional on ECP being applied to the page makes sense. I would suggest making this a "package deal" with 1RR (so if ECP is applied - 1RR is always applied as well). If these are handed out on an article level on a very liberal basis (e.g. mere relation of a page to the conflict - assuming requests at RfPP will be handled quickly and promptly - even without evidence of disruption for "reasonably construed" (for "broadly construed" - one should have evidence of disruption)) - then the amount of disruption should be fairly low (and if a new editor hops around many unprotected pages doing un-constructive editing - regular DS would still apply). For new articles, all one has to do is ask at RfPP (e.g. diff for a new current event conflict article).

The advantage to moving to a more normal (in relation to other topic areas) DS regime is that the current regime in ARBPIA is a rather severe roadblock for new editors, who can accrue sanctions at an alarming rate due to a mere misunderstanding of 500/30 and 1RR (which are even confusing to regulars (some long term editors diverge from AE norms in the parsing of "what is a revert") - let alone new comers). New Israeli or Palestinian editors invariably edit many pages that are "reasonably construed" (e.g. geographic locations, the country articles, all sorts of organizations) - even if their particular edits are not particularly conflict related (e.g. updating the head of the local council in a West Bank settlement after local elections) - the "survival rate" of such new editors on Wikipedia (without getting TBANNED from the topic area - and potential TBAN violations subsequently leading to blocks) is pretty low under the current sanctions regime - as they are able to edit non-ECP articles (running foul of 500/30 and often violating 1RR).Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

The rules should apply where they apply naturally or rather the use of common sense is necessary. Every article need not be given a templet or protected simply because it dips it's toes in areas that are under sanctions. However when editors import the conflict into these articles due consideration should be given on a case by case basis for the appropriate action. An editor topic banned from ARBPIA related topics should be able to edit AIRBNB but they shouldn't be allowed to edit the portions of the article related to ARBPIA. Uninvolved admins also need the ability to take some appropriate form of action when the general disruption associated with articles under sanction is exported to articles that merely get their toes wet on the subject. I'd have to endorse a rewrite of these sanctions or any others that simplify them but they do need to have teeth.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


Statement by ZScarpia

I would like to check whether my understanding of the situation is correct and to clarify how the remedies would effect interaction with editors on pages which could not be reasonably construed as relating to the AI conflict.

Two sets of sanctions affect the ARBPIA area, the general remedies (1RR and 500/30) and discretionary sanctions.

The general remedies appy on pages which could be 'reasonably construed' as relating to the conflict. For them to apply, the ArbCom Arab-Israeli edit notice must be placed on affected 'pages'.

Discretionary sanctions apply, more broadly, on pages which may be 'broadly construed' as relating to the conflict. The ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement notice may be placed on the talkpages of affected articles, but such a placement is not necessary for discretionary sanctions to apply. However, discretionary sanctions may not be applied unless editors are aware that discretionary sanctions are in place.

The Airbnb article as a whole cannot be 'reasonably construed' as relating to the conflict and therefore the general sanctions do not apply to it, though part of it does and editing of that part may be subject to discretionary sanctions.

If an editor who doesn't meet the 500/30 standard edits the part of the article which is conflict related or leaves conflict-related comments on the talkpage, how should (or may) another editor handle it if he or she thinks that those edits or comments are problematic? Similarly, how may it be handled if an editor makes more than one revert to the conflict-related material within a 24-hour period? Is all that can be legitimately done to give a warning that enforcement under discretionary sanctions may be sought (though, if enforcement was sought, there would be no bright lines and it would be up to individual admins to decide whether to apply 500/30 and 1RR)?

    ←   ZScarpia   15:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Retro

Since there's a motion to open ARBPIA4, it seems appropriate to mention a discussion I was involved in just today related to another aspect of the previous decision.

There seems be some ambiguity regarding whether 500/30 should be preemptively applied to pages clearly entirely related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Local practice at RfPP has generally been to avoid preemptively protecting, following a 2017 discussion. This local practice seems to contradict the General Prohibition, which states: [Non-EC editors] are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Some administrators have mentioned they avoid reverting non-EC editors who aren't disruptive on these pages, despite the General Prohibition.

The state of current practice suggests a clarification regarding this prohibition's interaction with WP:PREEMPTIVE is needed at the very least. If the committee is considering a new case, this is probably an opportunity to review how practical these measures are for administrators to implement and how easy they are to understand (echoing concerns expressed above).

Doug Weller also mentioned related concerns in their 12 May 2019 comment above. Retro (talk | contribs) 01:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Maile66

Whatever you decide, please put it in a table format, easily accessible to any and all. As is, this policy is explained differently in separate places. It's been open to individual interpretation by whomever applies it, and, therefore, challenged by non-admin users who feel it is applied unnecessarily. We need something concise, easy to read, and very clear about what the policy is. The current policy is rather ambiguous. — Maile (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Question from User:MJL

While the motion below is still on track to be passed, I would like to ask how this would affect the decision of Antisemitism in Poland as it still awaits a proposed decision? I know during the workshop period, TonyBallioni suggested a broader remedy be applied to the topic of Antisemitism. Is this related? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯MJLTalk 20:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.


Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Hello everyone, I know this has been a bit quieter lately. I wanted to provide an update on case management for the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case, which has been the subject of active deliberation. The specifics are being worked out, but when we open the case, it's likely to be suspended for a period of time before we start the evidence phase. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Sometimes we can bogged down with the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The intention of DS is to prevent disruption; if there is material on Wikipedia which is likely to lead to disruption, then it is appropriate for us to monitor that material. If the DS wording inhibits us from appropriately preventing disruption then we may look to change the wording rather than allow the disruption to take place due to unclear wording. The material in this case, Airbnb#Delisting_of_West_Bank_settlements, does fall under the Palestine-Israel tension. It is currently neutral and factual, and we would want to keep it that way, so applying DS to that material is appropriate. (For me the greater debate is should that information be in the article on Airbnb, or in the article on Israeli settlement. But that's an editorial decision, not an ArbCom one.)
I think I'm comfortable with the template wording as is so we don't need to be fiddling with "page/article/section/material". If someone feels that there is significant enough content which falls under a DS topic on a particular page/article then they can place a DS template. If another person doesn't agree, the matter can be taken to AE for discussion and consensus. While the template is in place, any inappropriate edit to any part of the page would be liable for sanction - that would be to prevent, for example in this case, anyone deliberately vandalising Airbnb to reflect badly on the company in retaliation for their actions on the West Bank.
In short, I think we're fine as we are, and nothing needs to be done. Disagreements about siting of templates can be taken to AE. SilkTork (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Zero0000. My understanding is that a DS notice goes on the talkpage to let people know that the article comes under DS, and if someone edits that article, and it appears they are not aware that DS applies to the article, they need to be informed on their talkpage before sanctions can be applied against them. I understand that an editnotice can also be added, but does that mean a talkpage notice cannot be placed, and a user cannot be informed? Has there been a rule change which says that we are no longer using talkpage notices, and no longer informing users? I wouldn't have thought an talkpage notice editnotice is sufficient notice alone before sanctioning someone because, lets be honest, most people don't read talkpage notices editnotices. But they do read notices left on their talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Huldra, I see what you are saying. Though the rule regarding editnotices has been in place since January 2018: [30]. I think the intention was to ensure that users get warned by having editnotices placed on appropriate articles. But it has created a limbo loop hasn't it? The rule to place editnotices should be separate from the general rule on warning. That is, an editor who meets the general criteria for being warned, should not be able to escape sanction by wiki-lawyering that there was no editnotice in place. It looks like Rob intended or hoped that a bot would be created that allowed editnotices to be created if there was an appropriate talkpage notice in place. I think AGK is right - it would be helpful to conduct a review of the remedies. SilkTork (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Huldra - Hah, yes, I was a member of Mensa in the Seventies, yet my mind glazes over when faced with some ARBPIA stuff. But, truth be told, IQ tests only test how good someone is at solving IQ tests, they don't measure the ability to handle arcane Wikipedia bureaucracy created by an ever changing committee. SilkTork (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Arbitration remedies applying to the Arab–Israeli conflict seem to have grown confusing and patchworked. Is it time to conduct a review of all remedies? I'd like to hear from editors and enforcing administrators who are active in this topic area. Among other questions for a review, we should look at whether 1RR is effective – both in general and under the current rules of notification. AGK ■ 10:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Retired arbitrator
  • Airbnb is rather obviously not "reasonably construed" to be within the topic area of an international conflict, though it is "broadly construed" to be. That would mean discretionary sanctions are in force, but 1RR and the general prohibition do not apply. As for calls to review the entire topic area's sanction regime, I consider that unhelpful. There are some editors, admins even, who seem like they just simply won't understand anything we throw their way in this topic area. Further tweaking is highly unlikely to change that, because we've tweaked these sanctions about a dozen times already to try to solve such issues, and the repeated changes have never helped. If anything, they've made things more confused because we aren't just settling on one set of sanctions and sticking with it.

    What we have now is discretionary sanctions on articles "broadly construed" - meaning any article that's even tangentially related to the topic area. Additionally, we have 500/30 and 1RR on articles "reasonably construed" - meaning any article where one could not talk about the article subject at the top level without delving into the topic area. That really isn't that complicated or confused.

    The one positive clarification we could make here is to set forth a formal definition of "reasonably construed". I would suggest what I wrote above. ~ Rob13Talk 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

    • My thinking on this has changed rather sharply after the recent Huldra/Sir Joseph kerfuffle, especially the admin response at AE. It has become clear that the current sanction regime, in total, is not working. I think we need another ABRPIA case to review the entire situation. As a potential road map, I'd like to consider a removal of blanket 500/30 in favor of implementing 500/30 where disruption occurs as a discretionary sanction, with a remedy explicitly noting that the Committee would like it to be used liberally but not unreasonably. Blanket 500/30 is a relic of a bygone era when 500/30 could not be applied by technical means in case-by-case scenarios. Existing protections could be automatically converted to discretionary sanctions appealable at AE like any other sanction, so no "mass-unprotecting" during a switch. I also think we need to rethink the awareness requirements of 1RR and its applicability. In particular, we could change the DS notice to include mention of 1RR and then allow a consensus of administrators at AE to enforce 1RR in cases where a reasonable editor who had received the notice would be aware the article was covered in addition to being able to enforce it where edit notices exist. In other words, edit notices would only be truly needed to enforce the requirement on articles that are difficult to tell are reasonably construed to be within the topic area, but not on those articles that are obviously related. Plus I think a look at the long-term contributors in this area would be useful to determine where there are issues that have not been solvable by the community. ~ Rob13Talk 19:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Zero0000: Read carefully what I have written. I have not proposed removing 500/30. I have proposed removing blanket 500/30 of "reasonably construed" pages in favor of discretionary but liberal use of 500/30 to combat abuse across all "broadly construed" pages. I have proposed zero removals of existing protections, stating all existing protections should remain if we were to make such a switch. In fact, such a proposal may increase some protections by eliminating from our vernacular this "reasonably construed" language that is proving hard for admins to parse. The current rule is clearly causing some issues, given the protection of Airbnb, which I believe is rather plainly not intended by our sanctions, and I no longer think the benefits outweigh the harms of removing administrator discretion from the equation in this remedy. ~ Rob13Talk 08:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: We are trying to reach a consensus, so placing comments by a retired arbitrator into {{Hidden}}. AGK ■ 11:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • PIA ARCAs make me want to hide under the blankets, and it seems I'm not the only one. Frankly I'd love to see this topic area get a rules overhaul, but I don't have the time to do it. A number of these repetitive requests on PIA issues have centered on this point about "what if it's just a small section in a larger and mostly-unrelated article" and I've generally held the view that such things should not be included in all the warning/templating/etc infrastructure. I don't see any reason this should be an exception to that general view. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's more to be said here - but I've been lax at ARCA, so I thought I'd pitch in. In my opinion - the discretionary sanctions can be applied where the disruption occurs - hence the broadly construed nature of that. I would hope that the sanction would be as light as possible in areas that are more tangential to the case, be it through time limitation of the sanction or through a tailored sanction which hits as small an area as possible.
    I like the idea of re-doing ARBPIA, similar to OR, I'd want to hide under the blanket! WormTT(talk) 08:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Arab–Israel conflict

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

The committee opens proceedings on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, naming it Palestine-Israel articles 4. Proceedings will take place in the normal form. Evidence (and related submissions, including at the Workshop) must remain within the proceedings scope. The following matters will initially be within scope:
  • Trends in disruptive editing of related pages, but not the specific conduct of any editor.
  • Difficulties in Wikipedia administrative processes, particularly arbitration enforcement (AE), with regard to related pages.
  • Currently-authorised remedies under any arbitration decision that affect related pages.
  • Prospective amendments to, or replacements for, existing remedies.
  • Other general matters relating to the ease with which Wikipedia keeps order on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict.
Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Support
  1. Proposed. We don't have a lot of bandwidth right now, but we seem to agree that it is time to formally review these decisions and look into why participating editors and uninvolved administrators alike seem to be discontented. This motion proposes a low-fuss path towards conducting such a review, and hopefully matches with what colleagues were thinking. AGK ■ 11:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. I don't want to, because these discussions are sprawling and polarising. I don't know how we are going to fit it in, with our other workload. However, I do agree that this is probably the right time to do this, it needs tidying up. What's more, if the committee itself can let this stall so long, it appears that we don't have a clear way forward and that's what we're here to try to sort out. I do like the proposed scope, making this a bit more meta and might make things a bit more manageable, good job AGK. WormTT(talk) 12:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. I have been meaning to do a motion on this for a little while now, but never got round to it, so thanks to AGK for taking the initiative, and for giving thoughtful shape to the proposed proceedings. SilkTork (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. I support this in principle, and agree with the above, thanks AGK for tackling this. But I don't know that we have the bandwidth for this right now. One possibility would be to schedule the opening for a specific time in the future after we've moved through some of the current business. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. It's daunting to think about redoing ARBPIA, but it looks like there is fairly widespread agreement among editors in that topic area and administrators trying to enforce remedies in that topic area that the restrictions there are in bad shape. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  6. With the caveat that we get the big thing on our plate out of the way first. Katietalk 16:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  7. Per everybody else - inescapably necessary, but let's deal with our other priorities first. ♠PMC(talk) 13:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  8. Sadly necessary. Courcelles (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain/recuse
Comments

Clarification request: GamerGate

Initiated by at 14:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
GamerGate arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Fæ

The GamerGate case superseded, and by my understanding of procedure, took on the covers the original motions and amendments of Sexology. In particular "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages dealing with transgender issues ...". This request is a clarification to Arbcom to confirm the interpretation of "transgender issues", along with the practical expectations of how implementation can be possible in cases where the requestor is concerned about the likely hostile experience of taking any gender, and especially transgender, related case to a public English Wikipedia forum like ANI in order to request enforcement, based on past cases.

I am requesting that to avoid doubt, Arbcom confirm by motion that use of discussion pages on Wikipedia to state or imply that trans people are part of a transgender conspiracy, agenda, ideology or similar defamatory "gay agenda" type conspiracy theory, shall be considered a breach of the discretionary sanction. This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics.

This request is that to avoid doubt, Arbcom confirm by motion that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics. Anti-trans language includes the use of TIM (trans identified male) to refer to trans women, TIF (trans identified female) to refer to trans men and other deliberate use of misgendering terminology that may be established through case precedent, such as deliberately referring to a known trans woman as a man or a 'biological male' during Wikipedia discussion when trans woman is correct and accurate.

This request is that Arbcom lay out how individuals may best raise an enforcement request, without being first required to exhaust dispute resolution processes just because they are observing the incident. Given the topic, and the likely practical experience that LGBT+ contributors have when "fronting" initial complaints and later requests, it is unrealistic to expect requesters to be so expert in process and dispute resolution methods that their complaint about, say, the inappropriate use of transphobic language, that they will ever want to go through the hostile opposition research and open trolling and pillorying that is the recognized norm for gender and LGBT+ related disputes. It is also unlikely that any LGBT+ identified editor wants to seek out confronting someone who is deliberately misusing Wikipedia to be offensive about trans people; our experience is that doing so is likely to lead to being accused of causing a two-party dispute and be the subject of immediate hostile counter-allegations. A failure of cases to make it to a discretionary sanction stage, is not evidence of Wikipedia's policy implementation working.

My expectation is that given Arbcom's confirmation, it will become far easier to gain a consensus for the creation and improvement of guidelines that relate to civil discussion on Wikipedia for LGBT+ topics and issues, especially if external best practices such as GLAAD are used to inform and educate contributors to LGBT+ related topics.

Though I am raising this request based on my related experiences in the past two years editing trans-related biographies and topics, I have named no other parties. This is a technical request, not one relating to an active dispute. I am confident Arbcom members are aware of relevant examples without having to call people out in this clarification.

@Mendaliv: My request is based on reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=812091637#Sexology:_Motion_2 and the prior motion on the same page. I doubt that the original GG parties are directly relevant to this specific amendment, even if they might wish to make a helpful comment. I may be missing the point but naming them here seems overly wikilawyerish, probably.

With regard to the later points, sure, you are making Arbcom related procedural points that can be clarified. However the DS exist, and are supposed to apply to "transgender issues" today (see Template:MOS-TW for example). The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't. If Arbcom wants to clarify that they are uninterested in ensuring the current DS help to reduce disruption or harassment of transgender editors, and thinks someone else should do it, fine, but I really do not believe that's what the committee intended or indends the Wikipedia community to read in to a lack of implementation by administrators and a lack of requests for implementation. -- (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Struck part of the opening statement, thanks to the clarification by clerk that GG is considered to include but not technically have superseded the Sexology "transgender issues". This case request for GG is correct in this sense. -- (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Sexology was specifically amended to apply to "all pages", not just articles, for the reasons you put forward. The focus here based on experience is more about article related POV comments that you infer, for example stating that a trans ideology exists during discussions, appears and can deliberately demean Wikipedia contributors, if not strictly stated in the context of directly quoting a source for an article about this topic rather than an editor making this statement in their "own voice". Even then, abusive quotes can be used abusively, so editors on these topics benefit from very clear Arbcom level directives about how DS can and should be interpreted (c.f. Arbcom Fram case, where use of the n-word should never happen casually in discussion space).

WRT "I have several RSes here that identify ...", is fine. There's no attempt here to stop discussion of sources, as my words "not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion" are intended to make clear. If you can think of a different way of framing an Arbcom motion that better addresses your potential censorship concern, while making it easier to ensure that DS are applied for clearly inappropriate or uncivil transphobic language, please post it. Again, compare with the n-word being used as a rhetorical trick, sanctioning against casual racist abuse can be done without hampering the valid discussion of historical racism. -- (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: If anyone wishes to create a trans ideology article, based on the anti-trans myths found in various anti-LGBT+ publications, that great, it benefits the encyclopaedia.

What is a problem is a statement that a BLP subject notable for their anti-trans hate speech is not "trans-exclusionary" if all they are doing is fighting the "trans ideology", because that rationale is the same thing as using Wikipedia talk pages to promote and validate the existence of a "trans ideology". That ANI is not a workable venue for raising a Discretionary Sanction request about this (for most people) complex issue of transphobic language, is raised in this request. The alternative, as I have been advised several times off-wiki in the past, is to report all such cases to WMF T&S, which is part of why I would like Arbcom members to suggest better on-wiki processes. Note that you were not named as a party to this case, as we have no ongoing dispute and this request was procedural in nature. -- (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: If your intention is to restrict GG Discretionary Sanctions to article space and talk directly about articles, then this withdraws the motions agreed by Arbcom in Sexology which were amended to apply to all pages. For this to be true and enforced in this way (as currently it is not the community's interpretation of the existing DS as they apply to transgender related or any BLP page discussions), then Arbcom should consider a motion to make this explicit. Specifically this appears to mean that the Arbcom clerk's advice that the withdrawn Sexology motions are covered by GG is not the case. Obvious consequences of your statement, should Arbcom agree this as fact, is that enforcement requests based on Arbcom DS provide no protection from casual use of transphobic language, such as calling an openly trans woman Wikipedian a trans identified male, rather than a woman, or casually or repeatedly using Wikipedia discussions to promote the view that a gay agenda or a trans agenda exists, because anti-LGBT+ publications say so. For many Wikipedians, this is not a question of accepting free speech, but accepting casual transphobic language as the potential norm in Wikipedia discussions in a way that would never be acceptable with casual racist language or casual misogynist language.

(Responding 'to the room') As for the advice that people observing or being targets of this language should go to ANI, sorry, that's a joke. Nobody on the target end of this wants to be pilloried at ANI for having a thin skin, being a "gender warrior" (as one current Arbcom member neatly puts it), told they lack a sense of humour or repeatedly threatened with a topic ban for being "disruptive". Case histories already available, new ones not needed, as you are aware. -- (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Your assertion that I am failing to go to dispute resolution seems to ignore the fact that I am not in any current dispute needing dispute resolution. There are plenty of past cases I can point to of previous LGBT+ related cases where I have taken up dispute resolution, making your statement false whichever way it is read. Please focus on the case request, not hypothetical tangents. Your "7 million edits across all foundation projects" comment is unhelpful and appears to be an attempt to dismiss this request on the basis of my number of edits, which I fail to understand. -- (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: This is a Clarification request, not a case request. This has never been a requirement for Arbcom to only accept clarifications if there is an active dispute. I know, having posted past clarification requests where there was no active dispute. -- (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem: Your advice would be the equivalent of telling newbie LGBT+ contributors to "grow a thicker skin". It does not work, unchallenged bullies become bolder. Unless we choose to improve the hostile environment that exists today, Wikipedia will continue indefinitely as a publisher of lockerroom type transphobic and homophobic language which is protected as "humour" or "free speech". -- (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Greenrd: Being a trans person is not equivalent to being a Republican. A Republican being lobbied to change parties, is not equivalent to a trans person having to debate whether they have a right to exist, or being accused of being part of a "transgender ideology", just because they are alive. -- (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Greenrd: Your views come very close to a rationale to automatically topic ban all openly trans Wikipedians from gender related topics, that way we instantly solve the problem of all those automatically biased "trans people" causing problems. Alternatively nobody ever, ever gets presumed to have bias because of who they are, does that sound like a good interpretation of WP:5P4, and an interpretation that I should not have to ask that you apply to me? -- (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Your question was answered already, it is perfectly legitimate to expect those making statements in a clarification request have read the requestors section before repeatedly asking the same duplicated questions. Cut & paste from 4 paragraphs above: Your assertion that I am failing to go to dispute resolution seems to ignore the fact that I am not in any current dispute needing dispute resolution. If your question was hypothetical for future events, sure I may try it, if I want to be the target of hostile opposition research, yet again, but so far the opinions from the one Arbcom member are not encouraging that DS would be enacted rather than AE devolve into debate. As we have shifted to hypotheticals: given the choice for a trans woman observer, would you expect her to enter into an adversarial debate by reporting transphobic language on AE or ANI and risk becoming a target, or would she be better off writing secretly to WMF T&S? -- (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: With regard to your opinions, how would that stop an editor dismissing and deriding another as a "gender terrorist warrior". Asking because of course you set a precedent that this is acceptable for Arbcom members to use, when the editor has not identified as any such thing. Thanks -- (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Corrected, sorry for the accidental misquoted example. -- (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved as irrelevant

@Worm That Turned: As past Arbcom member @Risker: contacted me by email this morning in an official capacity about an unrelated issue, and has chosen to spend time researching me today, I shall continue to defer any reply until Risker confirms to me that they have stopped what they are doing, or gives an explanation of how these events are connected when they certainly should not be. -- (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: I have perfectly good reason to be cautious as has been explained. Asking for clarification from either you or Risker about your off-wiki correspondence or coincidental actions, (i.e. on a related page with no edits in 2 years, then edited within hours of off-wiki correspondence is hard to presume in good faith is entirely improbable coincidence), so that I might contribute freely to an open request is not an attack against you or Arbcom. -- (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: You are correct, the quote should have been "diversity terrorist" which is more extreme language than I recalled.diff The reasoning that "gender warrior" might be a good thing, is virtually impossible to apply to calling someone any sort of terrorist, nor is "martyr" helpful. As a thought experiment, consider the repercussions if you were to argumentatively make the same allegations like this about an Arbcom member during a case. -- (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: Please check your email to me in 2016, and the correspondence that you may have lost and have not mentioned here. Recall that you wrote to me, not the other way around. Your final email in 2016 was conciliatory, and gave me the very reasonable expectation that I would not be forced to enter into off-wiki correspondence with you again. I can provide a copy if you have deleted it. -- (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Please revisit your statement it makes demonstrably false claims about my motivation. This clarification is unrelated to the BC tribunal case, this was never in my mind as the BC tribunal case is completely unrelated to the issues of the use of transphobic language on Wikipedia by Wikipedians. Further this clarification request was created by me on 2 August 2019, while the article you link to was created by an indefinitely blocked user using a sockpuppet account on 3 August 2019, a day later. Further you are linking to sources which contain blatantly transphobic abuse and your remarks about these sources have been exhaustively addressed in detail as failing to meet the reliable source requirements of WP:BLP, with one of the sources you are defending containing hearsay which is under discussion at BLPN, a request that was posted over an hour before you chose to post to this Arbcom case. The Fiona Robertson twitter quote tangentially mentioned in an article not about the BC tribunal case is unrelated to the problematic hearsay allegations, Roberton was commenting on the BC tribunal case itself, nothing else, this is not evidence to support the inclusion of any other material other than Robertson's opinion about the BC tribunal case (which is remarkably tangential even for that). Your unnecessarily repeating the full legal name of a non-notable trans woman in the BC tribunal case, is "unhelpful" for Wikipedia and continuing repost these links to damaging hearsay in multiple forums is a matter of serious concern against WP:BLP which applies to this page as much as anywhere else. In no way does this censor factual and encyclopaedic material to understand the BC tribunal case, such as including the plaintiff's use of racist language reported in the press and raised as part of the case. In no way is this a threat, these are facts of policy. -- (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Greenrd: It has been stated clearly, repeatedly, unambiguously and accurately that "This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics." Your statement is false and states that it does the precise opposite of these words. Please revisit your statement.

You have made a personal allegation against me that there is a "trans ideology" that you espouse. I do no such thing and a "trans ideology" does not exist, neither does a "gay agenda". Please strike this unsourced and dangerously misleading personal attack. Wikipedia discussions are not a platform to promote harmful personal views about minority groups, or to promote myths about minority groups outside of the context of an academic discussion to improve Wikipedia articles that includes these topics.

It is not a transgender "ideology", for any Wikipedian to pursue the enforcement of Wikipedia policies, nor is it an "ideology" for any Wikipedian to make statements of verifiable fact and logic. In Wikipedia's voice, trans women are women. A transgender ideology is not a verifiable fact, it is a populist myth promoted by anti-trans lobbyists. A Wikipedian using Wikipedia to promote or air their personal anti-trans views, rather than presenting verifiable evidence for article improvement, is misusing Wikipedia, breaking consensus agreed policies and breaching the website terms of use. It is not a personal attack, an ideology or a blockable offence to state these facts about Wikipedia.

It is a verifiable fact, that the current Wikipedia editing environment is hostile to any Wikipedian seeking to enforce policies in the area of respectful treatment of transgender Wikipedians and transgender people generally. As an illustration, see this "joke" made today diff, this is normal for Wikipedia and any objections to it will be a cause for derision and an excuse to pile on abuse. On this topic, Wikipedians can and do suffer personal abuse, attacks, misgendering, misrepresentation, extensive opposition research and are consistently the target of off-wiki canvassing and harassment intended to shut them up and force them to go away. This is happening right now for this Arbcom Clarification request. Should Arbcom wish to consider an alternative clarification and want to discuss evidence, they should consider how that can be done without those supplying evidence becoming targets of coordinated off-wiki abusive campaigns clearly intended to silence minority voices. It is a fallacy to believe that requests like this are open to all members of the community. -- (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Greenrd: I am unclear why you want to double down. There is no argument here, there is no requirement for anyone to argue with you on Wikipedia to change your personal beliefs that a "trans ideology" exists, when it is simply an offensive anti-trans myth. You are consistently using Wikipedia to promote and air personal anti-trans views, rather than presenting verifiable evidence for article improvement. You are misusing Wikipedia, breaking consensus agreed policies and breaching the website terms of use. I am uninterested in what transphobic rubbish you want publish off-wiki, so long as you are not targeting and harassing Wikipedians, but none of what you have espoused in your Arbcom statement can possibly improve Wikipedia, it can only distress and drive away our tiny percentage of Wikipedia contributors who are openly identified transgender people. With anti-trans jokes, views and hounding being "normal for Wikipedia", and none of that highly visible anti-trans abuse in forums like ANI ever being the cause of sanctions or warnings because "free speech", then we may as well honestly explain to new editors that if they are transgender, the only safe way to contribute to this project is to go back in the closet, because they are not welcome here and the Usual Suspects (many of them being here for more than a decade) will happily be allowed to drive them off this project. -- (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv (GamerGate)

First a technical point: Given this is a request to clarify or amend the GamerGate case, I think it is necessary that the parties to that case be notified.

Second: I don't believe this is a mere technical clarification, but may be a significant expansion of scope. The GamerGate case itself, after all, was explicitly scoped to the article Gamergate controversy and related articles including biographies (see WP:ARBGG FoF #1). I don't think Fae's point that the GG arbitration case superseded or "took over" the Sexology case is correct. I certainly don't find any indication of this in the casepage of either WP:ARBGG or WP:ARBSEX, but I admit I could be wrong and thus think some further explanation of this would be appropriate. I'll also note that the DS regime from the sexology case was rescinded in 2017. The clarifying note in ARBSEX that "Discretionary sanctions authorized in the GamerGate arbitration case, which may apply to this topic area, remain available." does not strike me as extending the GG DS regime to everything that the sexology case covered, but merely pointing out that articles previously covered by the sexology case which also fall under the GG arbitration case could still have discretionary sanctions applied under the GG case.

I think the proper vehicle for this idea is not an ARCA-based motion, but a general sanctions regime as ratified by the community, or (failing that) a new arbitration case on LGBT+ issues. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@: Thanks, that actually clears it up a lot for me. I think there are two parts to this: First, what the motion actually says (the DS regime is rescinded), and second, that there are some additional comments by the arbs indicating that the GG DS regime may be useful for the topic area. That certainly wasn't an extension or expansion of the GG case to cover all LGBT+ issues. If it was, why wasn't it reflected in the motion? And why wasn't it raised as an ARCA of the GG case rather than of the Sexology case? Similarly, even if it was intended to transfer "ownership" of the problem to the GG case, I think it raises almost exactly the same problem that led to the ARCA that spawned that motion: Just as it being inappropriate to handle LGBT+ issues in the same regime as we handle ones related to paraphilias, it strikes me as inappropriate to handle LGBT+ issues in the same regime as we handle ones related to Gamergate. While I have no doubt that some rulemaking, particularly related to misgendering and civility in discussions, would be a great idea, I don't think this is an appropriate use of the Committee's discretionary sanctions power. The Community should be given an opportunity to work together and scope this properly, rather than leaving it to "legislation by ArbCom". —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@: The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't. I think that would be evidence to present either here or in a new case filing, and why I think it would be better to open a new case if general sanctions don't happen. This is a different set of issues than covered by the GamerGate case (as the findings of fact in that case make abundantly clear) and it is frankly an improper use of the arbitration mechanism to do things this way. If Arbcom wants to clarify that they are uninterested in ensuring the current DS help to reduce disruption or harassment of transgender editors, and thinks someone else should do it, fine, but I really do not believe that's what the committee intended or indends the Wikipedia community to read in to a lack of implementation by administrators and a lack of requests for implementation. I think this is a very unfair statement both to the Committee and to the administrators who are involved in enforcing discretionary sanctions regimes. The fact that the Committee shouldn't be legislating has nothing to do with the individual arbitrators' belief that LGBT+ issues are important. This is clearly a matter for a new case, and not for expansion of DS regimes—which are supposed to be the exception, not the rule—to cover more and more areas of Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The expansion and consolidation of DS regimes revealed by MJL is shocking. This is not an appropriate use of the Arbitration Committee. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to end discrete disputes; it is retrospective in nature, and to an extent discretionary sanctions merely existed to provide a uniform means of ongoing control over areas of dispute while those disputes were ongoing. What is being contemplated here, and where discretionary sanctions are being used, is very prospective. What’s even stranger, is that these regimes are being consolidated into a case that made no evidentiary findings of fact related to sitewide discussion of gender. If you want to roll these things under the Gamergate arbitration case, the amendment must include new findings of fact. Otherwise this is policymaking, pure and simple. I have no doubt that the community will agree that issues of gender need to be handled in an appropriate way throughout the site. That is the community’s role in the absence of a discrete controversy with a finite scope. This is not the role of the Committee and is expressly prohibited by the arbitration policy. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What's important here is that the Committee's role is in dispute resolution: There must be a dispute, and it must be properly before the Committee. This is the case because the Committee adjudicates disputes, and adjudication is by definition a retrospective and remedial action. Rulemaking or legislation, on the other hand, is prospective and deals with factual issues either not yet developed or not particularized to the individual level. This is a problem commonly found in administrative areas, the distinction between adjudication and rulemaking, so it is not surprising that the Committee has run into this same problem. But let there be no mistake: When the Committee seeks to regulate all pages, all persons, or all future events, it is engaged in rulemaking. What Fæ proposes is rulemaking, and it is improper within the arbitration policy, which I suggest you all read along with my comments: First, the scope of arbitration is clear that it is "To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". While other tasks and purposes are mentioned, these are all adjudicative in nature. This is coupled with the clear statement in the section on policy and precedent, which states, "The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced." These are not vehicles for creating new substantive rules, which is clearly the aim of this request. Regardless of intent—and I'm sure both Fæ and the members of the Committee have only the best intentions aimed at resolving what is clearly an important area—this Committee is not a rulemaking body. The community is the relevant rulemaker.
I additionally object to the change of scope of the GamerGate case, which does not include generalized issues relating to LGBT+ rights either in article or talk space as Fæ wishes to expand it. Not one single finding of fact in that case dealt with gender generally. Therefore, I submit that the issue of gender is not and was never properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case, and it would be manifestly improper as a matter of procedure and of practice to implement new discretionary sanctions to cover them. The fact that they are important issues and that there is active disruption is not relevant to this Committee's jurisdiction. The relative simplicity of the construction requested change—that things like misgendering be prohibited everywhere—is an even greater reason to deny this through ARCA: Why should the community be unable to handle it if it's properly requested to handle it? This is why these matters must be properly before the Committee before a decision is rendered: There must be evidence of failed resolution through other channels and that arbitration will end the dispute. I therefore move that this ARCA request be denied, and Fæ be encouraged either (1) to start a RfC requesting general sanctions in the area of LGBT+ rights, or (2) to file a request for arbitration requesting the Committee to decide on these issues. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Johnuniq: Having read what you just linked, I agree that this is the most likely event to precipitate this request. On the basis that this has no relationship to Gamergate whatsoever, I renew my request that the Committee summarily deny the clarification petition and direct Fae to pursue other dispute resolution, and failing that, file a request for arbitration. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding Fae’s indication of an unwillingness to seek lesser dispute resolution, I think this provides sufficient evidence of a failure to seek lesser dispute resolution. As others have indicated, the scope of the GamerGate case is not infinite, and so the scope of the discretionary sanctions, even as broadly construed as they typically are, is not infinite. If the problem Fae has personally encountered is indeed personally troubling, then Fae surely must have sought lesser dispute resolution somewhere, anywhere—even if not ANI then someplace else. The failure or refusal to do so terminates this Committee’s jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction, the Committee must deny this request. You cannot IAR your way around the arbitration policy—for if you can, it would be an utter slap in the face to everyone who has had a case request denied under it. All this says is that if you accumulate over 7 million edits across all foundation projects, you get special handling. Please don’t send that message. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In light of Fae’s statement that there is no current dispute requiring dispute resolution, and that this request is merely to deal with what is presented as a general problem, I renew my request that the Committee deny Fae’s petition here as inconsistent with the Arbitration Policy, which has always required a live dispute. If there is no live dispute, and Fae is requesting general changes to policy (or discretionary sanctions, however you wish to describe it) then all the more reason this petition should be denied and Fae directed to start an RfC, or a more preliminary discussion at one of the village pump pages. Furthermore, in light of Fae’s assertion that there is no active dispute requiring intervention, I withdraw my suggestion that the Committee direct Fae to file a request for arbitration: Fae’s own assertion that there is no live dispute would mandate the Committee’s denial of such a case request. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @AGK: An excellent analysis, and in my view the one that must carry. Fae is asking for something imminently unreasonable from the Committee; it is the equivalent of insisting that a round peg (LGBT+ issues) be forced through a square hole (Gamergate controversy issues). Even within the Committee's (over)use of the phrase "broadly construed", this is a step (or two or three) too far. The vast majority of the universe of issues subsumed under "LGBT+ issues" were not properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case (nor in Sexology, nor in Manning, nor in GGTF). The intentions here and in previous ARCAs are certainly noble, but those noble intentions must be enacted through the proper channels. And in light of Fae's confirmation that there is no live dispute here, that must be through community rulemaking processes.
    Moreover, Fae has raised a great deal of issues that should be substantiated by fact evidence in order to properly counsel the form of Committee action. I believe AGK tees up this very issue. Indeed, if the Committee is not required to collect fact evidence and make findings of fact before taking actions, how is it different than a policymaker by fiat? Certainly, there are cases where "interpretation" (i.e., providing binding or nonbinding guidance in the event of disagreements in application of past decisions in active disputes) and "amendment" (i.e., providing binding changes to previous cases in light of changed circumstances or errors) might be appropriate, but where the request seeks a complete change of the scope of those past cases, such requests must be denied as an improper use of Committee processes.
    I urge the Committee to respect the community's autonomy and first give it the opportunity to answer Fae's call for equity before concluding that it is utterly impotent to handle these serious issues. This community is not so bigoted as to be utterly unable to thoughtfully and reasonably handle such a request for general action. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur with Vanamonde's point: Fae has failed to provide evidence that the administrators at AE are failing to enforce the interpretation of the GG DS regime being asserted here. Fae's further claim that seeking lesser dispute resolution is either futile or impossible, is both unsupported by evidence and, frankly, self-defeating: If seeking lesser dispute resolution is futile or impossible in the way Fae claims, then no interpretation this Committee could provide would change that. Trans individuals would still be unable to seek lesser dispute resolution. Therefore, Fae's request should be dismissed as self-mooting. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In light of how off-topic this request has devolved, I renew my suggestion that this discussion be closed as rejected. I am not sure what Fae is trying to do here, but I doubt it will end well if this discussion continues as it is going. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad: My main problem with this is that the Footnoted Quotes/Editing of BLPs case actually made findings of fact relevant to the general area of BLPs, and it was clear from the outset to all involved that the case was intended to deal with all BLPs. GamerGate, despite the tucking of "gender" into a particular remedy, made a contrary finding of fact: Namely, the locus of the dispute was confined to the Gamergate controversy and related biographies. The outrageously broad construction anticipated by this request would not be made acceptable by changing the name of the case. Issues with the breadth that Fae imagines are not and were never properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case, and are not properly incorporated into the GamerGate decision. This is an issue that requires one of two things: (1) a new case request, or (2) a reopening of the evidentiary record that results in new findings of fact to support this new interpretation of the remedy. I believe that if the Committee even takes on this problem, #1 is the best way to do it, and #2 still has some air of legitimacy. Doing it any other way, such as by pure motion or interpretive statement here, would be entirely illegitimate policymaking by the Committee and a violation of the Arbitration Policy's prohibition thereupon. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @GorillaWarfare: As I stated to NYB above, the problem with this idea is that the entire GG case was scoped to the Gamergate controversy, and there were no findings of fact related to gender issues in general. Using something so simple as a case rename to dramatically and unreasonably expand the scope of a single case, years after it was decided, with absolutely no discussion or findings on the record that the expansion in scope is necessary or prudent, is nothing but policymaking by fiat. It is illegitimate and it undermines the credibility of everything this Committee does. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad: I have two points on that: First, I need to reiterate that there are no findings of fact or principles in the final decision or even in the proposed decision upon which the DS regime could possibly extend to all corners of the encyclopedia as regards gender. Reading the DS regime that way would render it illegitimate policymaking by fiat. This Committee cannot simply pronounce discretionary sanctions regimes without justification, and that justification must be part of the case. To do otherwise is, again, pure policymaking. Second: The existing findings of fact expressly and explicitly confine the scope of the controversy to the Gamergate controversy and related biographies. Reading the DS regime as escaping that scope would render it illegitimate policymaking in a content area that was not properly before the Committee. Simply calling it "uncontroversial" is not reasonable; there was no time for controversy to build as, from the look of things, this very aspect of the final decision was introduced in the 11th hour of the case and was never subject to serious discussion or debate among the parties or participants. Looking at gender on a sitewide basis was, as far as I can tell, never part of the evidentiary or workshop scope, and consequently was never briefed in any way for the Committee. This Committee cannot, consistent with the arbitration policy, simply tack on the equivalent of a legislative rider to a tangentially related case and then co-opt governance of such a wide area of Wikipedia. It is policymaking, pure and simple, to do that sort of thing with no mandate from the Community, no relevant case request, no evidence, no workshopping, and no discussion on point of that specific issue, where the final decision expressly and explicitly excludes a sitewide and topic-agnostic scope. The GamerGate discretionary sanctions regime insofar as it deals with gender, must be limited to the Gamergate controversy. A contrary reading is contrary to the arbitration policy and unsupported by the history of the case and a rational understanding of the purposes of arbitration as an adjudicative rather than rulemaking process. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @GorillaWarfare: Well, no, that would not be a legitimate scope for the GamerGate discretionary sanctions regime. As I've said repeatedly, the scope of the dispute within the very first FoF of that case was explicitly the Gamergate controversy. The Committee does not have the authority to enact discretionary sanctions regimes of limitless scope or on matters tangentially related to the dispute, that were never subject to findings of fact, never workshopped, and never really discussed with stakeholders. This is why the arbitration process exists and what separates arbitration from policymaking by fiat.
    As to the dismissive suggestion that a separate ARCA be opened, I see no need to do so. I don't seek an amendment of the GamerGate case in the first place. The fact is that the interpretation being put forth by Fae, NYB, and yourself are contrary to the arbitration policy and therefore illegitimate. This Committee cannot simply ignore the arbitration policy when it's inconvenient. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    @GorillaWarfare: The remedy cannot have a scope that extends beyond the case in which it was enacted. That is fundamental to the concept of arbitration. Read the arbitration policy. The "scope and responsibilities" section is crystal clear on when the Committee is authorized to act, and that is not and has never been in any area at any time. There must be a dispute that the Community has been unable to resolve, and that (arguably) was the Gamergate controversy. The Committee limited the scope of the arbitration in the very first finding of fact in that case. The GamerGate remedies regime as written can be read as authorizing discretionary sanctions in all areas dealing with gender, but that would be outside the scope of the first finding of fact, and moreover outside the scope of the dispute for which arbitration was authorized. The sanction you are reading is either an invalid abuse of power or must be limited to the Gamergate controversy. The reading you are choosing is the invalid abuse of power. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the arbitrators commenting here have made multiple conflicting interpretations of policy, I am requesting a formal ruling on the following questions:

  1. Does the GamerGate discretionary sanctions regime apply to pages not within the scope of any evidence or findings of fact in the GamerGate case?
  2. Can the Arbitration Committee, consistent with the arbitration policy, enact discretionary sanctions regimes affecting pages that are tangentially related or unrelated to the case or dispute for which the regime is enacted?

Thank you. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @MJL: You list three FoFs dealing with three individuals. Those are not sufficient to support a DS regime of such broad reach. There must be a rational, logical, explained, and documented connection between findings of disruption and the need for sitewide, indiscriminate sanctions against nonparties. You also point to the Manning dispute case as establishing the paradoxical claim that individual editors' pronoun choices are sacrosanct and must be respected lest the banhammer should fall. Not only is this a dramatic overextension of the Manning case, it would constitute an improper use of the arbitration committee as a policymaking organ, for reasons that I have stated repeatedly above. The arbitration policy expressly prohibits such policymaking. Unfortunately, this is what happens when the Committee doesn't show its work when it changes things, and instead just makes a motion: Things just get made up or done because they seem needful without regard to their propriety. There needs to be an explanation on the record of why the Committee finds the particular action comports with not only the arbitration policy but whichever policy the Committee is purporting to interpret (which is, by the way, the limit of the Committee's jurisdiction).
    In connection with the promised talk I'm going to have with WTT following the Ritchie debacle, which I anticipate will of necessity also talk about the matters I have brought up here, I am hopeful that some significant changes will be coming to how the Committee does business. This is just one of many cases where acting professionally requires some more form than we're accustomed to using.
    As an aside, I would oppose opening a case for "gender-related disputes" with MJL as a fictional party. There must be a live dispute for the scope of the Committee's jurisdiction to attach. You might as well name completely fictional parties like "Fairfax's Devisee" or "Hunter's Lessee" at that point. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aquillion: The problem with the Committee creating a new generic framework of sanctions that aren't under the umbrella of a particular case is that doing so would be policymaking. The Committee is not authorized to make policy, it is authorized to adjudicate disputes. Without findings of fact, without parties making arguments, without the full framework of a case, Committee action here would blatantly be policymaking in violation of the arbitration policy. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Masem (Gamergate)

Fæ's concern is 100% valid. I was originally going to say though that trans-gendered issues didn't really apply to GG, but reading the discretionary sanctions about it: (i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed., the concerns of ridiculing transgendered individuals seem to fall within b and c of this. So if an editor is going about clearly mocking a known transgender individual (including on-wiki editors), that should be stopped immediately.

I question though if this really is appropriate for GG, because it is dealing with behavior that was not explored during GG. GG was more about disruptions on mainspace pages in the GG area, and extending to some gender-related disputes (individuals at the center of it). There were some behavior problems that were explored, but it was not for insulting other editors in the manner Fæ brings up (irrespective of the trans angle).

Adding what Fæ has asked as an GG extension feels wrong. Even going back to the Sexology case, that was more about POV conflicts than editors demeaning other editors or people. So if the Sexology DS was still active, it would be wrong to add it there too. So I really feel this is a worthwhile statement that should be made to address this type of behavior, but not as part of the GG DS. I don't want to discourage Fæ from pursuring this type of principle elsewhere on en.wiki, just that I don't think adding it to a DS that is in the same ballpark is necessary the best way to do that. --Masem (t) 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Fæ, going off Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, I'm not seeing any of the statements or FOF that point out the ridiculing of transgenders as part of the issue, though that may have been part of the off-site behavior. I do see mention about unprofessional behavior, so I can fully understand why its DS was moved from "articles" to "pages", but that doesn't still seem to suggest that it was due to ridiculing editors on trans-related issues. I can speak as a key party on GG that that case also wasn't about similar ridicule, but did involve similar unprofessional approaches several editors did on talk pages, leading to the DS to cover "pages" and not just "articles" (but that also was because we were being brigaded by IP, and thus bore the 500/30 rule).
But that said, stating that a trans ideology exists during discussions, appears and can deliberately demean Wikipedia contributors, if not strictly stated in the context of directly quoting a source for an article about this topic rather than an editor making this statement in their "own voice". is concerning. We clearly want to stop targeted insults from WP editors, obviously, but we also want to make sure talk pages are open enough to properly discuss an article, and we have to be able to separate these. I should not be wary of being hit with DS if I went to trans woman and said "I have several RSes here that identify (insulting term) as a negative slang for trans women, should we add it appropriately?" (which I can see some editors feel as if that is possibly insulting but clearly meant to improve the article), whereas if I went "Why not just call them (insulting term)?" I would fully expect some type of warning or action. Making sure when it is proper to apply a DS here would require more effort than what went into the GG or Sexology case, and hence why I think slapping an addendum onto the current GG is not a good approach. --Masem (t) 16:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
My primary concern is not with the intent, as I said, we should have some language - strong policy and/or immediate administrative actions like a GS or DS - to stop the disruption. It's more that GG, while it meets the topic area of gender-related disputes, didn't really have to do with editors using demeaning language. It's a convenient spot to put it in, but if a future editor came to review the DS, there's nothing in the case to support it being there. A community-agreed GS separate from any Arbcom case (but clearly allowing that GS to stand atop results of GG, Sexology, and GGTF) would be the more proper solution, to me. --Masem (t) 16:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
MJL: with GGTF, thought, there is at least clear review of an editor demeaning other people including other editors, and the language of its passed motions make that a reasonably strong point. GG didn't really have that. --Masem (t) 16:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Mendaliv states my concern is much more policy/procedures-based argument. --Masem (t) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The point that Johnuniq brings up (which just came up at BLP/N) is exactly the concern I expressed above. To be blunt, talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be "safe spaces" where certain concepts are forbidden. There are going to be ideas and concepts that some editors may feel offensive, but if the context is wholly within the scope of trying to discuss improvements for the article, that's 100% acceptable use of a talk page. The case that Johnuniq is troubling because it seems to be aimed to stifle ideas that, while controversial, seem appropriate to discuss. These issues are waaaaay beyond the scope of what the FOF of GG resulted in, so again, I don't think this should be just amended onto GG. --Masem (t) 17:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: I would assume that "gender warrior" is a similar slang as social justice warrior, which is generally derogatory. But it does depend on context as your example suggests a positive approach. --Masem (t) 13:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the larger problem here is how DS are meant to be used. I always took DS to apply to the set of article/other spaces that are defined by the DS, with respect to the problems identified in the FOF and other remedies from the associated ArbCom case. So, GG being principally issues with edit warring and POV pushing, would mean that edit warring and POV pushing on "gender-related pages" is covered by it, but not other types of behavior problems (of which standard community actions should be sought). The way some here are suggesting, these DS would be for any perceived infraction on those pages. Otherwise, we start getting into the realm that multiple DS can apply to a single page (eg Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could potentially fall under both AP2 and GG due to her political support of LBGTQ). --Masem (t) 14:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

@, Mendaliv, GoldenRing, and Masem: The request would no doubt fall under Gamergate. This was the premise for the request I made earlier this year which resulted in this motion. It brought Manning (which dealt with issues related to transgender identity) unequivocally within the scope of Gamergate. –MJLTalk 16:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

GGTF also was amended in the same motion. –MJLTalk 16:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am incredibly confused as to what I stumbled upon here. Though I was a fresh editor, the whole purpose of my original request was to avoid this one. Manning covered conduct as it related to gender identity. For the same reasons for Eastern Europe being amended did this occur. Arbcom has a clear interested in ensuring there are as few overlapping DS as possible.
    At the time, I suggested that GamerGate be renamed. However, Thryduulf had an even better idea to open up a case titled Gender-related disputes for the purpose of collating and renaming the existing sanctions. That'd be my preference now because we already have Findings of Fact from Manning and GGTF to justify DS. It's just a question of where to log it. –MJLTalk 21:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


Further comments

I sometimes feel like there is this magical aura that follows longtime established users around. I just quite don't get it. I'll say something and am lucky if one or two people respond to me. Fæ posts here and suddenly this DS regime is a BIG DEAL. Nearly five times the amount of people have responded to this request compared to my own. Am I doing something wrong here? What did I miss?

Here are the things I've said a few months ago:

  • January 2019: I start editing Wikipedia more and more regularly. I clearly fall in love with the project side of Wikipedia.
  • 13 February 2019: My first post ever related to Arbcom. After thorough research to the current DS/regime and ongoing participation in this RFC started by WanderingWanda, I made a formal ARCA request that Manning be amended to clarify Gamergate which included the following reasoning:
...[M]y proposal is that the remedies [of Manning] continue forward with only a slight amendment to show that the case now serves as a clarification of Gamergate. This field of debate still has much activity, so in my view having this exact case to fall back on would be preferable. Gamergate did not once reference LGBT+ issues specifically, so I do not see the problem of having this (sic) Manning serve to supplement it. (emphasis added)
  • 21 February 2019: The motion to amend Manning is passed.
  • 28 February 2019: Anyone here remember the Humour article fiasco? Well, I was there. More than that, I tried to get it switched out before it was published to avoid such a controversy (archive)
  • 2 March 2019: Fæ gets a DS alert in relation to it. I simply think to myself, well at least people can't say this pronoun business doesn't fit under Gamergate now.
  • 4 March 2019‎: My rename finally took effect.
  • 5 March 2019: I suggest maybe we have used that moment to take consideration of the broader issues at play:Special:Permalink/886796817#Supplement_(2) (because it seemed like the community wasn't really quite grasping it).
  • I'm blanking on the last time we had a gender related controversy that touched arbcom. I've pretty much consistently referenced the motion I made because it has been (and still remains) the only significant thing I have ever done related to arbitration.

Okay, now that it is understood what my involvement has been in this area; let me explain what should happen: Please everyone just read Manning.

  • @Mendaliv: Do you want FoF? Here you go.
  • @: Do you want it made clear that pronoun usage is under DS/regime? Well here it is. In no uncertain terms the remedy reads: For the avoidance of doubt, [GG's sanctions] apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender... If someone reads that and questions whether pronoun usage falls under GG's DS, have them read it again until they get it right.

That now being said...

  • @GorillaWarfare and the committee: I am very sorry to take up your time, but I beg you not to just rename GamerGate here and move on. Give yourselves a break for now, but set a deadline. Then, this December; open up a fresh case page (if you need a party for sake of form, I'm more than happy to volunteer myself). Call it Gender-related disputes, skip the preliminary statements and evidence periods but just go straight to the workshop. Only using evidence from past cases, let the community help you remix the best parts of GGTF, Manning, and Gamergate to just create a neutrally worded case and discretionary sanction regime. Everyone will stop being confused about why we issue Gamergate related sanctions for transgender pronoun disputes, and we can all just move on. *sighs*

Thank you all. –MJLTalk 04:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: When did I say individual editors' pronoun choices are sacrosanct and must be respected lest the banhammer should fall? My interpretation of Manning is that any discussion about pronouns is under the sanction regime and only provides the method for editor conduct in this area to be more carefully scrutinized. Misgendering someone on purpose is likely to be interpreted as a personal attack just as much as calling someone is a bigot for a clear accidental slip up.
Also, you'll notice that there are more than three FoF for that case. One of such had to do with community conduct.
What is your preferred solution? Have three cases with three different sanctions again? Why??
Finally, point me to the section of WP:ARBPOL that specifically says a dispute has to be ongoing in the present moment a request is filed.
If the community cannot handle Disputes A, B, nor C; then they fall under Arbcom's remit. Once Arbcom makes a decision it is both binding and final. Then the following applies: The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time. It can and should open up a fresh case page to revisit Disputes A, B, and C to finally make them comport with one another. You should want this ideally. Arbcom could theoretically just throw out the DS/regime all together once it's back on the table in the proceedings I described. –MJLTalk 05:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

  • People misgender on this project all the time. Almost always, in my experience, it is unintentional, although sometimes people get very upset about it. I only edit LGBT stuff occasionally and usually when it intersects with something that I more regularly edit. I get confused with the politics of it all, I sometimes tranpose the letters in various acronyms, I understand that some groups want to remove the "L" from LGBT, others want to add "Q" and/or "I", others use "+", and so on. Then there is the TERF stuff that boggles my mind, and now Fae is mentioning a couple of other terms I've never seen before. It is a minefield for anyone who is not right on the ball (a recent cartoon in Private Eye showed a teacher in a sex ed class writing "LGBT+" on a blackboard and one kid saying to another, "Since when did sex ed involve algebra?" Or something similar). I'm not entirely sure what Fae's intentions are here, nor even if they are correct in their interpretation of what is or is not a misgendering (which seems to be a very politicised subject), but it does concern me that inadvertent use of a word or acronym might lead to summary sanctions. I don't think we can compare this complex, oft-changing scenario with a multitude of neologisms etc with, say, use of the n-word. The latter is, I think, pretty well established territory but I suspect that the former is not. Am I misunderstanding something? Do I now have to first read several articles discussing the various terms before I write anything on the subject? - Sitush (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Johnuniq: for providing what appears to be the context. In light of that, I wonder why Fae didn't use TERF as an example in the request. Even I know it is a political hot potato, even if I don't necessarily fully understand it. I'm not convinced that weaponising a DS regime by amendment to resolve a current dispute is a good thing, if that is what is going on. Sort out the dispute and then ask for amendment etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • An excellent set of comments from EdChem. I think they're the way forward, both in terms of this request and any future developments/strategy. - Sitush (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Worm That Turned: I am wondering whether mis-spoke when they mentioned "gender warrior" above. I recall their upset about SilkTork referring to "diversity terrorist" here and later clarifying it here. IIRC, Fæ continued to raise the issue in that case and elsewhere but I've not seen a mention of "gender warrior". - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I wondered what the background for this was. It appears to be Meghan Murphy where there are disputes over the degree to which the person or her blog should be described as trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF. The talk page shows the dispute including Pyxis Solitary saying "she's against trans ideology" which caused Fæ to respond with diff saying "trans ideology" was an attack on all trans people which, if continued, would warrant sanctions under WP:ARBGG. The issue of whether mentioning a "trans ideology" among off-wiki activists is a sanctionable attack should not be decided in a clarification request. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

I support this motion. The "Manning naming dispute" case made it clear long ago that transgender topics are an area with disruption. The GG case included issues of gender identity as well (see histories of discussions related to Quinn and Wu). Discussing that GG covers gender, cisgender and transgender, would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pyxis Solitary

This comment addresses the mention of my name in the  Statement by Johnuniq  regarding the Meghan Murphy BLP talk page discussion: First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist.

Allow me to shed all the light  from/to  Pyxis Solitary:
In reponse to the Murphy topic I said: "her history regarding transgender issues is that she is not against trans people, she's against trans ideology and transgender rights legislation. It's a fine line, but an important distinction".
To which the other editor mentioned (Fæ) replied: "By the way, Pyxis Solitary, there is no such thing as "trans ideology". If you continue to spout unsourced damaging nonsense that so blatantly attacks all trans people this way, you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia in line with the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions applying to gender related topics that you were alerted to in May this year". That last bit refers to this notice she/he left on my talk page about a candidate for deletion.
Then this editor continued to pile it on with this and this. To which I responded here.
The editor continued with this. And I replied.
Followed by said editor continuing the inquisition. Again, I replied.
Editor continued with the same line of accusation. I responded. Editor continued. I again replied.
It's shameful how ArbCom has made it possible for the Discretionary Sanctions policy to be weaponized as a threat used by editors with axes to grind.

By the way, the same IP editor that personally attacked me in the article, and accused me of being a "TERF" in the talk page, attacked me again with a bogus statement attributed to me with a fake signature — which was deleted by editor Fæ before I returned to the discussion. And of course, IP editor left another accusation in my talk page. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC); (edited) 08:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC); (edited: emphasis mine) 13:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: After reading the comments here about Gamer Gate, I just want to say that I did not know about "Gamer Gate" until a d/s alert was posted on my talk page (the template was added to the talk page of the candidate for deletion after discussions were well underway). I'm not into video games and I don't do Twitter and Reddit, or whatever other vomitatus platforms were involved. There are billions of people on this planet ... but there aren't billions of gamers and people who waste their time as an Internet chatty-Cathy -- and many of them are Wikipedia editors. Do those of you who created the Gamer Gate d/s really think that every editor who edits the subjects that were added under it knows what GG is? Pyxis Solitary yak 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re: GamerGate)

That MJL I do still think that it would be a good idea to have a new case, Gender-related disputes covering

  • Disputes and controversies related to gender, gender identity and gender expression (including pronouns)
  • Disputes and controversies related to gender gaps (i.e. editors and content) and actions/projects/etc related to these
  • A review of what existing sanctions exist, how they are being used, and how well they are or are not working
  • What, if any, areas that are covered need not be covered any longer
  • What, if any, additional areas should be covered
  • Whether collating all the existing and new sanctions into one set would be desirable (and if so, do so).

This would be quite a large case, which the Committee probably has not got capacity for while Fram is ongoing and Palestine-Israel 4 is pending so I suggest adding it to the queue rather than opening immediately. In the mean time, I would strongly encourage Fæ and everyone else to try and resolve any disputes using the current available methods (AN/I, AE, etc) so that there is good, recent evidence to feed into the review. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde (GamerGate)

  • I confess I am not as familiar with the GamerGate dustups as some, but this request, and the responses to it, baffle me. I cannot see how disputes related to transgender rights and transgender activism do not fall under "any gender-related dispute or controversy [broadly construed]". If the Meghan Murphy dispute were under discussion at AE, I for one would consider it within the scope of the discretionary sanctions. I see no purpose being served by addressing a hypothetical statement about a gay agenda. The very reason discretionary sanctions exist is that it is sometimes difficult to determine in advance what disruptive behavior will look like; DS regimes allow administrators to make decisions on a case by case basis, and with a few exceptions that don't apply here, we are generally quite good at sanctioning disruption when it is brought to our attention. , if editors are being disruptive in the way you describe, and you believe their edits to be sanctionable under GG discretionary sanctions, why are you here, rather than at AE? Do you have any evidence that admins are unwilling to apply these sanctions in this situation? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    , You have not answered my fairly straightforward question. If you are seeing conduct that you believe to be sanctionable under the GamerGate DS regime, why are you not seeking sanctions at WP:AE? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    , I did read your statement. I wouldn't have posted mine otherwise. You state that "The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't"; but you have no evidence for that assertion. How do you expect admins to enforce discretionary sanctions when no requests for enforcement have been made? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In case this wasn't clear already; I, personally, would be quite willing to sanction editors making unsupported allegations under the current discretionary sanctions regime. I'm sure other administrators would be, too. But our willingness and ability to implement such sanctions stems not from specific behaviors being declared verboten by ARBCOM; it comes from being able to detect disruption when we see it. As such, I see no purpose in ARBCOM spending time and effort on this (unless you're looking at a new locus of disruption that isn't explicitly covered by the DS regime, of which no evidence has been provided), and I think that editors concerned by such disruption need to use the primary mechanism for ending it before anything else. There are situations where AE has not done a very good job (the case above this one is an excellent example) but absent evidence of AE failing at its job, I don't see why we're here at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's anything more to do here; surely this can be closed? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Judging by comments elsewhere and recent edit history, this is not a good faith request for clarification, it is an attempt to use arbitration sanctions to enforce Fae's views of how a subject should be covered, in a context where numerous attempts to do this via normal Wikipedia processes are failing. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What EdChem said, absolutely. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem (GamerGate)

  • Given the quote from Masem, it seems to me that there is a lack of clarity here about the coverage of some gender issues under the DS regime.
  • The fact that there is a lack of clarity does not mean that the suggestion by is the way to resolve the problem, nor does it mean that Guy's observations of attempts to weaponise DS regimes is necessarily incorrect.
  • Please, in clarifying, make clear that there are distinctions between misgendering / comments that can give offense that occur as a consequence of mistake or ignorance, those arising from deliberately provocative wordings and made with an intent to cause offense, and situations where an editor might be looking to push an agenda and express outrage. The Manning naming dispute included plenty of examples from the first two categories and a motivation to right great wrongs has led to postings / main space edits that are inconsistent with policy-compliant editing.
  • As a gay man, I've experienced comments and behaviours that I found obnoxious even though they occurred from ignorance, been targeted by deliberate homophobia, and had times where I have had to decide whether to speak up or hold my tongue. I'm all for WP being a safe environment for all members of the broader LGBTQIA+ community but some incidents call for discussion, education, and persuasion and not sanction or threat (which is exactly how DS notices can be perceived, notwithstanding the notion that they are information only, etc).
  • Short version, clarification is appropriate as the Committee's various motions appear inconsistent... but sensible clarification that does not weaponise the DS regime for those who might want to use it to advance a campaign, and that makes it clear to AE admins and others enforcing the regime that it is important to understand the actual issues. Societal understanding of LGBTQIA+ issues and acceptable behavioural standards are changing and will continue to develop, no doubt too slowly for some and too rapidly for others, and also vary from place to place. I don't envy the Committee or AE admins in trying to balance issues in this area, but I do believe that deliberate provocation and being intentionally offensive calls for a strong response but that this approach is counter-productive for dealing with ignorance or misunderstanding from editors of good will. EdChem (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Guy has commented at my user talk page, which has led me to reflect on my words and to add a clarification. The term "safe space" has different meanings in different contexts. I believe in a WP that is free from homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, racism, anti-semitism, and prejudices in general when it comes to interactions between editors, and I heartily endorse Guy's term "respectful space." We need to be able to cover difficult subjects in a policy-compliant way, however, and that means discussions of topics and considering views that will sometimes cause a degree of discomfort. I don't mean a safe space in the sense that views that will cause disagreement should not be expressed, even though there are safe spaces in which such rules may be appropriate. WP is not a therapy or support space and should not impose standards that are more appropriate to such spaces, but it is also not a place where deliberate deadnaming, crass generalisations or outright bigotry are tolerable. Consequently, I state for the sake of clarity that "respectful space" is closer to the mark on what I meant as a norm for on-wiki communications than are some connotations of "safe space."

I would also like to clarify that, in referring to my own experiences, I was not thinking solely of on-wiki experiences, or even only online experiences. The first time I had homophobic abuse screamed at me was shocking and a little frightening – and would have been more so had I been alone or in vulnerable circumstances – but I quickly decide that ignoring the event was the wisest course of action. It was illegal, no doubt, but pursuing it was not worth my time, nor was given this individual the satisfaction of having provoked a response. I would encourage to consider whether there are times when silence is the most eloquent response, where providing a response is not worth the time or effort involved, and whether dismissing something as not worth pursuing is actually a more dignified and effective way to communicate that it isn't worth supplying oxygen to, either by replying or by seeking redress. EdChem (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@: I am sorry to read that you see "consider whether there are times when silence is the most eloquent response, where providing a response is not worth the time or effort involved" as "the equivalent of telling newbie LGBT+ contributors to 'grow a thicker skin'" (after a "trim, minor" that was certainly not minor in the sense a minor edit). If someone throws a homophobic slur at me, choosing to ignore that person or not respond is not me giving in to a bully, it's me exercising my right to choose how to spend my time and comes after I have considered whether putting in the effort to challenge the person is justified. That you might make a different decision were you in my place does not even slightly alter either my right to decide for me nor whether my choice is best for me. I am all in favour of preventing bullying on wiki and find transphobia just as repugnant as homophobia and other prejudices – but I don't believe that means that challenging / confronting a bully is always the wisest course of action. Bile spewed by throwaway accounts can be dealt with via WP:RBI without giving the person behind the account the satisfaction of being discussed on ANI. Arguing about minor incivilities can divert attention from broader issues and risks advocates being painted as reacting to every perceived slight and not directing their energy to the central issues – and worse, it gives opponents a way to distract advocates with a series of small provocations. You want to see Wikipedia's culture to become more inclusive, which is a worthy goal. I also agree that telling editors to "grow a thicker skin" is counter-productive and offensive. Neither of those, however, mean that every single incident must be attacked as if it occurs in isolation. Strategies for seeking change can also be counter-productive. As an example of such an approach, refusing to engage at ANI and instead advocating to lodge frequent complaints with T&S in the hope of a cultural change being imposed from outside will provoke resistance and alienate editors who would be allies. People can share goals but differ on questions of strategy and even about the severity of individual incidents – that doesn't necessarily make them wrong and it certainly doesn't make them enemies who you might tell to "fork off." Frankly, I find your suggestion that my comments were the equivalent of "grow a thicker skin" to be so inaccurate as to be ridiculous, and your implication that I was supporting Wikipedia continuing "indefinitely as a publisher of lockerroom type transphobic and homophobic language which is protected as 'humour' or 'free speech'" to be offensive. All I did was ask that you consider where choosing not to respond can, at times, be a suitable response... and you reacted with an over-the-top post that suggests to me that you have lost perspective. Seriously, stop and reflect, because you are damaging your credibility and that is undermining the pursuit of your goal. EdChem (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I concur with Guy and EdChem, and I thank EdChem for their reasonable and rational statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I also thank them both for the "respectful space" concept, which is much more appropriate for Wikipedia than "safe space" is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Greenrd

I have some familiarity with the nature and content of typical political debates between trans-exclusionary radical feminists, trans people and their allies, and people somewhere "in the middle" - and they are very much political debates, let's be clear about that. Regarding process and venue, this proposal, due to its highly contentious nature and tangential relation to the GamerGate case, is an entirely inappropriate use for the clarification process; as others have opined, consensus should be sought in the community or it should be brought to full arbitration, if desired.

As a political activist myself, I perceive this proposal as something that would have the effect of giving one political faction special privileges in terms of advocacy on Wikipedia, even as other factions have their freedoms restricted by this proposal, or indeed already have their freedoms restricted by long-lasting community mores, which I believe would be fundamentally unfair. There are a range of views within the community on using Wikipedia for advocacy or agenda-driven purposes, from strong opposition on the one hand, to a feeling that by e.g. unabashedly promoting the achievements of women and feminists, one is improving Wikipedia, to (e.g. on Israel/Palestine) perhaps a resigned acceptance of the fact that many contributors will have strong views one way or another and the participation of people with multiple perspectives actually helps to create balanced articles. Indeed one can take different views on this sort of agenda-driven work on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the changes and the degree to which they act to introduce imbalance into the encyclopedia, or to correct pre-existing imbalances in the encyclopedia. What we shouldn't have on Wikipedia is any privileging of people belonging to particular political factions based on what political faction they belong to, as opposed to based on the behaviour of individuals within those factions and whether it comports with Wikipedia's mission.

Also, what is really not acceptable in the content of this proposal is that it does, I feel, conflate the identification of political factions, potential sources of bias, and organised activity, with conspiracy theorising (which often brings connotations of insanity, or at least eccentricity). This conflation is rather like if someone were to say that to claim that some Republican supporters might have a bias in relation to articles about Republican politicians, and to make a big deal about the fact that an editor is a Republican political activist and spends a lot of time advocating for Republican political causes, is unacceptable prejudice against Republicans. That would be ridiculous, because the exact same thing could be said about Democrats and articles about Democrat politicians, so it's an instance of a more general point that's not at all specific to any one political party or faction.- greenrd (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@: From my perspective, this is about potential biases of sources and editors, and the ability to draw attention to that on Wikipedia discussion pages. Your argument seems to be that your beliefs that are relevant here arise from your identity, and are not ordinary political beliefs that are subject to rational debate and persuasion. That's fine, but that, surely, paints a picture of you being more, not less, biased, than someone who has ordinary political beliefs that are subject to rational debate and persuasion. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either your beliefs do not arise from your identity, but arise from an activist/ideological grouping to which you belong and therefore it is fine to be descriptive about that, or they do arise from your identity, in which case you are definitely biased and therefore it ought to be fine to call attention to that fact, although of course we should try to be civil about doing so on Wikipedia. -greenrd (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@: You seem to suggest that we should not examine too closely your implication that your beliefs arise from your identity, because that would lead to a slippery slope where trans people would be allegedly banned from Wikipedia by people like me on the grounds of bias. But this is erroneous because, for one thing, I do not believe that your beliefs arise from your identity. In point of fact, not all trans people agree with the "trans ideology" that you espouse, so in my view, your beliefs do not arise from your identity, but from your social or ideological milieu. I know of some people on Twitter who, despite being trans, actually agree with some tenets of "gender-critical"/"terf" ideology. I do not share their views, but they exist. Also, I do not support banning people from Wikipedia on the grounds of political bias alone. But the point is, it is important to be able to point out that people subscribe to belief systems, and to be able to name them. It is not something that I see or participate in very often on Wikipedia. But it is an important element of discussions about biases, or alleged biases, emanating from sources used in articles and editors alike. And banning it - for, and to the benefit of, one ideological grouping only - would be censorship, would harm the workings of the Wikipedia community, and would be grossly unfair to people not in that ideological grouping. -greenrd (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@: "Trans women are women" isn't a magic incantation which instantly and automatically resolves all arguments about trans people in favour of your opinions. But you must be aware of this, because in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Yaniv_genital_waxing_case, you wrote "once the legal issues are better understood, if any", suggesting that you thought the legal case could go either way. But surely, if Yaniv simply is a woman for all intents and purposes, then it is simply illegal to discriminate against her - no need for further discussion. My view is that trans women are women in most, but not all, contexts (for example, not in sports). I realise that statement of my opinion might offend you, but it is not my intent to offend you. I am merely pointing out that I have one opinion on this question, some other people have another opinion (namely, trans women are women tout court) and yet other people have yet another opinion (namely, trans women are not women at all). And to reiterate, these opinions are not completely determined by identities - as I wrote above, not all trans people subscribe to the same beliefs on these questions. If you want to disagree with that - for example, if you want to argue that the trans people who disagree "aren't really trans people" or something like that - you can, but you have to actually argue for the opposite - you can't just jump forward in time to the hypothetical point in time where you've persuaded me of the opposite, and then accuse me of making false generalisations about all trans people, because I explicitly have said that not all trans people hold these beliefs, and until you persuade me otherwise, that is my position. You can call those beliefs what you like - I am not attached to the term "trans ideology" and would happily substitute any unambiguous alternative that you may have to offer - but please don't try to tell me they don't constitute a belief system, because I don't buy that. -greenrd (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@: I feel the need to defend myself at this juncture. I don't think the average person would read this exchange and say my views were anti-trans, and your calling them such is something that I perceive as a personal attack. I did not air my views here for the sake of airing them, but in order to attempt to elucidate my arguments. However, I may have erred on the side of brevity, sacrificing some clarity. My arguments were as follows: (a) Drawing a direct line from your trans identity, through the proposition that "trans women are women", to proposition X, is not a way of proving anything you like relating to trans people, so I personally don't think your argument goes through (and to be clear why this is relevant: why did you mention that trans women are women, if not to use that statement in the service of an argument? And if it is the case that it was not to support your argument, perhaps you are really the one gratuitously "airing your views" in this forum!). (b) There are a range of views about trans people and what legal or social rights they ideally ought to have, including the views of a subgroup within the trans community that I haven't even named yet, because I don't want to risk inflaming this discussion further. So even trans people themselves do not speak with one voice on this question. I didn't even go so far as to outright assert that most trans people subscribe to the dominant orthodox view, because I don't know for sure that that is true, although all the evidence I've seen so far suggests it is. So I reject your accusation that I was somehow irrelevantly airing my opinions. In my view, they were relevant to my argument, which I have labelled (a), that merely reiterating that trans women are women does not establish what you seem to think it establishes. And I would have liked to have quoted someone else there to avoid the impression of soapboxing, but I don't know anyone else who holds the view that I wanted to use to make my argument. Generally speaking, it is usually considered acceptable in arguments relating to political issues for someone to use their own political opinions to give an example of how an apparent sticking point may be resolved. And even if some other people think my views were not relevant, in my view it would be unduly harsh to harshly sanction someone over a legitimate difference of opinion over what was relevant to an argument being made. And if we are not even to be permitted to make certain arguments, such as the ones I have made here, that disagree with you because they will rest on claims that it will be forbidden to even make on Wikipedia, as you have just advocated, then in my view a grave policymaking mistake will have been made. In that scenario, as I see it, any form of perceived offence against trans people in particular and perhaps other groups too, including allegedly offensive points such as even merely acknowledging that other views exist, will have been raised up to the status of an unimpeachable shibboleth, to the detriment of frank and fearless discussion about proposals such as yours, and frank and fearless discussion about the propriety or otherwise of any edits and other actions on Wikipedia along the same lines as what your proposal talks about.-greenrd (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarification by Risker

I have not read this request except for the reference to me in the (currently) last paragraph of Fae's statement above, and have no comment on any suggestions being made by any editors about any historical cases, their enforcement, or whether or not anything needs to be clarified about them. Thus, I have retitled this section as a "clarification" since I'm not really making a statement about the matter before the Arbitration Committee.

I did not *directly* contact Fae about anything, via email or otherwise, until after Fae emailed me at my personal email address. Instead, what I did was respond to a suppression request from Fae that was received in the OTRS queue more than 12 hours prior to my reading it, and responded by OTRS email asking for clarification about what edits Fae felt should fall under the suppression policy. Fae then emailed me directly at my personal email address (which is not included in the OTRS emails) accusing me of having a conflict of interest and requesting that I pass the suppression request to another oversighter. Arbitrators who follow the Oversight OTRS queue will be well aware that a ticket that has been untouched for more than 12 hours is extremely rare, particularly when other requests have been addressed in that timeframe. I responded to the personal email from Fae instructing them to respond directly to the ticket and not to email me personally; I copied my response to the Oversight mailing list so that other oversighters would know what was going on, and arbitrators who follow that list can read the discussion there. It is my understanding that another oversighter has "taken over" the ticket, and their first question to Fae was to ask them to clarify what was perceived to be suppressible on the page linked in the request.

To the best of my knowledge, what Fae refers to as a "conflict of interest" is in fact that I was an arbitrator in the 2012 case whose remedies including their being banned from English Wikipedia; I was also one of the arbitrators who supported the motion lifting Fae's ban (with conditions) about nine months later. To the best of my recollection, I don't think I've commented or participated in any other disciplinary activities related to Fae. I have, however, revision-deleted, deleted and suppressed outing and personal attacks directed at Fae on several occasions since that time; and I have, on at least one recent occasion, publicly and directly agreed with Fae's position in a discussion on the Wikimedia-L mailing list. In order to explain to my fellow oversighters why Fae might think I had a conflict of interest, I referred to the 2012 case and 2013 motion; while looking at the decision again to ensure I had my facts and timing right, I noticed there was a link missing to the motion that allowed Fae to return to editing Wikipedia in 2013, and I fixed that.

I do not believe that I have any kind of conflict of interest with respect to Fae, although it is possible that Fae has a conflict of interest when it comes to me. It is a little odd for anyone to suggest that conflict of interest on an oversight ticket should be determined by who sent the ticket, rather than what the request actually was. I've recused based on the nature of the request on multiple occasions. It would be bad practice to allow those requesting suppression to pick and choose who deals with their request; if they send it to the list, they're going to get the oversighter who is willing and able to respond. The entire point of oversight is to identify and remove problem content *as quickly as possible*, and that isn't possible when the requestor decides they don't want Oversighter A or B or C to deal with the issue.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the actual clarification request, and is only provided here because there's no other suitable forum for me to point out that, despite Fae's best efforts, I have nothing to do with this matter. Risker (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


Statement by Andy Dingley

GamerGate was a low point for the Internet, and indeed WP. If anything good did come from it, at least WP took a fairly strong position in opposition to it, as represented by this arbitration.

Clearly the request here is inspired by recent activity around a number of pages involving Jessica Yaniv: Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, the imminent Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Meghan Murphy et al.

The questions are: does the GamerGate arbitration, and should the GamerGate arbitration, extend that far?

My first impression is that Fae is using GamerGate as a BLUDGEON to stifle any discussion about Jessica Yaniv. All the usual tactics are rolled out, the warning boxes on user talk: pages[31], the repeated stripping of sources and content from an article during an AfD; the denigration of sources used; the description of the Vancouver Sun as a mere 'tabloid' because the word tabloid (used as a contrast) appears in that article's lead[32]; the repeated accusation that other editors have made an allegation[33] which they have never made; the aspersions cast at other editors for being 'uncollegial' and then immediately using 'colleague' instead as an implication of sock- or meatpuppeting; hatting great sections of Talk: debate; riding two horses in claiming that only one narrow waxy issue is relevant within a far broader story, then claiming BLP1E applies; and of course, hiding behind BLP as the unchallengable excuse for any position held. So far, so much as usual.

I don't expect WP to keep this article (at least for the near future). BLP will see to that, and as yet, few of the defensible broadsheet sources have covered it. Although I'll be amazed if there isn't a significantly different situation in a few months. It's a most unusual situation, as it has flipped the usual allegiances and political standpoints end-for-end. Those who have previously advocated for transgender politics are finding themselves torn between the coverage, as highly negative as it is, or deleting it.[34][35] Jessica Yaniv is, quite literally, the taser-threatening[59:34 in Yaniv's own last night's twitter debate with Blaire] transwoman in the girls' changing room[Yaniv's November 2018 Tweet photos] that the TERFs warned us of. Fae evidently sees no such conflict: in Fae's mind (as expressed here), transphobia is transphobia, and negative coverage of one transwoman is an attack on all of them. Now that's an honourable position and I respect it a great deal, but I do think they're backing the wrong side here. Jessica Yaniv is just not someone who's actions are at all defensible. And yet BLP is still in effect and WP is not a channel of investigative journalism.

So should GamerGate apply? Does GamerGate apply? Well per GamerGate#Remedies "(b) any gender-related dispute or controversy," it would indeed seem so. I was shocked to read this. I've avoided GamerGate so far, as a depressingly negative issue in all areas. But to find that the sanctions do indeed claim to be so far-reaching in their scope? That's a terrible idea. It loses track of the concrete problem at GamerGate, it tries to solve all the world's ills in one line. And today, its main result seems to be giving Fae a BLUDGEON for pushing their PoV into these articles, to suppress coverage of someone, who Fiona Robertson, the SNP's National Women’s and Equalities Convener has described as a "female predator".[36] I do not believe that the GamerGate sanctions have ever been intended to support the actions and deniability of female predators, and we should not encourage their use for such. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm now considering raising Nblund, and maybe others, at ANI. I am very tired of the aspersions being cast by them. My one mention of KiwiFarms was to state that it was clearly unreliable. Yet here, now that the talk: page has been conveniently deleted (in the middle of this, and the ANI TBAN thread!) my condemnation of KiwiFarms is being presented as if I'd added it to the article instead! That's clearly into "When did you stop beating your wife?" territory. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

I am not surprised the JY related pages ended up tied into this discussion, though my understanding is that this arbitration request was established because of a separate WP:BLP dispute over how to handle naming of people who have been identified in the media as TERFS. That said, I would strongly support the assertion that the JY related pages fall under the Gamergate discretionary sanctions. I say this because, frankly, with some of the egregious WP:BLP behaviour I've seen in the course of the JY discussion, extra administrator attention and extra strictness about norms would be very helpful. This has included:

  1. Speculation about whether a woman has a penis.
  2. POV fork created by a subsequently blocked sockpuppet of a user previously indeffed for making transphobic comments which also was created specifically as an WP:ATTACK page.
  3. Accusations that a BLP not currently involved in any criminal prosecution was engaged in child molestation. (Also by the subsequently blocked sock who created the attack page.)
  4. More speculation about the state of a BLP's genitals masked as a quote from a "RS" (actually a tabloid and not something that should be considered reliable).

And so on. Frankly, the fact that we're addressing a POV Fork attack page at AfD rather than speedy deleting it is already a bit galling and suggests enhanced oversight of this article is necessary. As such, I dispute Andy Dingley's assertion that treatment of gender issues outside the bounds of Gamergate is outside the spirit of the previous Arbcom ruling and hope that, if any good can come of this rather convoluted request for clarification, it's additional oversight of the BLP minefield that currently exists here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Edited to add that I don't disagree at all with Newyorkbrad and Aquillion here about the confusing nature of the nomenclature at play here. My concern is that the tool of arbcom enforced sanctions is necessary in this space; it's not that they need to be tied specifically to GamerGate. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

This comment is not about the substance of the request, but concerns the procedural confusion and nomenclature. It is causing confusion, and probably will continue to, if every discussion of allegedly poor editing in this topic area involves a citation to "the GamerGate case" or "GamerGate discretionary sanctions." Many topics relating to sexuality, including references to trans persons, are very remote from the topic of GamerGate. Indeed, some of the editors who edit on those topics may never have even heard of GamerGate. They are going to be unnecessarily confused when they receive a DS alert and, in addition to having to absorb all the other rules and procedures governing discretionary sanctions, they also find themselves puzzling over what "GamerGate" is and why it is coming up in a seemingly unrelated context.

The initial version of what became the discretionary sanctions for BLPs was adopted in an arbitration case called "Footnoted quotes." Needless to say, the overall topic of BLPs had little to do with the dispute over whether long quotations should be included in footnotes or not. People involved in BLP-related editing disputes did not easily understand when the "Footnoted quotes" ArbCom decision was cited to them. Ultimately, the Committee resolved that confusion by renaming the name for the BLP sanctions category to something more comprehensible. It might make sense to do something similar here.

As I finish typing this comment, I realize that it may not be directly related to the clarification request, so if the Committee wishes to treat it as a separate suggestion and discuss it elsewhere, I have no objection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: The "GamerGate" discretionary sanctions topic-area already includes, in addition to GamerGate itself, "any gender-related dispute or controversy, [or] people associated with [such a controversy], all broadly construed." To the extent the scope of the "GamerGate sanctions" extends well beyond the specific issue of GamerGate, that was a ruling made (uncontroversially) in the original decision four-and-one-half years ago; it would not be the result of the non-substantive naming clarification that I suggest. Related discretionary sanctions were previously also authorized in the "Sexology" case (originally, authorizing DS for "pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification") and the "Manning naming dispute case" ("For the avoidance of doubt, [the "Sexology"] discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender"), which were later incorporated into the "GamerGate" sanctions. The mere renaming I suggest would not impose DS in any area not already subject to them, and not surveyed in prior, full-fledged prior ArbCom cases and decisions. (Whether the change requested by Fae would do so is a different question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Agree with Newyorkbrad that it might be best to have a separate case-name for gender-related stuff, but it's worth pointing out that there are a few pages clearly covered by GG general sanctions that wouldn't be obviously covered by gender-related ones, so just renaming wouldn't necessarily work. If possible it might be best to split it into two separate discretionary sanctions with their own notices etc. Definitely using the GG general sanctions notice for gender stuff is going to be confusing to users, though, and will get more confusing going forwards as GG itself fades into the past. --Aquillion (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the issue Guerillero raised before, ArbCom could also authorize new sanctions under a new name, reproducing the Gamergate gender-related ones, and state that such things shouldn't be placed under Gamergate going forward. This might lead to some confusion, but I would argue that it is less than leaving all future gender-related controversies under the Gamergate sanctions forever, which is only going to lead to more confusion as time passes. --Aquillion (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mendaliv:: The practical effect would be solely to rename existing sanctions (ones that have uncontroversially existed and been enforced for years now.) I don't think that doing so can reasonably be considered making policy - it was still originally enacted as a result of a case before ArbCom that clearly required it. While a broader overhaul to the way general sanctions work may one day be necessary, it seems silly to gum up the works, reject a simple solution, and demand that an existing sanction be kept under a confusing name purely out of hope that that vast undertaking will one day occur. Especially since, of course, there is precedent for renaming sanctions, so there's no particular reason why that shouldn't extend to spinning off an existing sanction under a more comprehensible and appropriate name. --Aquillion (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

Ignoring the merits and just addressing the procedural issues that NYB brings up, I am against renaming cases. The title has meaning when the case is accepted and post hoc renaming breaks that meaning. Unlike Footnoted Quotes which had no active sanctions, Gamergate has plenty of active sanctions that will continue to be enforced for many years. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nblund

  • If editors are following WP:NOTFORUM then I can't really imagine a scenario where the claim that "trans women aren't women" would ever come up in the first place. Pontificating on trans issues adds nothing of value to the project, and we would stand to gain a lot by strongly discouraging those kinds of digressions on article talk pages.
  • I also want to second the points made by EvergreenFir, as well as Simonm223. The Yaniv case is only the latest instance where I've seen Gamergate-ish behavior. The social media communities that are trying to push that particular case in to the spotlight increasingly resemble Gamergate in the sense that they are largely centered around harassing/doxxing/humiliating various semi-public figures who displease them, and they view Wikipedia as another forum to spread that abuse.
Editors who come here just to create attack pages are probably easy to catch, but Andy Dingley's comments in this thread illustrate why good faith editors also need more guidance here: he has referenced Kiwi Farms and Miranda Yardley enough to make it fairly clear to me that he's seen the same toxic online communities that I've seen. He clearly recognizes that they aren't reliable sources, but he keeps referencing various versions of "Yaniv is a predator" (which is a rallying cry for those communities) for no apparent purpose (see also:1,2, 3, 4, 5,6). I really don't think he has a malicious intent, but it's still dangerous and irresponsible and off topic, and it resembles some of the behaviors that got people sanctioned around GamerGate. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it illustrates how this kind of material can start to spin out of control in a way that makes Wikipedia complicit in what are effectively mass online bullying campaigns like Gamergate, and I think it calls for more clarity on talk page conduct. Nblund talk 23:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Andy Dingley: I'm not casting aspersions or questioning your motivations. I'm pointing to your repeated references to BLP violations elsewhere as an example of the sort of stuff that needs to be clarified as either acceptable or unacceptable. It adds nothing and I'd prefer you'd stop, but I'm not calling for you to be punished or even arguing that your actions are unique. Nblund talk 10:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JJE

Noting here that Fæ has just been banned by the community from commenting on human sexuality-related topics, so they probably can no longer comment on this clarification request, or at least are unlikely to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Deryck

Harassment is a big problem on Wikipedia and we need to tackle it seriously. However, Fæ's proposal for ArbCom, that any wording that "implies [...] an agenda" or is "anti-trans" should be immediately punished as a DS violation, is unenforceable unless ArbCom is prepared to publish a glossary of banned language. The very fact that this is a contentious area where the use of language is itself contentious means that a non-expert in transgender issues cannot be expected to know the boundaries of civil discourse without stumbling upon someone's sensitivities first.

I echo Sitush's comment about unintentional offence being met with heavy sanctions, and Newyorkbrad's comment about the breadth of this DS area beyond the GamerGate topic causing confusion to uninitiated editors working on articles relating to LGBT+ issues. Deryck C. 19:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by AReaderOutThataway

I have to concur with Mendaliv that this request would be a prospective, pre-emptive misuse of ArbCom. Worse, the entire notion is subjective. We've seen repeatedly that certain editors (including the filer of this requests, whose topic-ban from human sexuality broadly construed has been reinstated in the interim) have novel and activistic ideas of what might qualify as "transphobic", and even "mis-gendering". E.g., it's been seriously proposed by some of these editors that if Editor A makes up a fake word like "zerm" and declares this to be their pronoun that other editors should be sanctionable if they use singular they or take any other, generally acceptable, approach to gender neutrality or pronoun avoidance. This is not ForcedSpeechPedia, nor FarLeftPostmoderistLanguageReformPedia, nor MakeEveryoneOnMySideFeelBetterThroughPoliticalCorrectionPedia. The only expansion we need to the WP:AC/DS authorized for this entire range of topics is faster topic-banning for abuse of Wikipedia as a soci-political lobbying platform. The modern US politics topic is almost getting that locked-down already, and the encyclopedic result is better, even if some far-to-one-side-or-the-other editors have a sore metaphorical booty about getting muzzled on the topic. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 00:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • @ and Mendaliv: As far as I understand, it is not accurate to say The GamerGate case superseded and ... took on the the original motions and amendments of Sexology. However, discretionary sanctions were rescinded in the Sexology case by the motion Fæ has linked to, and it seems clear from the discussion of the arbs in and around that motion that this was done because the GG sanctions, which cover all "gender-related controversies," already covered the "transgender issues" topic that the ARBSEX sanctions covered. So I believe ARBGG is the correct case to file this under. GoldenRing (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • We usually issue guidance on this page without formal motions. I think this request can be handled well enough by arbitrator comments (or Views and discussion, if you want the jargon). We have been asked: is use of discussion pages on Wikipedia to state or imply that trans people are part of a transgender conspiracy, agenda, ideology or similar defamatory "gay agenda" an example of conduct enforceable under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions? In many cases, the answer will be no. In my view, such conduct must take place in the context of content relating to gender. Mentioning gender or transgender questions does not in itself trigger the DS regime. The GamerGate discretionary sanctions were designed to deal with conduct at Wikipedia articles, and the scope of sanctions does not extend to all corners of Wikipedia. None of this is to say that Wikipedia does not need, or ought not to develop, a set of rules for enforcement of the issues highlighted by Fae; I make no comment about that here. The arbitration decision about GamerGate simply does not stretch endlessly beyond edits to the related articles and closely-related discussions (eg talk page or noticeboard threads about conduct on the articles). Its scope is clear and this request seems to raise new matters that should be addressed separately, probably in a fresh arbitration request. The prospects of the latter being accepted are poor if there is no prior attempt to develop proposals by community consensus. AGK ■ 12:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    Those protections already exist under GamerGate. An acceptable reading of the decision is not that the enforcement may happen against any insult, allegation, or slur. Both the setting and the content of the offending edit need to be correct. Your proposal removes the first test, and therefore needs a fresh case. AGK ■ 13:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • We have various guidelines and policies on conduct, Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Conduct, which assist us in dealing with unacceptable behaviour in the community, including discrimination and personal attacks. Wikipedia:No personal attacks covers the area of concern, particularly where it says that these types of comments are never acceptable: "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors." If existing policies are not felt to be strong enough, then discussion could take place with the community as a whole on the appropriate talkpage of the relevant policies. SilkTork (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm struggling a bit with this request, and I'm not sure if it's my misunderstanding or Fae's. Discretionary sanctions are available for the area of transgender issues - all pages, not just mainspace. That means that in that area, an uninvolved administrator can implement a discretionary sanction - i.e. a restriction, or any sort of block or ban - at their discretion (subject to awareness etc). I think that's clear. Yet, what Fae is asking for is Arbcom confirm by motion that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. Well, I don't know a specific placed sanction that would be breached in those circumstances (has someone placed a sanction that Fae is asking for clarification on?) I guess the answer is "no" because I'm not sure how well all the bumf that goes along with DS simply because mention of gender comes up.
    That said, I do take Fae's point well, Wikipedia does need some way to manage anti-trans language, and as SilkTork explains, NPA does cover most of areas. Where they are lacking, that is the place to bring up the discussion, not trying to use DS - which needs to be used only in the rare cases that discussion cannot sort things.
    Finally, I see you refer to "gender warrior", a comment made by an arb. I cannot recall said comment, but out of context would consider that a positive comment - of someone who is fighting for equality across the genders. Could you point me to the context? WormTT(talk) 12:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    , at my talk page, you refuse to answer my question because I warned you for violating unban condition off wiki, under threat of a block, 4 years ago. You're now further refusing to answer questions because a former arbitrator has responded to a request directed to a team she is on - which has apparently nothing to do with this request.
    You no longer appear to be seeking clarification from this committee, and I have no positive words to describe your behaviour, which I believe speaks for itself. As far as I am concerned, this request should be closed and archived promptly. WormTT(talk) 16:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • DS can be placed on articles where this kind of behavior is happening, but I don't think we can (or should) say that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. That is far too black-and-white for what can be a very complex issue. I would probably be considered by many to be on the strict side of enforcing BLP/NPA when it comes to anti-trans language, but even I can easily see cases where such a motion would backfire. Probably the most common would be when people use transphobic language without realizing they are—it's hardly uncommon for people who are editing in good faith to use language that is outdated and/or offensive without realizing it, and this is best addressed by correcting the language and moving on—not slamming them with some sort of arbitration enforcement action. I think that our existing policies allow for adequate handling of anti-trans language, and if the concern is that they are not being enforced properly, I don't think this kind of action is going to help things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    Fae, I'd recommend dropping the stuff about Risker. It's not relevant to this request, and your attempts to involve her are not reflecting well on you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    I do like NYB's point about naming. I agree that it's very confusing (and bears with it a fairly negative connotation) to lump topics like transgender issues in with the GamerGate sanctions when there is really no GamerGate connection. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Mendaliv: NYB is correct. The GamerGate sanctions were authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. This means they apply to any gender-related dispute or controversy or people associated with any gender-related dispute or controversy, broadly construed, regardless of whether said dispute/controversy/person has anything to do with GamerGate. I take it that you disagree with that, but would ask you to open a separate ARCA if you wish to ask for it to be amended. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Mendaliv: If you do not wish to have it amended then I suppose we can end this conversation. But that is the scope of the remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Motions

Requests for enforcement


Eric Corbett

Eric Corbett was blocked as AE action for 72 hours by User:GoldenRing. Remaining discussions about specific articles or the FA process are best held at other venues. MLauba (Talk) 12:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Eric Corbett

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Galobtter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 06:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Eric_Corbett_prohibited:
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. August 9 "If you seriously believe that I will be engaging in any discussion with an incompetent gutter-snipe like yourself you had better think again."
  2. August 9 "Your reading skills as are almost as bad as your writing skills, but both are admittedly better than your comprehension skills"
  3. August 9 "I expect you think you're being clever, but you're a long way off with your stupid comments."
  4. August 10 "unpaid goons like Sandstein"
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. July 19, 2015 Previous block for the same remedy
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Filing per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Enforcement_of_Eric_Corbett's_sanctions_(alternative) - further comments in uninvolved admin section. (comments moved up from below)

  • Comments are self-evidently insulting or belittling and violations of WP:NPA. Corbett has been blocked once before for violating this remedy, and per the remedy, the first two blocks should be 72 hours long. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Serial Number 54129: As I noted up, the only reason I'm filing here rather than blocking straight away is because ArbCom has mandated that the GGTF remedies relating to Corbett have to be filed at AE for 24 hours before they can be enforced. I'm commenting in this section to clarify the role I'm acting in here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I've moved up my comments from the "uninvolved admin" section. This is an unusual situation (AFAIK in no other case is there a "must be filed at AE first" provision) with not much precedent; I put my comments in that section since I am uninvolved with respect with Eric Corbett and an admin, but that seems to be causing confusion (and no one else is seeing it from that perspective, apparently). Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

As Cryptic mentions, most of the previous blocks related to the GGTF topic ban, not the prohibition (which I myself was surprised to see - when initially looking at this, I thought we were up to the fourth or fifth block under that remedy, not the second). The last block by Keilana was reduced to 72 hours as it was the first block under that remedy, and as this is the second block, the maximum block length that can be done under arbitration enforcement is 72 hours. So I'm not sure how the three months figure was determined - the topic ban and the prohibition are separate remedies, so I don't see how blocks for violating the topic ban count for the prohibition. Nor do I see how the standard enforcement provision overrides the specific enforcement provision stated in the remedy. (Of course, any admin can block longer as a non-AE action, which considering the amount of attacks Corbett has made in the week since his last block expired and previous blocks could certainly be justified.)

Regarding the whole "baiting"/"poking the bear" thing: it seems a great assumption of bad faith to think that EEng, MJL, or every other editor (did the editor with ~100 edits that Levivich mentions deliberately poke Corbett?) that Corbett has attacked is deliberately trying to make Corbett violate his remedies. Without any actual evidence of people trying to get him blocked, I see absolutely no justification for not blocking here. If the claim is merely that all the people he was responding to were uncivil (which I don't see anyhow), "they started it first" hasn't been a valid excuse since kindergarten. It would be nice if Eric did recalibrate his approach as Vanamonde93 suggests, but I think a decade after his first civility block, any hope of that is futile. The violations are clear, and so is the remedy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[37]


Discussion concerning Eric Corbett

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Eric Corbett

  • I'm only posting here to clarify that BabbaQ has got hold of completely the wrong end of the stick, and that no blame for "baiting" should be attached to Cassianto. In point of fact, he and I are in complete agreement on the way forward with the Moors murders article. Eric Corbett 13:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Against my better judgement, a couple of people, notably Sandstein, have lied - there is no other word for it - about my threatening to use socks or IP editing if I'm blocked. I have said/threatened no such thing, and unless Wikimedia has it in mind to enforce logging in to read Wikipedia I would have reason to do so. Eric Corbett 16:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WBG

  • Guttersnipe was a response to EEng mocking Eric as Shakespeare.
  • This is not a PA.
  • This is a response to Ian's (originally) saying about how Eric has not mastered the charm school and then, his' bringing a completely different issue out of nowhere to discredit Eric. Even then, I don't deem it to be a PA.
    All the parties have unclean hands; no sanction based on this set of diffs. Or sanction everybody involved.
  • Whilst I am hardly a fan of Sandstein's maneuvers at AE, unpaid goon is (indeed) way much into NPA territory. But, their illustrious history goes back quite many years ....
  • I also recall this flagrant breach of NPA from recent past but don't think Ritchie would have supported a sanction, at all.
    Not certain about supporting a sanction, based on these either.

And, if we are at all going to do this, please indefinitely block Eric; short-term-blocks have not worked and will not work. He will come back, make a bunch of diffused borderline PAs after provocations and we will continue having this theater at AE ..... WBGconverse 06:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Parabolist: - Noting someone to have a robotic and authoritarian style of management is not a personal attack; I might point to snowflakes, if one is unable to absorb such (borderline-legitimate) mild criticism. But, as I noted earlier, unpaid goon is indeed clear-cut breach of NPA. WBGconverse 09:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein: - For now? Don't be a jerk. WBGconverse 15:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Newyorkbrad, well, Sanstein notes above:- But, to make my view even clearer, the enforcement action that I took and might again take in this case .... Any suggestions? WBGconverse 15:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • MJL's diffs are highly concerning -- I'm all in favor of treating textbook-trolls like that in controversial areas but that discussion genuinely looked like a bout of ownership being leveraged to shut down a highly valid question. It's my feeling that Eric is slowly but steadily getting close to the net-negative boundary. WBGconverse 20:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Levivich - If you deem this, this and this as in-civil; I might gently suggest improving your comprehension skills. Taking words out of context and what not. WBGconverse 06:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SN54129

  • As WGB notes, the only problematic comments from Eric were reactive to editors indulging in similar mockery. Either sanction all, or none.
    @Galobtter: incidentally, any reason you're posting in the "Uninvolved admins" section?! ——SerialNumber54129 06:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as goon goes, I think the most common usage in multiple Engvars is, unfortunatey , not so much that of the black and white telly (which has long seen a picture); rather, the beats of Ginbserg

Kennedy stretched and smiled and got double-crossed by lowlife goons and agents
Rich bankers with criminal connections
Dope pushers in CIA working with dope pushers from Cuba working with a
big-time syndicate from Tampa, Florida
And it hadda be said with a big mouth.

It may not have been intended like this, of course, but in terms of how it would likely be received, I think the probability is tendential. But context, people, context. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 11:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@AE admins
How bout a deal? You don't block EC, and my current FAC* tanks. Seems fair: the community keeps a better content writer than me for the sake of a bronze star. That, my friends all, is surely a no-brainer. Please consider this option. ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

* With absolute apologies to those reviewers who have already looked in of course. ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Sandstein: Out of (some) curiosity, you say that were undoing the enforcement action (for now); my emphasise. Does this mean you are considering waiting 17 hours...and then doing it all over again? I'm somewhat wary of that implication. ——SerialNumber54129 14:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dicklyon: See, told you I knew it was accidental :p ;) ——SerialNumber54129 15:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SC

As WGB notes there is only one possible infringement here, but that's up against a lot of poking and baiting to get there. If you want to play power games to get Eric blocked again, you have to look at the standards pushed by others, particularly EEng, who has littered his comments with snark, PAs and baiting which are far more egregious than anyone else's. While that thread isn't Wikipedia's finest hour, it hardly constitues enough of a breach to impose further penalty (unless one was in the hypothetical situation of being so small-minded as to try and scaphunt Eric on the flimsiest of excuses).

I can see EC being blocked again, and it will be on the flimsiest of excuses, but the finger should be pointing at others who have pushed and prodded him constantly for no beneficial reason. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Parabolist, Perhaps you could sign your posts please? (And there is nothing "condescending" about the use of the 'bear' term: who is supposed to be patronised by its use?) - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • WBG, I'm not entirely sure "unpaid goon" is a personal attack. "unpaid" certainly isn't ("paid" certainly would be!), and to me a goon is someone with what the OED calls an "absurd brand of humour", after The Goon Show. When I saw it, my first reaction wasn't that it was an PA, but, of course, I may be wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Mendaliv, then I presume you are an American? I’m not, so my take on certain terms is sure to differ. The cultural differences of language are tricky, and I’d hate to see a block given for a transatlantic misunderstanding. - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaky caldron, well I’m delighted you can mind read and say exactly what was in another editor’s mind. Goons perform goonery (check the OED if you think I’m making it up). Goonery is doing absurd things. You may not like the difference in language, but there you go. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaky caldron, Except that I have said what my take on reading it was. I also said “of course, I may be wrong”, rather than pretend I know what someone else is saying. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the silly little dig: I take it you’ve realised I was giving my opinion, Esther than trying to give something as fact. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Leaky: So much for "This is my sole contribution, take it or leave it": if only it had been sole, or not at all. Please feel free to have yet another "last word", as it seems you like that sort of thing. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, 1 you are too involved. There are enough people saying that right now and very few arguing against it. There are other admins available, so back off and let someone else handle it. 2. "If I had to recuse myself because of being mentioned, all editors could immunize themselves against enforcement actions by pre-emptively insulting or otherwise attempting to incite conflicts with all admins active at AE and all arbitrators": bollocks. That's the weakest attempt I've seen to justify getting involved. That doesn't wash normally and it wouldn't necessarily matter here, but AE sanctions are slightly different, and, in this case, you don't have to do anything, because if you do, it will make any action you take immediately suspect, particularly as several people have already advised you personally not to act. Just step away and leave someone else to deal with it. – SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • BabbaQ, as you haven't read the thread at Moors Murders properly (given you are accusing Cassianto of baiting EC, when they were both in agerement on the point, I'm not sure your judgement adds much weight when backing Sandstein's action ! - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Cassianto

Bear poking if ever I've seen it. CassiantoTalk 07:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Galobtter, can I please reiterate the point made by Serial Number above about you posting your comment in the "uninvolved administrators" section, below? Or is this another case of one rule for one and another others? CassiantoTalk 12:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaky caldron, have you even bothered to look up the definition of "goon"? CassiantoTalk 13:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Bbb23 has confirmed at least that it is one rule for one and another for others re his comment about not wanting to move Galobtter's comment from the "uninvolved" section for the fear of "responses". What are you saying, Bbb23, that you'll be met with incivility by Galobtter? But then, like I say, one rule for one... CassiantoTalk 17:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just pointing out MJL and their very recent harassment of Eric here, which came after this and now suddenly, this. Just another random article, was it MJL? I think it's time this peanut gallery closed. CassiantoTalk 21:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Bishonen, you may've missed it, did you read the "shut the fuck up" comment at 18:01 GMT, issued by EEng, before my "shit edits" response (at 18:40 GMT)? GoldenRing, that's relevant to you to, seeing as you've ignored my comment saying just this on Eric's talk page. Oh, Vanamonde93, you too, it seems - just seen that you've missed this as well. Perhaps that's what Diannaa meant when she praised EEng "calmness". Because that sounds like a calm response, doesn't it. The silence is deafening on this one. CassiantoTalk 17:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Bishonen, my apologies, I had no idea that there was a limit on how much one can alter a question. Anyway, thank you for your subjective view on what is and what is not "hurtful or personal or insulting". Others may disagree with you, of course, which is why all this is such a huge great waste of time. CassiantoTalk 19:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

There really needs to be a formalized exception to this for when he's baited. Most of these are clear cases of baiting. I've no love lost for Eric and think he's his own worst enemy, but this is egregious. I'd even discount the last comment on the grounds that he'd been baited into a frenzy there and elsewhere over the previous 24 hours.

In fact, why isn't there a DS regime on Eric Corbett more generally? He's divisive enough a character, and we've had DS regimes for subjects attracting less on-wiki controversy. Why shouldn't people who try to rub Eric's nose in c-gate in unrelated discussions be subject to discretionary sanctions? Just a thought.

Also, OP should not be commenting as an uninvolved admin, being the filer. The claim that he'd have blocked if not for the directive to have an AE discussion for 24 hours first only reinforces this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Parabolist: I think your point on the Sandstein comment may be right, but I believe that, read in context with the baiting that took place at Talk:Moors murders over the previous day (and perhaps other comments made elsewhere that haven't been listed and which I'm not going to dig for), we can surmise that Eric was still lashing out. If we're going to give him credit for the baiting at Talk:Moors murders, I don't see why that credit shouldn't extend to the Sandstein comment. Yes, Eric should be warned for lashing out, and if he continues without abatement despite such warning, then we can talk about enforcing this provision. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Parabolist: If someone is being provoked by throwaway troll accounts, and they respond by lashing out at an unrelated editor three times, how is that not an issue? It's not a non-issue, but I don't think it merits a block. I think the fact that Eric was provoked should be a factor in mitigation. Sandstein has had absolutely zero involvement with Eric or the Moors murder discussion in the last week, and yet Eric is using disruption at that page as a free pass to take swipes at him. Sandstein practically lead the charge for Eric's last block, so it's not like he's an innocent bystander, or someone that's going to be forced off the project because Eric bullies him. In short we must take context into account. I think another important aspect to look at here is the level of disruption caused by the comment, for if there is no disruption, no sanction should lie, since the sanction would not be preventive. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: To me, "goon" is closely related to "thug", and typically means "hired muscle". Like the guy who works for a debt collector or bookie and breaks debtors' thumbs. Of course an "unpaid goon" is at odds with the idea of a goon as "hired muscle", which I read as the intent of the statement; it means someone who acts like a goon but isn't paid for it, with the implication being someone who gets pleasure out of breaking thumbs and kneecaps. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Yes, I am American. I agree it would be unfortunate to block if Eric didn’t mean “goon” in the sense I understand it. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Leaky caldron and SchroCat: I just checked OED actually. The first three senses of the word “goon” are pretty clear PAs (someone stupid, a mob enforcer, a WWII German POW camp guard), and while the first two are listed as originally American senses, the attestations make it clear that they’re used in those senses in the UK as well. And really, Eric’s use of “unpaid goon” makes it clear that it was in the second sense (maybe third, but not likely); the irony of an enforcer working without pay is certainly the idea. I am appreciative of the fact that we can’t read Eric’s mind, but there’s no sense in pretending we can’t infer intent from the context. If he wishes, Eric may explain what he meant.
But as I’ve already said I’d be prepared to let it go with a warning given the baiting he’d suffered in the previous day. Treating the two occurrences as fully separate strikes me as rather naive. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS: I think you give better context to the Sandstein comment than I have. I think Sandstein does good work, but I also think the monthlong block was excessive. I frankly don't think there was consensus for that specific length at the last AE, and have a great deal of frustration with the lack of factor-based analysis in that case rather than automatically falling back on the equivalent of "We have two options: one month or nothing." But I don't intend to relitigate that past issue. I would tend to view Eric's lashing out at Sandstein in the context of any splanchnic ventilation in close proximity to a sanction, and not throw the book at him.
As RexxS's comment indicates, there are several factors in mitigation should we actually try to look for them. And, as to the perennial comment that "If this weren't Eric we'd have blocked by now," my response is to suggest that means we should reconsider how we treat other editors. We should not advocate "This is how we treat people with no friends, so let's treat everyone that poorly," but instead advocate principled analysis that explicitly weighs matters in aggravation and mitigation when deciding the severity a sanction needs to be adequately preventive. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Sandstein: If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. “May.” Not “must.” Not “shall.” As to the decision about block length, there are two ways of answering this, both of which are fatal to your argument. First, it constitutes an undue invasion of the province of the administrator by commanding particular ongoing actions and prohibiting discretion in their enforcement; admins are not agents of the arbitration committee. Second, if a three-month block is excessive but mandatory if a block is to be issued, then it is an abuse of discretion for you to impose it at all. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
In light of Awilley's revelation below of an inconsistency between the GGTF sanctions regime targeting him and the enforcements provisions in that case and in AE2, an ARCA filing may be required to resolve the inconsistency. These provisions are irresolvable, even in AE2, which expressly "confirm[ed] the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case", which raises the exact same problem. I propose that this AE request either be denied or held in abeyance unless and until an ARCA resolves the inconsistency. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Awilley: Ah, that is smart. I agree with that argument, that the sanction/remedy being confirmed doesn't include the specialized enforcement (which, if the Committee were following the proper formality in the GGTF case, would have been a separate provision in the enforcement section of that case). So at least, for the purposes of this case, there is a discretionary outcome. Though I also agree with Cryptic that it might not make much difference. As to going to ARCA, we'll probably be back here at AE by the end of the year, so perhaps it's best to wait until that time.
@Vanamonde93: I have much the same concern, that there's not a clear way for a sanction that can be imposed by "any uninvolved administrator" could have all but unanimity that no block was appropriate, that last remaining admin could block and it would be within that admin's discretion, at least within the scope of the original GGTF enforcement regime. I'm really not sure what to do about that. The AE2 requirement that Corbett sanctions discussions happen here at AE might be relevant; what happens, for instance, if there's a consensus of uninvolved admins discussing here that say "No action" and a section is hatted? Could an uninvolved admin come back and reverse that closure with no action? I think it would at least merit a trip to ARCA if so. Honestly, I would argue that if any uninvolved admin can impose a block, it follows that any uninvolved admin can "impose" a "non-block", which would have the same strength as an AE-imposed block (i.e., if someone then imposes a block, the lifting of that block might not be wheel warring if sanctions were then imposed on the blocking admin; see WP:ARBAE2#Reinstating a sanction reversed out of process). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Point of clarification: I don't believe the Corbett remedy in GGTF is a "discretionary sanction" in the WP:DS sense (i.e., it doesn't use the phrase "standard discretionary sanctions" anywhere). There is clearly discretion built into it, of course, but there's enough difference between that and standard DS regimes that our understanding of how DS regimes are handled at AE doesn't apply, at least not uncontroversially. My thought on that, however, is that it's a really, really nitpicky distinction that borders on wikilawyering, and even if the intention of the Committee was not to import those concepts of consensus and administrative discretion, we should consider them part of all administrative actions seeing as they're just such core components to the overall Wikipedia system. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@L235: That actually raises an interesting point of Awilley’s: If that portion of the remedy is a case-specific enforcement procedure (i.e., should have been in the enforcement section of GGTF), and the AE2 reaffirmance of the “sanction” in GGTF applied to the “remedy proper” (as Awilley suggests), then AE2 took jurisdiction of Eric’s sanctions, subject to the enforcement regime in AE2. At the very least, the action in the last AE that resulted in a one-month block was consistent with the nonspecific enforcement regime rather than the case-specific GGTF enforcement regime (Sandstein—the blocking admin—applied the nonspecific enforcement regime rather than the GGTF-specific one, and several commentators agreed that was the rule). Why should we revert to the GGTF-specific regime now? If Eric is to be blocked for this under the GGTF-specific rule, we should treat the prior block as though it was the appropriate length under that enforcement rule (72 hours), designate this block as the next appropriate length (72 hours), and deduct the time improperly served under the previous block (1 month - 72 hours). (see below) —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cryptic: Ah, you caught me napping. I missed the distinction between the TBAN and the behavioral prohibition in the previous AE and in the enforcement log. Yes, I agree, 72 hours is the right number for this specific enforcement regime. I have struck my earlier suggestion that the incorrect enforcement regime had been used in the previous AE, and that some kind of corrective math would be appropriate in calculating the current sanction.
I am also mindful of the extensive factors in aggravation pointed out by Levivich and passionately argued by Swarm. Certainly, there are also factors in mitigation, but as Levivich has pointed out, Eric's positive contributions have grown to be fewer in recent time. Whether there's discretion to block for more or less than 72 hours, I'm not as sure; I'm not a fan of the idea that the Committee's assertion of jurisdiction over this dimension of Eric's behavior deprives the administrative community in general of not only discretion to determine the length of sanctions, but whether to sanction independently of the Committee regime. I think, at the very least, both ideas can be considered independently (i.e., blocking under the behavioral prohibition in GGTF, and blocking under WP:NPA generally), sort of like separate causes of action or theories of liability in a single case. Going under NPA, of course, requires slightly heavier lifting in terms of justifying a sanction (since it's not automatically justified by the fact of a Committee remedy). Anyway, those are my thoughts. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Cas Liber

The context is that there have been some frayed tempers over editing at Moors murders for over a month now (oh and some socks causing disruption too). In the past few days, the page has got some admin attention (and thus ceasefire on page edit-warring with a full-protect and me setting up a structured argument/RfC to sort it out conclusively. The general tone has fluctuated and hence no comments are particularly egregious when taken with those that come before and after. This should be sorted out with the RfC. at this point, any ad hominem quotes have suck into the quagmire and been forgotten. Hence any action now would be punitive and not preventative, which is contra our blocking policy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Giano

It would appear that the Big Game hunting season is upon once more. It’s a pity Wikipedia can’t be like the rest of the civilised world and turn its back on such abhorrent practices. At the end of the day, the rhino is left dead and the hunters without glory having found the uses of powdered horn are a myth. No winners anywhere. Giano (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GregJackP

If you block based on this, then Wikipedia is truly lost. There was clear baiting, clear poking of the sleeping beer. How about a novel suggestion--let Eric create content and the instigators leave him the hell alone. GregJackP Boomer! 09:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Parabolist

When it comes to provoking and ~poking the bear~, what exactly does that make Eric's three unprovoked jabs at Sandstein on his talkpage in the last week (including the one filed with this complaint)? Constantly repeating "well they poked a bear!" is a powerful miss of a metaphor, as in this case, perhaps no one should be a goddamn bear in the first place. Parabolist (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: If someone is being provoked by throwaway troll accounts, and they respond by lashing out at an unrelated editor three times, how is that not an issue? Sandstein has had absolutely zero involvement with Eric or the Moors murder discussion in the last week, and yet Eric is using disruption at that page as a free pass to take swipes at him.
@Winged Blades of Godric: If someone were to say similar things about Eric, and Eric lashed out at them, well then we'd all just say they "poked a bear." But it seems only one person is allowed to be a bear. Parabolist (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Leaky

This is my sole contribution, take it or leave it. I am from the UK, not the US. The suggestion that Eric's reference to Sandstein as an "unpaid goon" cannot relate to any humorous connection to the comedy sketch. Given the history between the 2 and in particular past enforcement actions taken by Sandstein against Eric, the reference to goon is clearly in the context of an enforcer. There is no other sensible interpretation. In that context it is an accurate description and as recognised slang, not an obvious PA. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat, I am delighted as well. I am frequently staggered by my omniscience. Do I care you prefer your bizzare Goon show alternative? Not one bit. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat, I can see from your edits here that you are someone who must have it, so here it is. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Cassianto. In reply to your exceptionally crass question. Yes, I have. I will not be accountable to you and I have no desire to extend the discussion about Eric's intention regarding his description of Sandstein, his actions, his meaning; implied, obvious, abstract or otherwise, here or anywhere. You also can have what I gave your friend. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dave

>Eric gets poked
>Eric responds with frustration
>Eric gets dragged here.

Why are we even here?. –Davey2010Talk 11:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to add above but IMHO the goon comment shouldn't of been made ... but other than that I don't see any issues here. –Davey2010Talk 13:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Sandstein if you are planning on closing this in 24hours ... I would suggest you don't, Given no one agrees with your actions thus far you can bet your bottom dollar no one's going to agree with your next close either, Up to you but just a friendly suggestion. –Davey2010Talk 16:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Govindaharihari

  • Sandstein will not be blocking here, his advanced authority in this case is finished. Considering the comments here by admins and user alike, any admin that blocks for three months should expect the same. As User:SlimVirgin's comments I also don't support a block at all. It should be noted also that Sandstein has been restricted from acting here and the reason why, even if that is that he admits that consensus is against his actions and that in future he refrains from taking unilateral actions here at AE. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Toa Nidhiki05

Eric Corbett undoubtably violated his sanction, which he had agreed to follow. That he was poked is not relevant, as he is obliged and advised by his sanction to disengage from these types of situations. Eric is a fully capable human in full agency of his actions - his decision to violate his sanction was his alone. If the Arbitration Committee is not interested in applying the sanctions to Corbett’s violations, they should lift the sanctions. Toa Nidhiki05 12:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment by BabbaQ

Not really involved. But his comments over at Moors murders talk page shows lack of judgment. And a clear violation of the agreement has been made, and a full ban should be done. Why otherwise have clear cut restriction agreements. Why have restrictions if when they are broken, excuses are made for them not to be implemented. I can see that he has been baited by EEng and Cassianto. To be fair to Eric, if EEng and Cassiantos comments over at Moors murders were looked at by an admin both would likely face blocks for abuse. However, no one is responsible for Erics behaviur other than Eric himself, he should have distanced himself immediately, instead he fell back to his old behaviour. Here and and here are just two of the examples as to why his restrictions has been breached, both comment and edit summary are inflammatory.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I sense a lot of animosity towards Sandstein with a lot of the same petty bickering that lead to EricCorbett even being blocked in the first place. It is really sad to see this kind of behaviour escalating all over Wikipedia. Here Toa is right, Sandstein made a correct decision to block Eric. Erix made the decision to violate his sanction, three months are correct.BabbaQ (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • SchroCat, All three involved are as responsible for the inflammatory comments. The block of Eric was correct. That Eric and Cassianto were in an agreement at one stage makes little difference.BabbaQ (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with admin Swarm assessment. On point. BabbaQ (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • GoldenRing has done the right thing in taking action. And his criticism of other parties involved are right on point. BabbaQ (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Bishonen - Though I agree with you that baiting such as the diff you provided are proof that EEng was indeed baited. Diffs like this one, one of many, proves that EEng also have done nothing to step away from the baiting himself. BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

I've been dragged to this place (AE) a few times in the past & learned quickly, how many folks were watching me & waiting to pounce, the moment I made any perceived mistakes. I know what it's like to have a target on one's head. The only thing EC can do, is resist responding to any poking & stay away from potential confrontations & most of all, certain editors. Otherwise? go out with a bang. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Dicklyon on Sandstein's involved close

My comment here is about Sandstein, who made an extensive comment in the section for "uninvolved administrators" below and closed the discussion and blocked Eric Corbett. I complained below, outside the closed discussion, and he hid my complaint, and said to refer to his explanation of why he didn't recuse himself. His close and comment were reverted by Winged Blades of Godric on the technicality of it not being 24 hours yet as required by AE actions, so this is open again.

Sandstein wrote:

I have taken note that one of the edits mentions me, but I am not recusing myself because of this. If I had to recuse myself because of being mentioned, all editors could immunize themselves against enforcement actions by preemptively insulting or otherwise attempting to incite conflicts with all admins active at AE and all arbitrators. This would render the enforcement process ineffective. That cannot be the intent of the Arbitration Committee.

A review of comments above makes it clear that Sandstein is way too deeply involved with Eric Corbett, and his actions there in the past questionable enough in comments on the present case, that this feeble slippery-slope excuse is unacceptable. When involved admins act this way, they further erode the already fragile reputation of admin fairness. Dicklyon (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

And now he has re-added his involved statement below (and my comment on it) where it is prohibited. I did not edit that section and don't want my comment in it. Dicklyon (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
My request
an uninvolved admin should strike or remove Sandstein's comments, and mine, from the section for uninvolved admins below. I have no further interest in this case, except maybe I'll give Sandstein a trout. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Moved up from below, my note outside/after Sandstein's hatting
On the close, not the case: @Sandstein: given that you were among the editors he was making personal attacks on, don't you think it would have been wise to leave the close and blocking to some uninvolved admin? It does say "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators" where you added your big concluding comment. Dicklyon (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I still object

To postings from Sandstein being allowed in the section for uninvolved admins below. Dicklyon (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there a "clerk" or similar available here who can move the extensive comments by Sandstein out of the section below that is reserved for uninvolved administrators? Dicklyon (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by MONGO

Having personally been subjected to heavy handedness by Sandstein, I may be somewhat biased here but based on an obvious acrimonious history between Eric and Sandstein, I believe the community would be better served if Sandstein refrained from enacting any penalties in this matter.--MONGO (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

I really don't care what is happening here. I actually only noticed it because Bishonen commented on Dicklyon's talk page with a link here. I just wanted to note that I recently got into a content dispute with Eric over the sourcing of the Cotswold Olimpick Games in which he called me a clown.[38] Reminder, that was after he had finished treating me like dirt because I question the reliability of the article's main source. If this was any other editor, I'd have posted on their talk page and, assuming they persisted casting aspersions against me and making personal attacks, I'd have filed at AN/I. However, after my AE report against Eric, I pretty much have given up on ever pursuing enforcement actions against this user because I sincerely doubt anything less than an arbcom ban would actually be effective in stopping the main issue. It's pretty pointless for peons like me to even pretend otherwise. –MJLTalk 20:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, the general manner in which discussions about Eric Corbett are handled makes me just want to silently quit Wikipedia. I was right about to go finish my work on Draft:Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi, but I keep asking myself what the point of it all is. I'll pretty much never feel safe on this project and would rather leave than constantly be told there is nothing I can do about it. –MJLTalk 20:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cassianto: Glad to know you care about this perceived harassment enough to make a note of it here, but not enough to actually do anything about it. I always pondered whether this comment and this one were intentionally timed to coincide with AmericanAir88's RFA (which I was a prominent supporter of), but I had the good decency to bite my tongue and WP:AGF for editors who have never done the same for me.
Your accusation comes with no weight unless you prefer to open up an AN/I discussion about it. It's just a baseless personal attack meant to kick me while I'm down. –MJLTalk 22:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Can you please take a look at my statement? –MJLTalk 05:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

In the past year, the number of editors Corbett has been uncivil to is greater than the number of articles he's worked on.

After Corbett was sanctioned, his talk page posts dropped off significantly [39]:
2013: 12,882 edits total; 9,430 in mainspace; 1,826 in user talk; 740 in talk; 630 in Wikipedia; 162 Wikipeda talk
2014: 11,553 total; 8,186 main; 1,868 UT; 412 T; 681 WP; 365 WT
2015: 5,605 total; 4,058 main; 981 UT; 338 T; 114 WP; 55 WT
2016: 1,853 total; 1,608 main; 97 UT; 94 T; 29 WP; 25 WT
2017: 6,952 total; 6,803 main; 32 UT; 52 T; 2 WT
2018: 5,829 total; 5,053 main; 215 UT; 354 T; 78 WP; 55 WT
2019: 352 total; 117 main; 109 UT; 36 T; 86 WP.

Corbett's last 500 edits go back to May 2018. That's when he more or less stopped editing, other than to work on an article by request in January 2019.

In May 2019, he returned.

  • One of his first interactions is typical Corbett:
    An editor with like 100 edits asks why the article Elizabeth Mallet says she was born in 1672 but her husband died 11 years later in 1683. [40]
    Corbett's response: "Your ignorance does you no credit." [41]
    The other editor objects to "a huffy puffy responder". [42]
    Corbett's response: "How about minding your own business and stop trying to get under the skin of other editors?" [43]
    Another editor intervenes: "How about explaining the term instead of behaving insufferably?" [44]
    Corbett's response: "How about you fuck off?" [45]
  • To another editor: This is supposed to be an example of Wikipedia's best work, not an example of how we can't phrase something correctly. [46]
  • To another: Why don't you just fuck off back to whichever stone it is that you live under? [47]
  • To another, after calling an RfA "quite simply ridiculous" [48]: What leads you to believe that I give a rat's arse about my topic ban? [49]
  • To another: I will do as I please regardless of what you or anyone else may say. [50]
  • To another: I don't regard it as any kind of privilege being allowed to edit here, quite the reverse really, so what is there to lose? [51]
  • About WMF's ED: I like Katherine Maher, but only as a decoration, which is undoubtedly what she was hired for. [52]
  • To another editor: ... your attitude is at best inconsistent and at worst downright dishonest; I'm going for dishonest. [53]
  • Opposes an RfA because The candidate shows poor judgement in the timing of this nomination and in her membership of WiR. [54]
  • It'll be a cold day in hell before I ask you for anything Sandstein, much less bow to your authoritarian style of "management" ... do your worst and see exactly how little I care for you or for what Wikipedia has become. [55]
  • At this point, he was blocked for one month by Sandstein. Upon his return...
  • More stuff about Sandstein:
    • So, what difference does the Sandstein robot believe that has he has achieved by his customary heavy-handedness? [56]
    • ... the odious Sandstein ... [57]
    • Heck, I'm sure that Sandstein is already looking for his AE enforcement bludgeon. [58]
    • And herein lies the stupidity of ArbCom and its unpaid goons like Sandstein. [59]
    • I wonder how many others he hovers over like some evil bird of prey? [60]
  • Calls MJL ... some clown ... [61] and says ... he does not take the trouble to read the sources ... [62]
  • About Wikipedian "cult members": I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire. [63]
  • Gravedancing at Ritchie's talk page maybe you'll reflect on this episode the next you feel like slagging me off. [64] and Gravedancers like Ritchie333 ought to expect to have their graves danced on. [65] and more on his own talk page [66]
  • Calling EEng an incompetent gutter-snipe [67] and a bull in a fucking china shop [68] and said Your reading skills as are almost as bad as your writing skills, but both are admittedly better than your comprehension skills; this is the only thing I have to say to you. [69] and EEng ought not to be allowed within a country mile of any FA/GA. [70]
  • To yet another editor: I expect you think you're being clever, but you're a long way off with your stupid comments. [71]
  • About an admin page protecting Moors murders: This is beyond stupid. [72]
  • And Corbett recently writes: In real life I'm about as charming a person as you're ever likely to meet, with one exception; I have absolutely no time at all for idiots. [73]
  • The stuff about the 3 months AE remedy is a sideshow. Any admin can block for incivility, and there's no reason to treat this editor differently than any other. There has been plenty of incivility in the one week since his last one month block expired. That wasn't long enough to be preventative, so an escalation is in order. Somebody please block this editor for two months and let's get back to building an encyclopedia. Levivich 21:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I think you're mistaken about that being the point where it all kicked off. Before the diff/quote you posted, Cassianto referred to EEng's 150-edits-over-two-weeks as a "bloodbath" and repeatedly advocated rolling them all back and having EEng do them again "more slowly". If I had my way I'd lock all FAs up and anyone wishing to change them would have to request it on the talk page. and The English language has not changed that much over the last 10 years and with Eric and Tom as the authors, I doubt that any of the problems you saw, even existed in the first place. were whoppers. The notion that an article is perfect and should not be changed without permission? Or while the FA nom is blocked? After two weeks of silence? That would drive me crazy; wouldn't you feel the same way? The diff in which EEng "snaps" came after 5,000 words had been written in that thread, and yet only like two actual edits were put forward as problematic. Talk about poking a bear! Levivich 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


@SN: Because nothing is universally accepted. What a strange standard that would be to apply to anything. Levivich 16:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

@Vanamonde93: In arbitration case 2015-10, "Arbitration enforcement", the arbitration committee stated in a principle that ...when a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. Thus if there is a discussion amongst a significant number of administrators who reach a consensus not to enact a sanction, an adminstrator cannot impose a sanction without violating the consensus policy. I agree, though, that the motivation for the amendment in 2015-15, "Arbitration enforcement 2", was to delay administrators from taking precipitous action, which exacerbated the situation underlying the case. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree

Regarding I can do everything I want to do without ever logging in again, which some above seem to think is a threat to sock as an IP, it is quite clear that this is not what he meant. Eric simply doesn’t feel he needs to edit Wikipedia again if he is blocked. He contributes to FA reviews but has virtually retired from writing articles. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by IHTS

Admin Swarm wrote: "There was no trolling or personal attacks which provoked Eric's own personal attacks"; however, "So tell us, Shakespeare, [...]" was clearly crafted as a personal insult [74]. --IHTS (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Have been reading some by participants here & elsewhere (as much as can be stomached anyway), and really, there is so much unadulterated *hate* & white-bot antipathy & animosity, reminiscent of a RL venue. I therefore declare that CDS (Corbett Derangement Syndrome) exists, and explains much. No wonder he is indifferent to decisions here. What a place! --IHTS (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nil Einne

I don't generally participate in AE or EC related stuff, so sorry if I'm doing this wrong but I have to agree with others that provocation/baiting/whatever you want to call it should not be much of an excuse to lash out at unrelated editors. While I don't know how to deal with harassment by socks/trolls nor editor's who rile each other up, I'm quite sure the solution is not to excuse the misbehaviour of someone so affected against yet other editor's. Even so much as such provocation may be considered, it should also be limited in the level of misbehaviour accepted and the frequency. In other words, if someone keeps lashing out at others just because someone else 'provoked' them and in an extreme way, we ultimately have to say 'sorry but if you can't control that reaction you're not welcome here'. I have only had a cursory glance at the evidence so make no comment on whether we're here now, I was simply concerned about an IMO extremely harmful suggestion. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This is perhaps somewhat OT, but it's a point others made and there's no other place to put it. Anyway I agree that the discussion at Moors murders is depressing. It wasn't too bad at first, some IMO unnecessary sniping but then someone actually highlighted one of the edits and there was discussion over it. But then that ended and there was no discussion over any of the actual edits. I appreciate that reviewing 150 edits takes time, but it seems to me reviewing 10 is not so bad. So it would have been reasonable to review the first 10 or a random 10. If problems were found with these edits, and these were politely pointed out, this would surely be a much more conducive way to convince hopefully User:EEng and if not, others that there were problems and maybe wholesale reversion was justified. If these problems weren't found especially with a random 10, then there is a reasonable chance that the problems with the edits were few. If someone really wants to they could review all the edits. Alternatively they could let it be. I doubt there was zero problems with the edits, but at the same time neither the FA process nor any editor is perfect, so it's doubtful that there were no problems before. And of course there are always going to be editors who understand things differently. In any case none of this happened and instead all we got was persistent sniping at each other. While to some extent there wasn't much EEng could do, at the same timing, I don't think they needed to respond how they did. Nil Einne (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Haukurth

  • I endorse GoldenRing's 72 hour block of Eric. As for EEng, I tried blocking him recently and it didn't take.[75] I just want to add that I am sorry if my poorly prepared block has made things less clear. EEng regularly makes egregious personal attacks and seems to get away with it because of his gift for comedy. To add a recent diff to the mix, here he is accusing another editor of "ignorance and lack of sophistication" and threatening him with "one of my patented beat-downs".[76] Threatening people with "beat-downs" is not remotely okay and I would have blocked him for it right then and there if I hadn't been fresh off botching a block. I'm a rusty old legacy admin so take this with all due pinches of salt. But it seems to me that Eric and EEng have a lot in common – they're talented writers who, at their best, make Wikipedia a better and more colorful place. And I'm happy to cut productive contributors some slack – but not to give carte blanche for any sort of insult they care to fling. Haukur (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @EEng: The ANI thread is about my botched block and contains no 'unanimous' finding endorsing your "pha66otte" comment, a comment which I still believe is a breach of policy. I wish you would refrain from using your considerable wit and writing skills on such base things. But you provided the link so anyone can read this and decide for themselves. Haukur (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Anne drew Andrew and Drew: I regret that by mentioning EEng's "beat-down" comment, I seem to have induced him into a fresh round of civility breaches against you. Haukur (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EEng

  • Haukurth, you blocked me for a "PA" which was unanimously determined at ANI not to be a PA [77]. Then Anne Drew – who not much earlier had to be scolded repeatedly by multiple editors (sample comments: "This is beginning to get annoying"; "behaviour is verging on POINTy"; "Drop the stick and get a grip") [78] before he would stop flashing his Junior Enforcer's badge in the FRAMBAN discussion – inserted himself by insisting, repeatedly, that I'd made a PA after all. The next day he was still repeating that, and here's the full text of what I finally said [79] (which you selectively quote above):
But it wasn't a personal attack, as the universal opinion at ANI confirms; that you can't see that speaks to your ignorance and lack of sophistication. I and others have been cutting you some slack because you appear to be a young person inexperienced in the ways of the world, but if you keep this up you're gonna get one of my patented beat-downs reserved for the stubbornly impenetrable, and I don't think Haukurth wants that here on his talk page. So smarten up: listen more and mouth off less. EEng 19:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I stand by that advice (well, I guess I could have left out "ignorance and lack of sophistication" and it would still have done the job) and I'm glad to say that since then Anne Drew seems indeed to be listening more and mouthing off less.
I appreciate the kind words at the end of your post but I would appreciate your not comparing me to E.C; it's true we both write well (ahem) and enjoy doing it, but beyond that he and I are nothing alike. Nothing. EEng 14:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Haukurth: That you're still calling my post "a breach of policy" when every comment was some variation on Bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... bad block... suggests you should stop making such evaluations until you've have a chance to send your policy-breach detector in for recalibration.
As for the waste of my considerable wit and writing skills on such base things (and again I appreciate your kind words) see Lenny Bruce and/or George Carlin (not that I'm comparing myself to Lenny Bruce or George Carlin, to be sure, except for the baseness of course). EEng 16:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • To no one in particular: since my infamous "shut the fuck up" rant from the article's talk page has been quoted on this page, but in a way that lacks context, I'll give it more in full here (full thread at [80]); it really tells pretty much the whole story:
In the past 3 days there have been an incredible 110 posts to this thread, totaling 40K of text, all to discuss the abstract existence (but not the substance) of my 150 edits to an article which itself consists, in total, of a mere 65K. Most of these edits are no more complex than
[before-and-after of seven edits omitted]
There, that's seven of them – 5% of the total – right there. They can be reviewed in 15 seconds each, and if you think "officers were drafted to search" is better than just plain "officers searched", or that readers will benefit by knowing about the dog's teeth and kidney complaint, or about how many days past his birthday Keith Bennett was when he was killed, go right ahead and change those things; I'm not married to anything. But in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and apostles, at long last you bunch of old ladies stop pearl-clutching and hand-wringing (you gotta love the imagery there) and either look at the edits or shut the fuck up now. I've spent far more time in therapy with you lot responding to your hypothetical anxieties than I did making the changes themselves. Really, it's unbelievable.
EEng 22:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin: You say errors were introduced. I call bullshit on that. Here [81] are my 153 edits from July 2 to July 10. Please give diffs showing where errors (plural) were introduced. Since you made that statement from, of course, your own examination of the edits, and not just because you believe some vague hand-waving by Cassianto, E.C., and the rest of that gang, you'll have no trouble doing that. EEng 02:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile, here's some news that may interest folks here. I got off my ass today and moseyed on down to the library to get the sources. And guess what? This article's a complete fraud. In just a single section of seven paragraphs, I found 22 distinct verification failures -- statements of fact that are either not in the source cited, or contradict the source cited. Check them out here: [82]. And before you bother looking, almost all of it was there, with the same sources, on the day the article passed FA eleven years ago. Eleven years it's been this way.
    So much for coddling and indulging our difficult-but-brilliant "content creators". I can't wait to hear how this is going to be excused and explained away. Alien abduction, perhaps? I'll check out a few more sections tomorrow. Wikipedia's finest work, my ass. What a travesty. EEng 07:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

There should be a ban on third-party reports (and comments too if we're being honest) here. If the supposed target of the attack either thinks it not important enough to report here or is mindful enough of their own role in the dispute that they would rather not invite further scrutiny it should not be brought here. This ohhhhh I saw him say something mean shit is childish. nableezy - 17:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Eric Corbett

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

(comments moved up)

  • Galobtter, seriously, you shouldn't post in the Uninvolved admins section when you're the filer. Please put any and all comments in the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section. Bishonen | talk 12:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC).
  • I concur. This is confusing. Galobtter already has a section in which to place additional comments: the opening section. El_C 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've yet to look at the context for the diffs listed, but the persistent gravedancing on Ritchie333's talk page were unbecoming and lacked compassion. El_C 13:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein: you went with a maximalist interpretation of consensus last time — as one uninvolved admin who participated, I was prepared to block for a few days, for example. Taking into account that you've gone with a multiplier of the last block and the fact that you closed this request so swiftly, it's probably best that someone else closes this request. I, myself, tend to consider a 3 month block to be excessive for these violations — which admittedly, I've yet to look closely into, just to be clear. Again, I'm not greatly familiar with the user, to be perfectly upfront. El_C 15:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @El C: I agree that on their own, these edits would merit nowhere close to three months of a block. But this is not a matter of discretionary sanctions, and we have no discretion as regards the length of the block we are to apply. The remedy mandates an escalation from one month to three (and then to ArbCom), as discussed below. I also do not intend to recuse myself from this case or other matters regarding Eric Corbett. As far as I can tell, any supposed involvement of me with him stems from the fact that I have taken enforcement actions against him, and that he has criticized these actions (as is entirely usual in such cases). As WP:INVOLVED makes clear, an admin who interacts with a user only in an administrative capacity, as I have with Eric Corbett, is not considered involved as a result of these interactions. But, to make my view even clearer, the enforcement action that I took and might again take in this case is not based on the diff in which I am mentioned, but on the other diffs. Sandstein 15:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein: The point is that there hasn't been any blocks in four years, so maybe it would have made sense to block for a few days and seek clarification at ARCA during that time. The block could always be further increased. But you went with the letter of the law (one month), which I'm saying, in context, was a mistake and outside AE consensus. El_C 15:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: Regarding your suggestion of a topic ban for Sandstein at WP:AN — I'm afraid I don't see the connection. El_C 04:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @El C: My wording ("An alternative might be...") was not an active suggestion—I was trying to lay out the possibilities. If there were a consensus of uninvolved admins and if the possible WP:ARCA request I mentioned gave an unclear result, and if an admin overrode the possible consensus, about the only remedy I can think of might result from WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: Sorry, that's still unclear. Why would Sandstein be topic banned and what would he be topic banned about? El_C 07:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @El C: This is hypothetical and I don't see a reason to examine the issue in detail now. However, given the string of if's that I mentioned (in particular, an unclear ARCA response), it might be reasonable to seek other views. I agree that an AN request would be highly unusual and might not do anything other than generate more noise. My main problem with the hypothetical result would be that Arbcom provided for 24 hours discussion which an admin might choose to ignore—if Arbcom cannot rationalize that, AN might. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I find that Mendaliv sums up the situation well. The first three diffs are responses to equally problematic behaviour. We either accept a certain amount of rough-and-tumble when editors disagree strongly over an issue, or we ensure that the instigators of breaches carry the bulk of the opprobrium for those breaches. How many times do I have to draw attention to User:Geogre/Comic to make the point?
    The fourth diff was not directly provoked, but I understand Eric's antipathy toward admins because of his poor treatment by some of them over the years. Eric had not long returned from a month-long AE block by Sandstein where Sandstein had unilaterally removed Eric's talk page access as a further undiscussed (and unlogged) sanction, so I'm not surprised that Sandstein was the target when Eric lashed out against some of the the iniquities that arise from Arbitration Enforcement and those who enforce them. That's not to say I condone it, but I feel we are well past the point where we need to be looking for other means for avoiding Eric being drawn into conflict. It's been quite clear for years that blocks are not a useful tool in these circumstances because they plainly have not changed Eric one iota, beyond embittering him with his tormentors.
    Between October 2015 and July 2019, Eric was not blocked for any reason. During those four years, he made over 15,000 edits – the overwhelming majority of which were to mainspace – despite carrying sanctions. It is only the recent flare-up last month and its fall-out that has brought him back here, and we ought to be taking actions that restore the situation of the prior four years, not further inflamimg the problem. I'm strongly opposed to blocking in this instance and suggest instead much more dialogue with Eric to see how we can better make use of his undisputed skills and avoid further unpleasantries. --RexxS (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The request has merit. The edits at issue violate the ArbCom decision that is to be enforced.
    I have taken note that one of the edits mentions me, but I am not recusing myself because of this. If I had to recuse myself because of being mentioned, all editors could immunize themselves against enforcement actions by preemptively insulting or otherwise attempting to incite conflicts with all admins active at AE and all arbitrators. This would render the enforcement process ineffective. That cannot be the intent of the Arbitration Committee.
    In enforcement of the decision, Eric Corbett must be blocked. The decision requires that the duration of this block be set to three months, because the previous block (for a topic ban violation in enforcement of the same decision) was of one month in duration. I am interpreting the remedy such that its escalation pattern includes any blocks in application of the topic ban provided for in the same decision. Even if that were not the case, there was another one-month block in enforcement of the civility restriction by Keilana. That this block was cut short does not mean that it must not be taken into account for the purposes of the mandatory escalation pattern set forth in the decision.
    The decision also instructs: "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block." I am exercising this discretion because I had to remove talk page access from Eric Corbett the last time around as well, after he continued to violate the topic ban after being blocked.
    I note that Eric Corbett has declined to respond here, but has implicitly threatened evading sanctions through sock accounts or IPs. This, too, indicates that a block is required.
    Because the conduct of other parties is not covered by the decision to be enforced here, it cannot be examined here. If needed, other venues can be used for this. Sandstein 13:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    I have explained in the closing statement above why I did not recuse myself from acting on the enforcement request. In addition, the remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Eric Corbett prohibited instructs: "Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard." Accordingly, any discussion about this case elsewhere is inappropriate, and I do not intend to comment further about it outside of an appeal by Eric Corbett at WP:AE. For the same reasons, I am hatting your comment and my response to it. Sandstein 14:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    I am re-opening this thread and undoing the enforcement action (for now) because I was made aware that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Enforcement_of_Eric_Corbett's_sanctions_(alternative) instructs a minimum discussion time of 24 hours. It is regrettable that this is not mentioned in the original decision. My view remains otherwise unchanged. Sandstein 14:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Sandstein: You are far too involved with this request to even consider taking enforcement action. Your earlier block was the proximate cause of Eric's comment, and that comment was unambiguously critical of you. You are not sufficiently distanced from this request. If sufficient other admins agree with your opinion, there are plenty of them who are clearly uninvolved and available to close this request. Your attempt to impose your own close is unbecoming an admin and leads to the community losing faith in this mechanism of dispute resolution. --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced that a block is warranted on this record. The action suggested by Sandstein is blatantly excessive and certainly should not be taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I believe that while Sandstein may not be formally "involved" in the policy sense, it will be damaging if he is the administrator who closes this discussion, particularly if he does so in a way that no other admin endorses. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @Newyorkbrad: Thanks for this feedback; you do have a point with it. As regards the "excessive" length, what is your view as to the discretion admins have about the block length? It seems to me that the remedy removes such discretion by specifying the exact length of the blocks that are to be applied. Sandstein 15:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
        • @Sandstein: Although sanctions usually involve a formula such as "up to a month", which are designed to allow Adminstrator discretion, in this case the process is outlined clearly in the Arbitration Case:

          The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

          There is no need for discretion on the length of the block in this case, but discretion is called for in determining whether a block is the most appropriate sanction in this case. If it is, we are all now aware of the steps that the enforcing admin must follow, and have no further excuse for disregarding them. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Eric should be blocked for three months per the remedy or not at all. I see no discretion to impose a block of a different duration. Also, per the remedy, ArbCom must be notified if a 3-month block is imposed. Sandstein should not be the blocking admin. I agree with that part of NYB's comments. Galobtter should not have posted in this section, but I am reluctant to move their comments because of the responses. They also appear to be wrong about the remedy (Eric's block log is not easy to follow). Although it has nothing to do with the issue of belittling other editors, I also do not like Eric's statement about editing with IPs (I see nothing to imply that he would created named accounts). Eric can be sly, though, and it wouldn't surprise me if he were stating a "fact" as opposed to making a threat. Finally, in my view, "unpaid goons" is an insult, no matter what "goon" might mean in some context in England. Eric knows more than most of us about language, but I think we should take such a statement at face value, not some extended play on words. In case it's not clear, I have not argued that Eric should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: I don't understand what it means that you're unwilling to move Galobtter's post from this section "because of the responses". The only responses directly to Galobtter have been requests for him to move his comment. That said, I think it would be better if he moved it himself. Perhaps my ping above[83] didn't work, as he has neither complied nor replied; I'll ask him on his page. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC).
  • The mandatory escalating block lengths specified at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Eric_Corbett_prohibited are for the case of a single uninvolved administrator enforcing violations of the sanction. One of their intended functions (IMO) was to prevent random admins from doing stupid things like blowing up the 'pedia by indeffing Eric for a minor infraction.
    The single-admin enforcement approach was abandoned and replaced with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Enforcement_of_Eric_Corbett's_sanctions_(alternative) and the mandatory escalating block lengths were superseded by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Enforcement_of_restrictions which clearly states that

    Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. (emphasis added)

    "Any user" obviously includes Eric Corbett and nowhere in the amendment page does it mention a specific schedule of mandatory escalating block lengths. So no, we are not facing a binary choice here of either "3 months" or "no block". We still have discretion.
    If somebody wants to go back to the (IMO silly) system of mandatory scheduled block lengths they can file a request at ARCA. But until then we can use the discretion we're clearly allowed by the amendment, following the principle that unless Arbcom explicitly limits administrator discretion, administrators have discretion. ~Awilley (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hehe, a model of clarity. Now I know why I stay away from AE, and the one time I break my "rule" it involves Eric to boot. Stupid, stupid ...--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mendaliv: I don't think it's that ambiguous. Read it carefully. Sanctions are different from Enforcement. The sanction (EC prohibited from shouting, swearing, belittling) is confirmed, but the enforcement procedure is changed (requiring 24 hrs at AE). Nowhere on that page does it say anything about continuing a special schedule of block lengths, whether the clock should be reset to zero, or whether the next block should be 3 months. It does give the standard enforcement provision which I quoted above. I think an ARCA at this moment is a bad idea. We don't need more drama: an amendment request charged by Eric being on the line for a 3-month block. We can resolve this here using the current wording of AE2. ~Awilley (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced AE2#Enforcement really lets us impose a block shorter than three months; it's boilerplate, included in every full arbcom decision, and this decision explicitly confirms the previous remedy (adding only that complaints must be brought here and must be left open 24 hours). The question of amending the sanction to allow discretion in block length was raised on the proposed decision page, and no such amendment passed.
    That said, three months for this set of diffs would be perverse. I can't support it. —Cryptic 18:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • On another reading of the remedies and enforcement log, Galobtter got it right from the start and Mendaliv in his comment of 22:34, 11 August - most of the previously-logged blocks were for the GGTF topic ban (for which the standard enforcement provision applies), with only one previous for the civility sanction (where the block length is dictated by the sanction). The right length is 72 hours. That's much less obscenely out of proportion to the initial set of diffs. —Cryptic 02:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I endorse the comments above by Newyorkbrad and RexxS. This is the time for de-escalation not another prolonged shitstorm. Accordingly, I oppose a three month block and I strongly suggest to Sandstein that he let other administrators deal with Eric and his eccentricities. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose a block and ask that Sandstein allow other admins to deal with this. The goading at Talk:Moors murders is clear. This is an important featured article that Eric has put a lot of work into, which must be taken into account. I follow RexxS in pointing to User:Geogre/Comic. SarahSV (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am thoroughly unimpressed by the behavior of several of the editors at Talk:Moors_murders, and for that reason, though I think Eric's comments are obviously blockable, they shouldn't be met with a block in this instance. That said; I'm beginning to lose patience with the "he was goaded" defense. Editors who do content work in difficult areas are goaded on a daily basis (and so are admins, but well, we signed up for it). Most do not fly off the handle in response. For someone in whose defense "you need to have a thicker skin" is frequently used, Eric really needs to recalibrate his approach, and be baited less easily.
    Unfortunately, though I and several others are recommending against a block here, it doesn't really matter very much. The rules of AE are such that even if all 1147 other admins recommend against a block, the last admin remaining would still be allowed by policy to implement a 3-month block. All we have is persuasion, so with that in mind: Sandstein, I think that a fair bit of what has been said at ANI and further above is quite wrong; by the letter of the law, you are not WP:INVOLVED here, and you are quite correct in saying that being the target of abuse from user X does not make an admin INVOLVED with respect to user X. That said, the purpose of AE is to return a topic to a situation where productive editing can resume. If you close this with a block, that purpose is not going to be achieved, because it will begin another shitstorm, even though your actions may be allowed by policy. That isn't particularly fair to you, but it's how things are. You've made your opinions clear; you should let another admin close this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)@Mendaliv: Yes, any admin could probably close this as "no action taken", and a reversal of such a closure would be inappropriate; but admins aren't constrained by AE in their ability to implement discretionary sanctions, either; an admin could implement a block in total ignorance of this discussion. There is actually a very good reason for the rules being as they are (or at least one); it's so that bad behavior doesn't go unsanctioned because the admins are unable to come to a consensus. However, that relies on the admins here displaying good judgement. If at all a case were brought to ARBCOM (or ARCA), it would have to demonstrate either that a specific admin was displaying bad judgement (ie a standard desysop case) or that the rules as written were leading to bad outcomes. A case arguing that "Admin X shouldn't be allowed to act at AE because they ignore consensus" isn't going to fly, because discretionary sanctions are, well, discretionary, and consensus isn't required to enforce them. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    (ec) @Vanamonde93: Thank you for this feedback. I strongly disagree with you in one point: AE's purpose is clearly not "to return a topic to a situation where productive editing can resume". That is the job of the elected members of ArbCom, whose decisions are supposed to bring this about. The purpose of AE (outside of discretionary sanctions) is to enforce these decisions, not to second-guess them or to exercise discretion. In this case, my reading of the sanction is that it mandates a three-month block, whatever we might think of the value of this in these circumstances. Unlike you, I see also much in this entire episode that probably needs clarification at ARCA, but this should probably wait until after a decision has been made here. For the moment, I'll take into consideration the views of other admins above, and wait to see what others propose to do. But I believe that not to take action here, in the face of flagrant, severe and repeated incivility, and a clear ArbCom mandate for action, would be to signal to the community and to the WMF that, even after the WP:FRAM debacle, that the community cannot effectively address endemic harassment and incivility by established editors. I strongly criticized the WMF for bypassing community dispute resolution mechanisms in the Fram case, but I'm not sure I could criticize them again if we do nothing here. Sandstein 19:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Sandstein: Our mandate here is absolutely to exercise discretion. That's why they are discretionary sanctions, not automatic sanctions. If you want to clarify that at ARCA, feel free; I would be very interested in the outcome; but as long as the policy allows us discretion, I will use it. I agree that Eric's comments were beyond the pale, but what we have here is a multi-way conversation that degenerated into a total mess, in which Eric was not the only one to blame; and I don't want to sanction him and not the others simply because his actions are restricted by an ARBCOM decision and the others' are not. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93 and Awilley: I believe that what we have here is a misunderstanding. What we are applying here are not discretionary sanctions, which do give admins discretion to act in certain topic areas. We are instead directly applying a single remedy that pertains only to a single editor. Therefore, there is no discretion, and any consideration of the context of the conduct at issue would be an usurpation of authority from ArbCom. If you look at WP:AC/DS, you'll see that "Eric Corbett" is not among the topics for which discretionary sanctions are authorized. Sandstein 19:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    User:Sandstein you are of course correct that the rules of Discretionary Sanctions don't apply here. I still stand by my point that by requiring a 24-hour discussion at AE, Arbcom intended for the consensus of that discussion to determine whether or not a block is applied. ~Awilley (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    Re: "Unfortunately, though I and several others are recommending against a block here, it doesn't really matter very much. The rules of AE are such that even if all 1147 other admins recommend against a block, the last admin remaining would still be allowed by policy to implement a 3-month block." I disagree. Arbcom mandating a 24-hr discussion at AE makes it clear that they want the outcome to be determined by a consensus of administrators at AE, and not by the first admin who sees fit to pull the trigger on a block. ~Awilley (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about that at all; if consensus were mandated, they would have said so. IIRC that provision was to prevent precipitate admin actions; not necessarily to require admin consensus, which would be unprecedented for discretionary sanctions. I agree that it would be terrible judgement for admin 1148 to act as I outlined above; but the problem there would be bad judgement, not violating policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    Replying partially to this, partially to your comment higher up that "consensus isn't required" to enforce DS. One of the defining features of Discretionary Sanctions is that they can be overridden by consensus. See WP:AC/DS#Modifications_by_administrators A consensus of administrators here trumps that single admin acting on their own. ~Awilley (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    True; but I think that in many important situations "consensus against sanctioning" may not equate to "consensus to overturn implemented sanction", and a sanctioned user would have to appeal for the unilateral sanction to be overturned; which of course many can't be bothered to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    Right, but an admin initiating a block against the feedback of most colleagues should obviously tread lightly, and ideally should reevaluate their position if strong consensus is opposed, since they're probably missing something... Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a website where IAR is policy. Arbcom would not mandate 24 hours of discussion if that discussion could be ignored because rules must be followed. Sandstein's eagerness to impose his view is not productive although I suppose another clarification request will be required to spell that out. An alternative might be to seek a topic ban for Sandstein at WP:AN—hmm, a two-way interaction ban might solve two problems. My view is that there should be no sanction because of the mindless provocations. That would send a message to future bear-pokers that their efforts would be better used elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am nothing short of disgusted by the apologetics above and would endorse a block. Mind you, I respect Eric, and read the entire discussion in search of anything that would justify his responses, just from a "we're all human" perspective. But the thread is nothing short of frightening: a user makes good faith changes to an article, and is aggressively shut down for not any specific reasons or objections, but instead for merely editing an FA, to which WP:BOLD still applies, and, per the second comment, because it is "largely Eric Corbett's article". That is a seriously frightening overtone for the subsequent discussion, and was shamefully set by an admin whom I would have expected better from. There was no trolling or personal attacks which provoked Eric's own personal attacks, merely Eeng begging for anyone to cite specific objections to his edits, over and over again. The personal attacks were unacceptable, generally or in the context of the Arbitration remedy. The violations are clear-cut, and the excuse-making is problematic. Not only that, but EC has been personally attacking Sandstein on his talk page repeatedly since the previous block, which was in response to objective violations and supported by a strong consensus at AE. One or two venting comments are forgivable, for sure, but Eric's been attacking the blocking admin over and over again, for over a month now. If you get blocked for an AE sanction, you don't get to bully the blocking admin! Fuck! Especially if you're already under an Arbitration sanction against personal attacks, right down to "belittling". It's astonishing to me that admins are still defending this fucking bullshit, after all these years. If this request gets buried by Eric's apologists, I'd go so far as to favor a new case. Note that Newyorkbrad offered Eric a voluntary resolution the last time, which he expressly rejected, and only then was he blocked. But here Newyorkbrad is again, ignoring all that, arguing for a free pass. Bullshit. This is a clear cavalcade of violations, which deserves the short block as proposed. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • To clarify, bold edits are encouraged as a matter of policy. Obstructing bold edits without citing a specific rationale is disruptive editing. "Specific" means "policy-based". Arguing that "this is X's article, and X needs to have a say" is a policy violation, not a reason to personally attack the editor making the edits. FA's require "stability". But "stability" does not mean "absence of editing". "I don't like your edits", or "this is X's article, don't change it" is not a legitimate content dispute. Illegitimate stonewalling is not what's intended by "FA stability". "Stabilizing" FAs is an old school concept that has been rejected by the community in favor of Pending Changes, which only "stabilizes" articles against obvious vandalism or disruptive editing. There is no remotely-legitimate reasoning to stonewall good faith copyediting for the sake of "stability". ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I will further note that there is no "catch 22" in which an admin is considered "involved" because an editor personally attacked them. Sandstein jumped on a 3 month block, in violation of a 24 hour hold that he was not aware of. If that's poor optics that should warrant his recusal from further actioning this request, then fine. But it should absolutely not invalidate or distract from the obvious merits of the complaint itself. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it has invalidated it (indeed, Eric has still been blocked). However, Sandstein would have been aware of the 24 hour hold if he'd actually read the damn discussion because it was mentioned twice, including once right at the top of this section. Not only that, but in the very first line of this section the filing admin points out that the next block should be 72 hours. He clearly didn't read that either. It is unsurprising therefore that it gave the impression of "just jumping in and blocking Eric". I never comment on any EC-related cases any more, and haven't for while, because I've previously been accused of being "pro-Eric". I don't see why the same shouldn't apply in reverse. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've thought about this some more, and looked through not just the talk page history, but the edits and the edit summaries on the article. EEng was being unnecessarily snippy on the talk page, but with considerably more justification than I had previously thought; and Eric's "guttersnipe" comment was a wildly disproportionate response to anything that went before. I'm still not wholeheartedly in support of a block, especially because Casliber is attempting to deescalate on the talk page, but I'm no longer going to argue against a short block, of the sort that several folks have discussed since my previous comments here. @Cullen328, Newyorkbrad, and SlimVirgin: It's quite possible you have done so already, but if you haven't, might I suggest reading the edit history along with the talk page conversation? I found it instructive. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: Yes, I do; as I mentioned I read through the entire thing multiple times. I've already gone on record saying EEng's conduct was not ideal; but since we're mentioning extenuating circumstances, do you realize that the "Shakespeare" comment cam after Eric had agreed with Cassianto's comment ("Your edits are shit, all of them")? And what's more (this is what changed between my first response here, and my second, several hours later) those comments about EEng's edits came without any substantive engagement with the specifics of the changes he made. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That's fine; I was just checking, as I didn't really think it was "wildly disproportionate", more an annoyed response to a bit of snark (FWIW, I think the "goons" comment was more of an issue). Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm reasonably certain Eric is due a block based on the evidence provided, but not enough to feel particularly strongly about it (as if he's not blocked here, he will be eventually; it's a matter of when not if, given his inability to rein in his temper). What I am certain of, however, is that Sandstein should not be making any kind of call on this, he is capital-I Involved. Fish+Karate 08:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I've blocked Eric Corbett for 72 hours which, as far as I can make out, is the block the remedy actually mandates at this point. I'm not going to close this section as it seems clear that people will have a thing or two to say about it and this is as good a place as any. I'd like to be clear that EEng's conduct on that talk page has also been a long way short of what we should expect of editors. If I'd come across this two days ago, as it was happening, I'd have imposed a shortish block to prevent incivility. At this point, I don't see that as preventive. I know blocking Eric is not immediately preventive either, but when your misconduct reaches the point that you have specific arbitration remedies written against you, them's the breaks.
    Sandstein I join others here in at least questioning whether you are able to act neutrally in regard to Eric Corbett. Jumping in with what you thought was the mandated sanction when actually you hadn't respected the minimum waiting time, which had been pointed out, and you got the mandated sanction wrong by an order of magnitude, is a sign that you are not. You might well stand on the letter of INVOLVED; we still expect administrators to have enough self-awareness to recognise when they are not able to act impartially and you certainly give the impression here of having reached that point. GoldenRing (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • If we are going to censure EEng's conduct on that talk page, which as I said before isn't beyond reproach, I think it's important to note that Cassianto isn't exactly covering himself in glory, either. "Your edits are shit, all of them" is well outside the expected realm of behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with GoldenRing's 72-hour block of Eric. I'll add that, having just read through the talkpage at Moors murders (a depressing experience altogether), I don't share GoldenRing's criticism of EEng. Diannaa, who was pinged to the page a month ago to provide expertise about potential copyvios, said she admired "EEng's calmness at the suggestion that his work might all have been in vain",[84] and I agree with her. Since that time, EEng's calm has worn thinner, but he suggested many times, civilly, that people simply revert any of his changes they didn't like, before he started suggesting it less civilly. He has been the target of some egregious nastiness, as Vanamonde points out.[85] I definitely would not single out EEng as behaving badly on that page. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  • If you're done altering your question, User:Cassianto, I'll answer it. Diannaa praised EEng's calmness a month ago, on July 12, as I already pointed out in my own comment above. I'll quote myself further: "Since that time, EEng's calm has worn thinner." You have little cause to triumph over Diannaa or me by suggesting a comment from EEng from August 5 is a poor example of calm. Also I don't think EEng's "shut the fuck up" is either hurtful or personal or insulting; it's just an impolite expression of anger and upset. Impolite expressions of anger and upset are nothing IMO. By contrast, saying "Your edits are shit, all of them", as you did is a big deal; it is hurtful and personal and very much insulting. I'm not going to respond further on this page, because I'm really not crazy about having to repeat what I've already said. If you don't agree with the opinions I've expressed, that's fine, it's your privilege. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  • I dunno, as far as I can tell this all kicked off with this comment reading, in part, "But in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and apostles, at long last you bunch of old ladies stop pearl-clutching and hand-wringing (you gotta love the imagery there) and either look at the edits or shut the fuck up now. I've spent far more time in therapy with you lot responding to your hypothetical anxieties than I did making the changes themselves. Really, it's unbelievable. ... Looks like that calmness you were admiring above ran out." Up to there it was frustrated but civil. After that it all became somewhat difficult (or "not great" as JzG described it.) GoldenRing (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the calmness ran out. I thought I said that? Bishonen | talk 18:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  • This appears to me to be pretty much what the WP:TROUT was invented for. There are several experienced editors knocking six bells out of each other at Talk:Moors murders, the entire dispute is out of all proportion to the substance of their disagreement. Singling out one of them seems somewhat invidious. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
"One of them" was singled out for violating a personal editing restriction imposed by Arbcom that only applies to said "one of them". Also, the dispute appears to have degenerated to this level because one editor tried to make good faith edits to an article, and was stonewalled, obstructed, and bullied for no reason other than that "this is Eric's article" and Eric was blocked. Not exactly a legitimate content dispute that should have ever happened. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Swarm, WP:STEWARDSHIP, which is policy, says: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." That was ignored, and the result was that errors were introduced into an FA on an important topic, one that's harder to get right than it looks. Eric has worked on the article since 2007, so that would have been extremely frustrating to watch. SarahSV (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Srithikdatta

No action taken in this instance. Srithikdatta is warned to moderate interaction in speaking to other editors, and to be willing to discuss controversial edits or reverts rather than repeatedly making them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Srithikdatta

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ponyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Srithikdatta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. August 14 Removal of reliably sourced content
  2. August 15 Reverting to again remove reliably sourced content
  3. August 15 Another revert
  4. August 15 Another revert (contemporaneous with the previous)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Provided DS Alert and notification of WP:1RR here
  • Requested they self-revert here
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • I've probably botched this completely as it's my first AR report. Note that the editor has ignored the DS Alert as well as the request to self-revert and continues to edit the article. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Srithikdatta

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Srithikdatta

I will admit that my first edit had improper notation to support it and should have been reverted. The user that reported me insisted that a source was reputable. I have a career in this subject matter. Many of the sources were not appropriated used. They were misquoted, not used, and in one case were factually incorrect. A British newspaper speaking on the specifics of the US Army personnel is not a reputable in my opinion.

In my second edit, I created small edits, that were all explained, had new sources, or comments on use of source. Therefore they could be reverted individually or en masse as required. The user that reported me noted that I had deleted a reputable source, therefore I added to a new one. I felt this was very different reverting my first edit. Instead I was reported. I had already responded to their criticism by adding a new source. I was given notice of the report and asked to self revert, but doing use would have reintroduced factual errors into the article that I believe most editors on wikipedia would had have the technical expertise to correct. By the time, I saw the revert, I had like 8 different edits and compliant didnt specify their new issue with the new edits. So I just waited.--Srithikdatta (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Mendaliv: I understand that I can't just rerevert things. But based on the compliant's comment, I replaced the source. And I had created 10 new edits, so I wasn't sure what the proper way to respond was, except to explain myself. --Srithikdatta (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mendaliv: I accept your criticism regarding the manner about how I made the edits. Onto the facts of the matter. There is no mechanism or exception for politicians deploying. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove that a policy does not exist. There is no "volunteering" for a deployment, outside of members from the Inactive Ready Reserve, of which Gabbard and Buttigieg are not members. It may be the case that higher ranking officers allow politicians to transfer out a unit before a deployment, however this is a command decision made by higher ranking officer. The reason you do not normally see politicians deploy is that they are high ranking and typically assigned to non deploying headquarters units. This circumstance applies to all higher ranking officers in the National Guard and Reserve, and is not specific to politicians. No service member has the right to be exempt for deployment. The only exception is that service member are allowed 12 months between deployments. This may have been the case with Buttigieg if he recently was redeployed. In a related matter, no one can volunteer for a deployment. They can request a transfer to a unit with the hope that unit will deploy soon, but what they are a requesting is a transfer to the unit. If the deployment is cancelled, they will remain in that unit. All deployments orders for members of National Guard and Reserve are involuntary in a matter of law. This is done so that they qualify for USERRA protections. --Srithikdatta (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde: I accept the correction and will adhere to it going forward.
  • @GoldenRing: Regarding: "first" vs "among first". One source states A primary trainer for the Kuwait National Guard, she was the first woman to ever set foot inside a Kuwait military facility[86]. However, other source in the article states that Tulsi was one of the first women to set foot inside a Kuwait military facility[87]. The latter article is from her official Senate biography was already cited in the military service section. --Srithikdatta (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

It looks like diffs 1-2 are before the DS notice, diff 3 at the same moment, and diff 4 was a few minutes later. But diffs 3 and 4 were sequential edits; if we were on 3RR, they would be considered a single revert. So in some sense I think we need to consider the subsequent edits all part of one revert taking place after the DS notice.

I’m not sure what standard practice is with AP2 and 1RR, but I feel like aspects of this are very technical and a formal sanction or block might be overkill. I’d like to hear Srithikdatta‘s explanation. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @MJL: My understanding of WP:AC/DS#aware.aware is that the formal alert is required. Of course, the policy doesn't talk about whether pre-notice edits are counted. I think they normally should be. So if Srithikdatta had been reverted, notified, and then made another revert, it should count as a 1RR violation. But here, there was no revert, so the edits/reverts that took place after the notification were connected to the pre-notification revert chain. As to the "enforced BRD" sanction listed on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard, I think that should be considered, though I also think the same issue of requiring the formal alert applies. My feeling is that, if we get a reasonable statement out of Srithikdatta here, a formal warning should be enough, with the understanding that the edits being made are not exempt from the DS regime. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Srithikdatta: Do you understand that going forward you are not permitted to make more than one revert/undo in 24 hours to the Gabbard article? And that you are required to discuss matters at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard rather than continuing to revert/undo if someone reverts/undoes your edits? Articles on post-1932 politics and political figures in the USA are subject to special restrictions that you may have violated with the contributions under discussion here. I understand your position about the correctness of the source and that as a person with subject-matter knowledge, this incongruence is probably annoying. Nonetheless, it is necessary going forward that you discuss things on the talk page rather than revert. Even if I happen to agree with you that the specific newspaper is probably not a reliable source for things dealing with military careers, the errors allegedly introduced are not so severe as to bypass the WP:1RR limitation on that article. If you understand that and agree to abide by the restrictions going forward I believe the admins can be convinced to close this case with no further action. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    The response to this complaint from Srithikdatta, in light of the edits themselves, doesn't fill me with confidence. One thing I noticed was this diff, including the edit summary the source does not state whether she volunteer. There is no mechanism for soldiers to volunteer for deployments so for soldiers to ask for a reassignment of unit. and in the phrase, "In July 2004 she volunteered for a 12-month tour in Iraq", replaced the word "volunteered" with "was deployed", and in these diffs replaced the Guardian source with Gabbard's House "about" page. Now, this explanation makes sense, and I could see this sort of thing getting confused. But then I looked at the source, which itself says Gabbard volunteered for her deployment. How could this be? It appears that Gabbard, being someone who held public office at that time, would have been exempt from deploying. But as some other politicians have done (I believe this happened with Pete Buttigieg), she volunteered to deploy anyway. So while there's some logic behind the edit summary rationale, the source provided proves it incorrect, at least in a way. My conclusion is that this is something that should have been discussed at the talk page rather than in edit summaries implementing changes. I think it might be better if Srithikdatta contributed to the Gabbard page via the talk page rather than making reverts going forward. Whether that should be implemented as a formal sanction, or whether we should see what happens first, I'm not sure and I'd defer to those with more experience in sanctions in this content area. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

Dang it. Mendaliv beat me to being the first to to comment!

@Ponyo: This doesn't seem like a violation of the sanction. This is on enforced BRD; so basically as long as diff 1 is substantively different from diff 2, this user is in the clear. They sort of did that, but not really? I don't know. It's up to any uninvolved admin not folks like me. I guess then it's good you're asking for feedback on it.
Either way, it's not entirely necessary to warn this user of 1RR per the instructions on {{American politics AE}} on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. A 24hr block on their first offense would've been maybe the thing to do here, but I leave that to the admins. –MJLTalk 22:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I was curious to see how this played out, and I am rather pleasantly surprised by Srithikdatta's ability to already so quickly navigate AE. Of all the processes to go through, this one has to be least newbie friendly. I really think we should cut them some slack here. After taking a look at their edit count, I see some interesting statistics: 94.7% mainspace edits, a clear interest in military history, received extended only as of this year, and has never had to use a talk page before.
@Srithikdatta: you clearly do good work. This was a misstep, but I don't think this experience should define your time here. Check out those last two links for good resources to get started. Also, Help:Notifications and Wikipedia:Civility are really helpful as well!
Happy editing!  MJLTalk 02:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Srithikdatta

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @Srithikdatta: please proofread your response. It is difficult to read due to idiosyncratic prose. El_C 02:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am less concerned about the specifics of the enforced BRD sanction, and more with the aggressive nature of the edits. I'm only willing to excuse complete newbies for using the peremptory tone employed here. It's particularly inappropriate to order all other editors to not revert without discussion, when you yourself have removed content without discussing the matter first. Srithikdatta, you need to commit not just to not edit-warring, but to discuss matters when your edits are challenged. Your approach to this article is not one that I want to encourage in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • While not impressed with the editing going on here, I think we'd be on shaky ground imposing a sanction for edits made in the 15 minutes following the DS alert. Technically they meet the awareness requirement but I'd be uncomfortable with it still. At the same time, edits like this (made about ten minutes after those in the complaint) should be sanctioned if they are repeated; the edit summary says citation states that she was "among the first" not the first but the source says A primary trainer for the Kuwait National Guard, she was the first woman to ever set foot inside a Kuwait military facility[88] and as far as I can tell, this is the only source used there that makes the claim; I'm struggling to see this as anything other than blatant source misrepresentation. Srithikdatta, this sort of thing is not acceptable. You need to edit collaboratively and with care, especially in this topic, or you will be restricted from it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with the above. I don't think I would sanction this time, but I think Srithikdatta should be well aware that this type of conduct is not acceptable, and if repeated will lead to removal from the area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

JGabbard

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning JGabbard

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
JGabbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 18 August 2019 Declares that an article is blatantly leftist-biased because the article is among many he believes controlled by a small but diligent minority of partisan hacks, shills, charlatans and lapdogs.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 31 May 2017 Topic-banned from all edits or articles about Seth Rich for six months. Sanction imposed for passive aggressive remarks about other editors.
  2. 27 August 2016 Topic-banned from post-1932 American politics for six months. Sanction imposed for unacceptable pattern of attacks on other editors rather than discussion regarding article content.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

If this was isolated behavior, I might skip past it. But what this diff evinces is a continuing inability of this editor to consider editors he disagrees with as anything other than partisan hacks, shills, charlatans and lapdogs. Because that's the exact same behavior that got him topic-banned in 2016 and again in 2017 - both cases where sanctions were imposed for continually casting aspersions on those he disagreed with. An editor who believes and indeed repeatedly publicly declares that all of his opponents are acting in bad faith is an editor who cannot participate in good-faith discussion leading to consensus. JGabbard apparently contributes well in other areas, but when it comes to American politics, he cannot shake the belief that all his opponents are partisan hacks, shills, charlatans and lapdogs, and that means he probably shouldn't be editing these articles at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I note that in between my warning and opening this AE case, JGabbard removed the aspersions from his comment. That's a good sign. However, that their knee-jerk reaction to insult and attack their opponents has continued after multiple warnings and at least two AE topic bans is not a good sign. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning JGabbard

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by JGabbard

I have self-reverted the objectionable portion of my comment. It was not article specific, and was directed at no editor of the Project Veritas article, including the one who has apparently taken personal offense. I have replied to him/her with my apologies.[89] Only the former (remaining) portion of my comment applies to that article, which may be why Wikipedia's article on the topic is so underdeveloped. - JGabbard (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That is a great question, starship.paint (talk), and thank you for asking. The fact that we do not want them and are supposed to assume that they do not exist, in no way assures their non-existence. After 13 years on this site, I certainly could name names. This same tendentious group (or 'squad', if you will) is ubiquitous across the most volatile 'hot potato' political articles, and I have learned to avoid them wherever I see them. If I were confident that my efforts would be successful, I would take them to AE posthaste but would likely have to stand in line to do so. - JGabbard (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint

JGabbard - so, which Wikipedia editors did you really direct your comment at? I'm sure we don't want partisan hacks, shills, charlatans and lapdogs on Wikipedia. You should be taking them to AE, no? starship.paint (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

So JGabbard knows "them" when he sees "them", and "they" are ubiquitous, but won't report "them" or name who "they" are (although he'll give "them" the highly controversial designation "Squad") because "they" won't be punished, presumably because some of "them" are among the admins who patrol AE. So JGabbard feels justified in WP:Casting aspersions at the shadows and calling "them" out as "partisan hacks, shills, charlatans and lapdogs".

It seems to me that JGabbard needs to be relieved of his heavy self-appointed responsibility to police Wikipedia of "their" influence with a hefty AP2 ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

I would tend to concur with Sandstein on this one. One of the touchstones of whether to apply a sanction, discretionary or otherwise, needs to be disruption. While it's not optimal that the comment was made in the first place, the fact that JGabbard self-reverted and apologized clearly mitigated any disruption. Those acts in mitigation speak to a recognition that the conduct wasn't optimal and a desire to do better going forward. We need not expect perfection from everyone, whether or not they've been subject to sanctions in the past. Unless there's other evidence of a pattern of misconduct—and by this I mean an actual pattern, not a series of isolated incidents distilled from JGabbard's contributions—I would favor closing this with no action other than confirming to JGabbard that the comment was inappropriate. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JGabbard

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm not really inclined to take action. Yeah, that's not a good comment, and there's relevant history, but it's one talk page comment, not aimed at an identifiable editor, and they reverted themselves. Sandstein 17:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I rather agree with Sandstein. The comment was not the greatest one to make, and JGabbard certainly shouldn't make a habit of generally accusing other editors of bad intentions like that, but one such comment (which JGabbard retracted) is not enough that I'd impose sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

CMTBard

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning CMTBard

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
CMTBard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

On Jenny McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Vaccines and autism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), SPA editor CMTBard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been promoting an Antivax POV against consensus and misrepresenting sources to claim that they say the opposite of what the sources actually say.

  1. 14:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC) On Jenny McCarthy, replaced "She [Jenny McCarthy] has promoted the disproven idea that vaccines cause autism" with "She [Jenny McCarthy] has promoted the idea that vaccines can contribute to autism in certain children" despite 100% strong consensus against this change on the talk page.
  2. 14:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Again.
  3. 14:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Again.
  4. 15:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Again.
  5. 15:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC) On Causes of autism, replaced "Scientific studies have refuted a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism." with "Scientific studies have remained unable to confirm or refute a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism"

This violates principle 1A: Neutral point of view as applied to science

Attempting to make Wikipedia say that scientific studies have remained unable to confirm or refute a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism is not a legitimate scientific disagreement. Scientific studies have refuted a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism. To say otherwise is to replace science with pseudoscience.

This also violates principle 14: Serious encyclopedias

No respected scientist agrees that vaccines cause or contribute toward autism. It is a discredited idea from a scientific fraud.


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACMTBard&type=revision&diff=910161027&oldid=910127205
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Please read the talk pages for those two articles to see the behavior. Some quotes:

  • "Vaccines are not settled and far from 'all' scientists agree on it." 14:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "There have been no deaths due to delaying or spacing any vaccines in the US" 14:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Go read Wakefield’s paper. I bet you never have." 14:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(That would be antivax fraud Andrew Wakefield).

  • "You can't definitively state that 'there is no link between vaccines and autism'" 03:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "there are actual studies that have linked specific vaccines to autism causally" ... "Specific court cases in the US and abroad have awarded damages to children whose autism was found to be triggered by a vaccine" 23:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

(CMTBard keeps mischaracterizing sources that explicitly reject vaccines causing autism.)

In my considered opinion, CMTBard should be topic banned from any page related to Vaccines, Autism, or Jenny McCarthy.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACMTBard&type=revision&diff=911559652&oldid=911559128

Discussion concerning CMTBard

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by CMTBard

Statement by Guy Macon

At the request of Sandstein, I have added specific links to the arbcom findings and how CMTBard has violated them, but I do not agree that this is a content dispute. There is no dispute. Vaccines do not cause autism. There does not exist a single MEDRS-compliant source that says that they do. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

At the request of El C, I have condensed the evidence. In my opinion, the pattern of behavior I have described can still be easily seen by reading Talk:Jenny McCarthy and Talk:Vaccines and autism but is not clear from the condensed evidence I have included. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Bilby's statement about not enough recent edits after the DS warning, fair enough. I would be happy to withdraw this request and wait for more attempts to promote antivax by CMTBard. I do not believe that CMTBard has stopped his pattern of behavior, and I am convinced that I will be back at AE in few weeks if I withdraw the case, but I could be wrong.

[I redacted my previous full disclosure of a previous conflict that may be causing me to have a bias (conscious or unconscious) at the request of Bilby.]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Bilby

User:CMTBard was given a discretionary sanctions notification on August 10 [90]. Since then, CMTBard has made no edits to mainspace, and has only discussed content concerns as part of ongoing discussions on their talk page and (briefly) on the two article talk pages. - Bilby (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CMTBard

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @Guy Macon: Please make clear how this conduct violates any specific conduct policies or guidelines, rather than just being a content dispute. We don't resolve content disputes here. Sandstein 17:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • As presented, this is a content dispute. A content dispute is any dispute about how articles should read, even if one party to the dispute is at odds with consensus or science. The sole conduct allegation - misrepresenting sources - is not substantiated by a diff. But I agree with Hut 8.5 below that persistent editing in violation of content policies is a conduct issue, and if other admins consider such conduct established then I don't oppose a sanction. Sandstein 07:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Guy Macon: please condense. El_C 18:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Much better. El_C 21:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This behaviour does look to me like an attempt to POV-push the fringe theory that vaccinations are a cause of autism, which is the sort of thing that these discretionary sanctions can be used for. This edit is particularly telling, rewriting large parts of an article on the causes of autism to make it look like the question of whether vaccines cause autism is an open one - the exact opposite of what the sources say, and misrepresenting this source in particular. This isn't in itself a content issue, as persistent editing in violation of content policies is a conduct issue. Sure, CMTBard hasn't edited mainspace since the DS notification was given, but s/he has made plenty of edits related to the topic in other namespaces and they don't show any change in behaviour. I think some sort of sanction would be appropriate here. Hut 8.5 21:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)