Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BabbaQ (talk | contribs) at 15:46, 2 September 2019 (→‎Statement by BabbaQ). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Eric Corbett Motions 18 August 2019 5/2/1
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing Motion (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 29 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Eric Corbett

Initiated by –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ at 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.
These diffs mostly just quote Eric at the time.*** –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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... Attribution: Twitter (CC-BY-4.0) *** @David Eppstein: The critique here is that Eric doesn't want to be called by his last name, but I can't expect to be called by my preferred pronoun.

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, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed.
@Cameron11598: My apologies. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Per feedback, I've renamed the case.[18] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please

@Opabinia regalis, Mkdw, and Premeditated Chaos: Expand the scope. Don't make anyone have to go through this again. There shouldn't have to be a new request. The status quo just hurts people. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: Thank you for this review. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by EEng

Editors prepare statements in the Eric Corbett case

[19]



Statement by Cassianto

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

  • GorillaWarfare, your accept is disgraceful. What axe do you have to grind I wonder? CassiantoTalk 18:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Per the many statements given below, I would think an admonishment of MJL is, at the very least, called for. CassiantoTalk 17:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undermining information - Part of this complete time-sink of a case is Eric apparently "misgendering" MJL. I don't know the history behind this, but I took it to mean that it occurred either during the Moors murders or the Cotswold Olimpick Games discussion. This case was then filed and part of the justification in a "footnote" was MJL stating "[my chosen gender pronoun is] on my userspace under userboxes, listed as my preference". Keen not to inadvertently misgender someone myself, I went to check only to discover that it wasn't where MJL said it was - in fact, from what I could see, it wasn't there at all. Then yesterday, it was added. The times look out of kilter and if it is what it appears to be, Eric had no way of knowing what sex MJL is or identifies as, as at the time, nothing was mentioned on their (MJL) user page. Moreover, it is entirely reasonable for someone to assume MJL is male, based upon their previous usernames. Whether the "misgendering" occurred elsewhere at another time, I don't know, but if MJL's update yesterday is the first we've heard about it, I don't think Eric should be held accountable for this. Happy to be corrected, of course. CassiantoTalk 08:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGK -- any more advances on "to examine the conduct of all parties."? -- we've gone from Scottywong, to Eric (via EEng), to MJL, to now everyone who has ever commented here. This is embarrassing. CassiantoTalk 12:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [20]. Here we have a case of Toa Nidhiki05 and MJL (no surprise there) sock accusing (without evidence) an IP who is offering an opinion on this case. Not only is this regrettable behaviour "uncivil" on MJL's part - asking them to "log in to an alternate account - but Toa Nidhiki05 is going one step further by making an equally divisive comment about the IP being Eric. Part of this pony application was MJL's hatred of people being uncivil towards them, yet they (MJL) think it perfectly acceptable to be uncivil towards an IP who is offering an opinion. CassiantoTalk 07:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aquillion, demonstrating perfectly why this witch-hunt needs to be closed, as soon as possible. We have gone from a legitimate AN report about baiting behaviour by Scottywong to a full-blown witch-hunt on Eric for doing nothing at all. The result? We have now lost Eric, probably this project's best ever writer, allowed for an antagonist to not receive even so much as an an admonishment, and patted the back of the troublemaking filer of this ludicrous case. Words fail me. CassiantoTalk 09:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick, it seems the offer of mentorship has been given to MJL by Ceoil. I don't think you could get a better mentor than him. CassiantoTalk 11:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aquillion, you don't have a link for WP:CIVIL, by any chance? lol CassiantoTalk 05:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Softlavender: I apologise, I added myself, but I am very slow. Slow beans! ——SerialNumber54129 03:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify for the committee: There may be a slight misunderstanding from some commentators. My original, exasperated, call for MJL's removal from this place (AKA WP:INDEFALREADY) should not be read as indef MJL for filing this ARC against Eric Corbett. Rather, it should be read—as I should have made clear at the time—as something like indef MJL for repeatedly inserting themselves into, and thereby exacerbating, unnecessary and unneeded dramaz as they have done for much of their career while wasting the time of far to many other editors who could have been doing other (possibly even better!) things instead of being dragged into another of their adminny-timesinks for the last time. FYI. ——SerialNumber54129 08:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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/2¢/Δ's/ 02:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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/2¢/Δ's/ 07:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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/2¢/Δ's/ 00:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I request an extension of the wordlimit to address additional comments. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [21], [22], 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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

... This is the same pattern of behavior over and over again: Eric blatantly violates his sanction (which leaves no room for "but he said something I didn't like first", FWIW), then a group of editors rush in an insist that Eric did nothing wrong, that even if Eric did something wrong he was provoked first, and that that person is the true evildoer who deserves to be punitively banned, not Eric. Then if that fails all attention is brought to the blocking admin. Has that editor ever interacted with Eric in any way before? Have they ever blocked Eric before? If so, then obviously the blocking admin is an evil power-hungry monster who is abusing his power to punish poor, innocent Eric. ...

If Eric is so utterly driven by animalistic instincts that he must insult people, even after agreeing not to, we need to decide once and for all whether Wikipedia is going to accept that or not. Every single time he gets blocked or his behavior is called into question, we waste dozens of hours debating this in a committee. Half the time Eric says he's leaving (and somehow people still believe it and act like that matters) and then he comes back and does the exact same stuff. This has to end. This has been going on since 2008. That is over a decade and only getting longer every second. I'm 24 years old - this litigation has taken up literally all of my adult life and half of my life, period. This has been going on since before I started editing, and I started editing back in 2008. This has to end. The total wasted hours spent debating whether or not an adult can yell at anyone he dislikes has likely taken up thousands of hours at this point. The current action is not working.
— User:Toa Nidhiki05 23:23, 19 August 2019

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @Toa Nidhiki05:, surely it is WP:BOOMERANG rather than bullying or gaslighting? Probably deserved in this case - they're stomping around like a bull in a china shop. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Toa Nidhiki05: who is saying block them? Cassianto's post, to which I think you were responding, mentions an admonishment. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toa Nidhiki05, MJL has been doing stuff wrong since arriving here, let alone this recent example. They even list some of their wrongdoings on their user page. I've not got to the bottom of whether their being mentored is a voluntary thing or was imposed on them in some way. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. So now, following the last weekend, ArbCom has gone Full WMF Trust & Safety in methodology. Is anything being learned from the Fram debacle or is it rolling over and submission? - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would also like to remark that calls to admonish MJL are evidence of the same fundamental problem that renders this case necessary, namely that editors are given different amounts of leeway and "protection" based on their status, regardless of the relevant policies. We know that there have been similar threads concerning Eric Corbett and civility for years, with community resolution always failing, resulting in these ANI closures ([23],[24],[25], etc.) and others with the same outcome. ArbCom thus had to be involved to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve; this now appears to be another instance where such intervention and perhaps a full investigation of everyone's actions is necessary. ComplexRational (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

+1 to Serial Number 54129s comment here too. –Davey2010Talk 12:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a dramah whore or anything but I echo User:Cassianto MJL should seriously be admonished for this, We've lost a great content creator and a brilliant FA/GA reviewer and for what ? ...., He does more here than I ever could (not to say I do bugger all but I certainly don't do article creations, FA or GA work). –Dave | Davey2010Talk 17:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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!" [26]
  • "fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud" [27]

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" [28]
  • "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 [29]
  • 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. [30]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @KrakatoaKatie: - I support the committees decision completely. EricCorbett makes a decision to leave the project. And then uses accounts to cause more drama. Enough is enough, hopefully this will be the last we hear about this issue. The project have given him way too many chances before, thank you for giving a strong response. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

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

EC didn't take the bait by SW & then a junior member of the community, suddenly requests this case. Quite perplexing. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend that this proposed case name be changed. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Mkdw: The arbitration committee has typically exercised its authority to define the scope of the case as it determines is most appropriate for the situation. There's no need for the arbitrators to accept anything blindly: you can discuss either on this page or on your mailing list what basis there is for a case and what scope, if any, is desired, thereby reaching a common agreement on whether or not a case should be opened. isaacl (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • I oppose any attempts to sanction MJL. It comes off as bullying and gaslighting. Toa Nidhiki05 17:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sitush No, it comes off as gaslighting to me. Blocking someone indefinitely for questioning Eric Corbett sets a bad precedent. Toa Nidhiki05 18:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sitush What are you talking about? Serial Number 54129 and Nick have both called for MJL to be indef blocked. Nick’s comment was essentially a long personal atttack against MJL. Toa Nidhiki05 18:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sitush I would oppose admonishment because MJL has done nothing wrong and I don’t believe Eric has actually left. Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the IP is indeed Eric, he should be blocked according to his sanction. Given the circumstances, an indefinite ban should likely be considered until Eric is willing to accept his sanction. Toa Nidhiki05 20:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bald-faced lie from @Cassianto. I have never said that IP is Eric, and have in fact said it is likely a joe job. You know who has said it is him? Giano and The Rambling Man. Toa Nidhiki05 12:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cassianto thank you for retracting, but I have no said it is a sock. In fact I (incorrectly) opened an SP/I to try and prove it wasn’t Eric. The IP is also not innocent, having insulted people and likely impersonated an editor. This is either an attempt to frame Eric (which is unnecessary), or an attempt by Eric to be blocked. I happen to think the former is more likely. Toa Nidhiki05 15:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Oh FFS... Well done on ignoring the baiting and stupidity surrounding all this. ScottyWong baits someone, doesn't bother explaining his crass action here (and still Eric doesn't rise to the bait), a relative newbie files a clusterfuck of a case, but you decide to put a target on Eric's back? And this is despite a host of admins, includng former Arbs advising you not to? And you wonder why people get pissed off with you? FFS... - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
  • @Swarm: Three things wrong w/ "this chronic problem user, who does not even pretend to respect his sanctions, much less the policies". 1) EC has abided by his RfA sanction, if am not mistaken, quite perfectly/to a T. (Even that sanction was rather bizarre & unprecedented. So what's with the false generalization?) 2) Labeling "chronic problem user" is black-and-white condemnation on its face, as if conflicts are pinnable on one party. (Contexts & especially EC are way more complicated; the label is a dehumanizing stereotype.) 3) Editors are expected to abide by WP policies, not required to bow to them. (E.g. the longstanding problematic WP:CIV policy w/ its undefinability and subjective & selective enforcement, demands respect?!) --IHTS (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aquillion: There's been much discussion & debate re WP:CIV even before my time, your statement seems bereft re all that history. EC is ahead of his time, not easy to understand since he writes in, like all things profound, utter simplicity. There's wisdom here, if WP will be advanced enough some day to understand & profit from the way out of the WP:CIV thicket:

    There is a clear and evident danger that the present civility policy can be and has been used to stifle dissent, not to prevent disruption. There is also clear evidence that some administrators focus on the perceived incivility of those they are hostile to while ignoring it in their friends and colleagues [...]. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

    The only good civility policy is a deleted civility policy. Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

    The way to avoid "incivility" is to avoid the triggers for it. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    --IHTS (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A serious suggestion: After ArbCom removes the unprecedented Clockwork Orange sanctions from EC, then take another unprecedented step and award him honorary adminship (i.e. fully functional administrator status) as apology/reparation. (Then, if lucky, he will return to editing. The goal is to improve the encyclopedia, n'est-ce pas?) Thanks for your consider. --IHTS (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Nick – an admin – has called for MJL to be indeffed on this page. Meanwhile, there's some nastiness on MJL's talk page: (I know SJWs when I see them...they're a bane on this project for the often-limited time that they are allowed to run their campaigns). There's shameful tribalism and intimidation going on here, and it's saddening. I hope ARBCOM can help restore a sense of order of fairness. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (That's not to mention the badgering I've received on my own talk page.) WanderingWanda (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looking at the diffs for a second-time makes me think this should absolutely boomerange on MJL. The commentary MJL adds in his links contains more insults than the supposed linked insults themselves and many of the one-liners seem designed to give a false impression of what the diffs say. Some of the absolutely ridiculous diffs given include the crime of Eric not wanting to be called by his last name, expressing that he doesn't care about the outcome of a particular case, and suggesting that someone who only took a cursory look at the sources -- do we have a WP:NOCATS which states that someone's qualifications on any subject are limited to whether or not they also write books about cats -- only did a cursory look at the sources. Oh yeah, Eric calling someone clearly ignorant of what fl. meant who had went on a rant about sourcing because of clear ignorance of what fl. meant...ignorant.
At best, Eric owes EEng a mild apology for describing him as a gutter-snipe. MJL's deceptive commentary to a coatrack of links that has more empty filler than a prison meatloaf is enough to obliterate any assumption of good faith. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, it's not the only... Having read the statements by Victoriaearle and Jehochman, I'm persuaded that ArbCom should decline the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The optics of "per the mailing list" make the situation look bad, and it's an unforced error. If the revised case is going to look at issuing new sanctions to anyone, then you are making a bad choice. If the scope will actually just be "look at where procedures are working poorly and fix procedures", then that would be a lot better. But don't put any targets on anyone's back. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Newyorkbrad

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

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)[reply]

Statement by Ched

(update - removed everything) You shouldn't waste everyone's time if you simply going to go behind closed doors and make your own rules, scope, etc. Just ignore WP:ADMINACCT and go make up your own case. Former Arbs must be crying into their open palms. — Ched (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Mkdw: Is it just me or does your decline reason read like a copout? The first paragraph says "I can see a case here" and the second one says "However, because the scope is not well-defined I'm declining until a well-defined scope is presented". In other words you can see a dispute requiring arbitration, but you're choosing not to resolve it because of procedural issues. Ping @Premeditated Chaos: as well since she quoted Mkdw when declining. Banedon (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: are you suggesting "accept, but suspend"? Banedon (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

If this is accepted, I should probably be added as a party. I blocked Eric Corbett for 72 hours ([31]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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I realise we're beyond the point where ArbCom will accept the case, based on the voting, but I believe the fallout from this should be handled by motion - Eric, having departed under an impending cloud (even if it was a cloud which wasn't necessarily going to rain all over his parade) should be formally restricted from simply resuming editing. I'm not saying he should be banned, nor am I suggesting a suspended case which can be resumed should be return, just some form of discussion amongst the Arbitration Committee to decide whether they would want to hold some form of case, review his existing sanctions (perhaps by motion) or simply allow him to return without any further sanction/discussion. I believe this to be sensible for several reasons - firstly, I dislike people leaving the project when there's a potential for them to be sanctioned, as a means to evade potential sanctions. I know it was always 50/50 (at most) that Eric would have been sanctioned, particularly in this case, where the filer has mis-characterised several interactions (the David Epstein diffs) and where Eric refused to be interact with another administrator (Scottywong). Secondly, I think should Eric ever return, the nature of his departure here will upset several members of the community with the result we may see an attempt to relitigate either this case, or Eric's sanctions in general. I think it would be useful if ArbCom were to decide now if that's a direction that they think they would want to travel in (admittedly, it's entirely possible it could be a new committee handling such a repeat case) and decide how to proceed should Eric return (and yes, I know a suspended case might well act as a permanent deterrent to Eric's return, so whether a more general review of his sanctions would be an acceptable middle ground is something the committee might wish to consider).

Secondly, and with sincere apologies to MJL for attacking their value here as a contributor - buried amongst the many poor pseudo-administrative edits are some really good content contributions, so there's definitely promise for persuading MJL to focus more on content and I should have encouraged that, rather than focusing exclusively on the problematic Wikipedia namespace conduct. I understand they were trying their best to follow a course of action they considered in the best interests of the project. They have, however, a poor record at involving themselves in the administrative aspects of the project and I believe it would be sensible to put in place a very small editing restriction - something minor like limiting future RfAr filings for the next 12 months to having to receive support from a mentor (perhaps @Swarm:) before filing, and that they must also be limited to cases where MJL is directly involved. There is a competency issue, but I'm pleased to see they recognise this issue and are working with mentors to resolve this. -- Nick (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I strongly believe these edits to be by Eric Corbett who has scrambled his password. Like him, I urge the Arbitrators to accept this case. This constant limbo and failure to face up to ALL facts, serves no one well. The current situation is divisive. Personally, I think EC is his own worst enemy and regularly serves himself up as fodder for narrow minded admins keen to hit the headlines for use of their tools rather than their content contributions. However, He also frequently offers up unpalatable facts with more than a grain of truth, these are clearly unwelcome in the upper echelons of the project. We, the editors, need to decide: Do we want to hear what he says or should he be silenced. Either way, the current situation is intolerable. Accepting the case will be a complete shit fest with all manner of crawling creatures emerging from the hedgerow. The Arbs need to brace themselves and accept this case. Giano (talk)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Besides, if Eric Corbett didn't exist, we would have to invent him ... Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Amended; second sentence struck. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've just noticed that the response to the diff quoted above was:

"Edit summary of "sorry": [edit conflict Ok, will do, sorry about that. I have complained before about people addressing me as "Eppstein" (although I don't mind if they use that name when talking about me in the third person) so I know how it feels. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)" Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


If this statement affects the committee's decision to accept, then please conduct a thorough examination of the various flare ups (Talk:Moors murders, FAR, Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games, this AN, and this AN). Also, I loathe to say this but in the spirit of taking ownership of my own actions I guess I should be a party too. Finally I can't fully parse Mendaliv's statement but it seems an argument worth full articulation, and so request the committee to grant extra words. Victoria (tk) 00:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. We need more education and clearer standards because editors are unclear about behavioral standards. Cases like this, that punish an example, will just fragment the community and make things worse. Jehochman Talk 15:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL should not be criticized for filing this request. They did the right thing: using dispute resolution to address valid concerns is correct, even if the case is not accepted. Jehochman Talk 16:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw, you seem to have whacked the hornet's nest. I think it would help if you clarify that reviewing Eric Corbett's sanctions will include reviewing the behavior of those who filed reports about him. ArbCom should determine if the sanctions are being abused to bait or harass Eric, and if they have been effective at resolving Eric's past issues. The result could be removal, modification, or escalation of the sanctions; and other editors might be warned or sanctioned as well. If that's the case, to review the facts with no preconceived outcome, I support it. Jehochman Talk 12:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

The case should be accepted, but it shouldn't be just about Eric Corbett, it should be about incivility in general. Recommendations made should apply to all Wikipedians. We can read here:

"Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion."

But how can sticking to normal behavior be called a restriction?

"If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve."

Which is again what all editors should always do.

Count Iblis (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion is right about WP:CIVIL. In fact Wikipedia already has an escape valve when it comes to not sticking to policies, the WP:IAR policy. Obviously, sticking to WP:CIVIL won't ever prevent one from making an edit to an article, so there is no way WP:IAR could be invoked to not stick to WP:CIVIL, so there is nothing lost w.r.t. maintaining Wikipedia by always sticking to WP:CIVIL. But what is clear is that we would gain a lot if all editors always stuck to that policy. Count Iblis (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amakuru

I don't have much to say on the substance of the case itself, and I am not opining one way or the other on whether a lifting of restrictions, a ban, the status quo, or some other remedy, is called for. But I would pretty much echo what Sandstein says above, and I'm glad that the Arbs who've commented so far aren't being pushed into declining this case. If a particular editor is appearing time and again on the AN boards, and multiple blocks aren't having any effect in changing behaviour, then Arbcom does need to step back in and re-examine what's going on. I don't have any issues with people being uncivil to me personally, it's water off a duck's back. But we need to recognise that there are some people for whom uncivil behaviour represents a serious deterrent to contributing to Wikipedia. And, like it or not, T&S have made it clear that if Arbcom don't deal with this issue effectively then they will be back with more FramBans. And nobody wants that, so let's examine it openly and in-house. I'm also disappointed by the apparent backlash against MJL for filing this case. This is the right venue for the issues they've raised, and they shouldn't be attacked for bringing them here.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt

Given the current state of the community, with Framgate going on and other issues as well, this is not the time for the time-sink this would be, especially given the depleted state of the committee. I'm also among those who feel there is baiting going on. The diffs seem pretty weak beer by traditional Malleus standards, by the way, but I have the impression the filer felt they could provide diffs of Eric reciting "A-B-C" and there's a fair chance they'd get support from others for a case. Let Eric write and send the virtue signalers about their business.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I"d also like to associate myself with Victoriaearle's comments about the difficulty of writing content, especially at a time when WMF has made it clear they have more of a warm spot for identity politics than quality content, when WMF let themselves be used as an ATM by insiders while the rest of us don't even get expenses. Even not actively writing, Eric is more valuable to the project than the filer, or at least I assume so, because I'd never heard of them before they filed.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OhKayeSierra

At the moment, it's unclear what the scope for this case actually is, in regard to it's relation to Eric Corbett. As far as I can tell, EC was baited and didn't take the bait. It seems to me that the community is adequately handling the Moors murders dispute, so, at the moment, I don't see where ArbCom's remit in that specific dispute is. With that said, I strongly urge ArbCom to reject this case in its current form, with no prejudice as to whether or not Eric Corbett's conduct thus far and the sanctions levied should be considered in the future (should EC wish to return to editing). OhKayeSierra (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Eppstein

Following Newyorkbrad's sage advice, I hesitate to set foot here, but given that the nomination statement falsely characterizes a non-insult directed at me as "more insults" and adds a related footnote disparaging Eric Corbett for disliking being addressed by a bare last name (as do I), I think it's important to link my response to that non-insult.

I also think it's worth highlighting Cassianto's remarks on the contradictory timing and now-deleted contradictory evidence regarding the nomination claim of misgendering. I don't know how to make sense of these but I agree with Cassianto that they smell odd.

I don't see how this case could be accepted, except on the basis that the mere presence of Eric Corbett makes everyone around him go crazy and therefore he must be kept away despite doing little or nothing wrong since coming off his unblock (beyond being a little prickly as anyone would when surrounded by such craziness). But the framing of the nomination is all wrong to get a constructive result even in that direction. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 28bytes

What is this "junior editor" business? Either the case has merit or it doesn't, and the attempt to intimidate MJL for filing it is completely inappropriate. (Some additional commentary removed by me.)

Rather than proceed with a case, it would be better if everyone who had the choice of escalating or de-escalating and decided to escalate took a moment to recognize that de-escalation would have been the better option. And as others have said, the fact that Eric chose not to react badly to the comment by ScottyWong is reason enough to decline this case. It would be perverse if a case examining Eric's behavior was triggered by an incident in which he did not do anything wrong. 28bytes (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After some reflection I've removed some of my comment above as it doesn't really fit with the call for de-escalation that I am trying to make, and distracts from my point that we should not be insulting or threatening good-faith editors for filing a report, however flawed it may be, about behavior they find concerning. 28bytes (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

I'm truly, truly disgusted by the wholesale bullying and threats against the filer of this case, regardless of the merits. This is exactly the sort of attitude that T&S is referring to when they talk about people not feeling empowered to come forward with concerns they may have about another editor's behavior. Whether or not this case is accepted, ArbCom NEEDS to do something about this.--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Its kind of sad that an arbiter is choosing not to accept a case due to a 'lack of consensus' when that lack of consensus in dealing with an abusive editor is what led to restrictions in the first place. Great reasoning there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

As a general rule, I try to avoid involving myself in any sort of editor-centric drama, especially when it's related to Eric Corbett. I have no opinion as to whether or not this case should be accepted, and frankly, I don't really care at this point either.

However, I would like to register my complete and unequivocal disapproval of any suggestion that MJL should be indefinitely blocked or otherwise sanctioned for submitting this case request. Was it inevitably going to stir up drama? Yes. Should MJL have anticipated the reaction that such a case request would bring? Seeing as they've done enough research to know that taking a stance against Eric Corbett is an open invitation for accusations of baiting and/or inciting drama, I'd say yes. Is this case request a sanctionable offense? No. They requested arbitration for a situation that they feel necessitates it, based on a long history of the community failing to bring about any kind of lasting resolution. People are reprimanding MJL for failing to assume good faith, and maybe not incorrectly so (at least insofar as improper pronoun usage is concerned), but it's also a two-way street. I see MJL's actions as coming more from a place of naïve optimism than cynical pot-stirring.

For the record, none of the above should be construed as taking a side in this debate. I do think that Wikipedia would benefit immensely if editors were nicer to one another, rather than casting aspersions or calling for someone's figurative head on a platter. This applies to everyone, rather than being aimed at any specific "side". Kurtis (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I would urge ArbCom to accept this and not suspend it. If it's Eric Corbett that's at fault, that's a bit of wasted time (considering the statement that the password has been scrambled and he's not coming back). If ArbCom determines that the primary problem is not him, but his antagonists, that is something that needs to be resolved sooner rather than later. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

As someone, who has defended Eric in a few AEs (mainly, on the premises of unclean hands of both sides), I remain highly concerned at his overall pathetic behavior, aggressiveness, hostility and article ownership issues. There's an amazing lack of self-awareness over the course of years and which has been actively aided by a bunch of tag-team-members who jump in at every page, where he gets into some kind of problem. On the other side, he does appear to be the subject of significant baiting by others and sometimes have been at the receiving end of an asymmetric sanction, quite unfairly.

Overall, the efforts of the community to deal with one of the most polarizing figure in WP's history have failed, leading to full-blown drama-fests every alternate month. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that this request have not stemmed from highly optimal premises, I ask the arbitrators to accept and review the entire situation including Eric's behavior, tag-teaming with others, baiting by others and all allied aspects. ∯WBGconverse 18:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swarm

I endorse the sentiments by Sandstein and would like to see a case. Securing a block in the most recent AE thread in response to clear and continuous violations was way too difficult, to the extent that I myself proposed that a new case was needed. We’re struggling way too much to sanction this chronic problem user, who does not even pretend to respect his sanctions, much less the policies they attempt to enforce. We need your help here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

By my understanding, Eric has repeatedly and unequivocally indicated not only that he holds WP:CIVIL in contempt, but that he has no intention of ever abiding by it. Given that WP:CIVIL is a core policy, Arbcom needs to accept this (putting on hold until / unless he comes back, if necessary, though as mentioned he's left and returned in the past), but I urge them to not get caught up in individual back-and-forth over specific events and instead focus on laser-tight on the core questions of 1. whether following WP:CIVIL is optional if you have made a lot of contributions, 2. whether Eric has been following WP:CIVIL to date, and has generally shown that he's able to follow it despite disliking it, and 3. most importantly, assuming a negative answer to the second question, whether he will agree to follow it in the future, and otherwise agrees to change his conduct. The reason previous efforts got nowhere and inevitably lead to these piecemeal enforcement disasters is because they ducked answering those questions (especially the final question) head-on. --Aquillion (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihardlythinkso:: Utterly irrelevant. In fact, if they accept the case, I strongly urge ArbCom to bar any such statements directly arguing over WP:CIV from it, outside of statements intended solely to establish whether Eric has followed WP:CIV and whether he is willing to do so in the future. ArbCom cases aren't the place to try and rewrite policy. If Eric and his supporters want to push their quixotic argument that WP:CIVIL is not only unnecessary but (somehow) some sort of manifest injustice that must be discarded, there are lots of channels to do so, but ArbCom itself is not one of them; this is not the place for people to give table-pounding spiels about how they think our long-established, widely-accepted core policies are unjust and unfair. People can feel however they want about WP:CIVIL, and express whatever complaints they want about it elsewhere, but it is a core policy, so following it isn't optional and is outside the scope of anything ArbCom could reasonably address. The only questions that matter in this case - and the only questions ArbCom can and should consider - are "has Eric followed WP:CIVIL" and "assuming Eric has not followed WP:CIVIL, is he likely to do so in the future, his personal feelings about it notwithstanding?" ArbCom does not set policy. ArbCom enforces policy. I know it's not fun, especially when so many people are likely to get angry regardless of the outcome, but this is the sort of situation where we need ArbCom to step up. --Aquillion (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

Recommend the arbs do not accept this case, or any other, until they manage to close out the Poland and Fram cases. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gerda

As explained earlier on the filer's talk, I planned to ignore this. The "restricted" case makes me come to say in short that no restriction will work for Eric (nor me, nor any user with self-esteem). Waste of time to even look into that, from the start. Please decline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

I am astonished that in light of recent events, ArbCom believed that secret deliberations as to whether to open this case and its scope were appropriate. If the restricted case scope means that ArbCom will not consider the behaviour of others who may have (e.g.) baited Eric into breaching his sanctions, it creates a manifestly unfair one-sided case. I any event, I ask that the deliberations of Arbitrators by email that took place over the weekend be published here so that they can be properly scrutinised by the community (with redactions of any non-public information referenced (if applicable)). WJBscribe (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZettaComposer

I highly recommend that ArbCom avoids this "vote by mailing list" approach to future cases. If they can spend two minutes to email an "Accept" or "Decline" vote on a mailing then they should come here and make it official. Even if most of the votes are simply restating their reason for accepting or declining, this mailing list process adds a lot of pointless drama and secrecy. No comment on the case scope. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Beyond My Ken

Since Eric Corbett has said that he has left Wikipedia and scrambled his password, will the accepted case be held in abeyance until he returns, if he ever does, or will it be held in his absence? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pbsouthwood

This is an issue of behaviour that has not been satisfactorily managed by other available recourse. I have no personal involvement that I am aware of. It is an opportunity for Arbcom to attempt to throw some light on a vexatious issue that harms the community over the long term and has been a time sink and a breeding ground for disputes that interfere with building the encyclopedia. Without prejudice for or against any party I recommend that if Arbcom decides to take on this case it should be expanded to include behaviour of all parties in all relevant recent interactions between Eric Corbett and other editors. I do not consider that Eric Corbett's notice of retirement should prevent a chance to resolve this problem, and a resolution is likely to set a useful precedent for similar cases. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that is detrimental to community health. I would prefer to see it resolved as soon as reasonably practicable. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that turning the case down on a technicality (if this were to occur) would reflect badly on the ability of the community to manage behavioural problems internally. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]

Eric Corbett: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/2/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Recuse WormTT(talk) 07:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • There were issues here that are best addressed at arbitration. Accept to examine the conduct of all parties. Unsuspend if Eric Corbett returns in any lasting guise. AGK ■ 09:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only issue I could see the Arbitration Committee having a role in would be to review the current restrictions and sanctions against Eric Corbett to determine if they are sustainable and proving effective. Based upon Eric Corbett's block log and the statements provided here, the answer seems to be no, but for very different reasons. These comments range from Eric Corbett's conduct and willingness to repeatedly violate his restrictions and sanctions all the way to other editors taking advantage of the situation to unfairly provoke Eric Corbett. I largely expect the truth to run both sides, but a fact finding investigation could bring clarity in how to remedy this situation going forward.
The current case request seemingly calls for a broad review of Eric Corbett's conduct. While cases may be accepted with a different or expanded scope different from what is requested by the first filing party, I am a decline based upon the current case request and that I am not seeing enough of a consensus from the community as to what exactly they would like the Arbitration Committee to hold a case on. Mkdw talk 03:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A case will accomplish nothing if everyone has a different idea about what the case should be trying to accomplish.
Without a consensus on the scope or even having the same reasoning for holding the case, we have no specific case request to accept. We should not accept a wide open case with no limits for everyone to work towards their desired outcome. It would not only be an incredible waste of everyone's time but most likely fail to accomplish any meaningful results. A dozen or so people wanting a dozen different cases does not mean a case should be held. Declining to open a case under those conditions is not a procedural decline, it is simply an outright bad idea.
If a consensus emerges with enough support for one specific case scope, then it should be voted on. Blindly procedurally accepting a case because six arbitrators said "accept" but for very different reasons and calling for fundamentally different cases to be held is not a consensus to move forward with a case. Mkdw talk 19:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: I am planning on bringing it up. There is typically a discussion about whether the case request should be closed, the close outcome, and if more time and discussion is required. Mkdw talk 20:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per the scope below. Mkdw talk 17:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as currently presented, per OR and Mkdw. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept as a review of EC's sanctions and whether they are working. I don't think they are in their current form, but this should not turn into a "ban Eric" dramafest. (For instance, I fully think it is time to let the cumbersome RFA restriction go.) Courcelles (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted case (6/1/1)

Thank you everyone for your patience. Over the weekend the committee discussed the possibility of accepting the case based upon the scope I proposed above:

To review the current restrictions and sanctions against Eric Corbett to determine if they are sustainable and proving effective...

And where the case would look at Eric Corbett's blocks, warnings, and any past AE, ANI, AN, and other complaints filed at noticeboards. The below rough consensus emerged (as I understand it) and I have invited the others to correct their votes if I have made a mistake, or to add any further comments. We are still discussing the matter as to whether the case will be opened and then suspended. Mkdw talk 03:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I already originally stated, the scope will review the entirety of the situations including the question about whether Eric Corbett had been unfairly treated and or provoked. As for the list discussion, I noted the case was (then) at a deadlock of votes and we should make a decision. The others mostly just cast votes and agreed to the scope I had suggested with the exception of OR who still believed the case should be declined. To further summarize this summary, the case had already been accepted above (by majority vote). Two votes changed. Mine and PMC's (which was "per OR and Mkdw') and the scope was agreed upon. Mkdw talk 16:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting
  • AGK (per mailing list)
  • Courcelles (per above)
  • Gorilla Warfare (per mailing list)
  • Joe (per mailing list)
  • Mkdw (per mailing list)
  • PMC (per mailing list)
Opposing
  • Opabinia regalis (per mailing list)
Recused
  • WormTT

Motion (7/0/1)

The Arbitration Committee has been made aware of and has independently confirmed that Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), since his public retirement, has been abusively misusing multiple accounts and disruptively editing while logged out. Eric Corbett's accounts are hereby indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, the case request involving Eric Corbett, which has been accepted by majority vote, will be closed. Katietalk 14:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  • Courcelles (per mailing list)
  • GorillaWarfare (per mailing list)
  • Joe Roe (per mailing list)
  • KrakatoaKatie (per mailing list)
  • Mkdw (per mailing list)
  • Opabinia regalis (per mailing list)
  • Premeditated Chaos (per mailing list)
Oppose
Recuse
  • Worm That Turned (per mailing list)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=913682753"