Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Use of external websites, block/unblock of Eric Corbett		23 October 2015	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Clarification request: Noleander	none	(orig. case)	3 July 2024
Amendment request: Durova	Motion	(orig. case)	4 July 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox	none	none	10 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Use of external websites, block/unblock of Eric Corbett

Initiated by Black Kite (talk) at 19:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Yngvadottir (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Gorilla Warfare: [1]
• Kirill Lokshin: [2]
• Keilana: [3]
• Yngvadottir: [4]
• Eric Corbett: [5]

Statement by Black Kite

On 21 October, the web news source Atlantic carried the following story. [6]. This was a story about issues in the Gender Gap in Wikipedia, involving certain previous (and now banned) editors. It was written in association with certain Wikipedia editors (who are named as parties here), and was designed to show that (a) a certain female editor was unfairly banned (which they may well have been, and it is certain that she was sexually harrassed, but this is irrelevant here), and (b) that editor User: Eric Corbett (EC) was misogynist and/or anti-female. Much of the "evidence" of the article revolved round a single diff by EC which in fact did not show any such thing. Previous attempts by involved parties to have EC blocked had been unsuccesful, yet this time, when EC protested his innocence, he was blocked by User:Kirill Lokshin for violation of a previous sanction. Kirill Lokshin had never been involved in the situation before, and indeed had not blocked any user since 2014, and so the inference is that they were induced by other editors to perform such a block. All of these issues are violations of Wikipedia policy. Later, and quite correctly in my view, EC was unblocked by User:Yngvadottir. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf: and any other Arb: If you're going to question Yngvadottir's unblock but not Kirill's block, you need to recuse. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Keilana: Yes, I only included you due to the conversation on Jimbo's talk page, and the fact you may have useful information to provide. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Kirill Lokshin: "The allegation that I was somehow induced to block Eric is mere aspersion, easily made and impossible to disprove". You're absolutely right. So it shouldn't be too difficult to explain exactly why you suddenly appeared in a venue, and with a block, that you hadn't been involved in before. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• I see. So you didn't feel it necessary to get involved as an admin in any of the hundreds of issues on Jimbo's talkpage previously? Just this one. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• I find that unconvincing. And anyone who works in legal circles will know that "you can't prove that" rather than "I didn't do that" is an immediate giveaway. But thanks for your input. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Many people commenting; Too many of you are missing the point. Did EC break his topic ban? Yes, technically. Was it a situation in which common sense needed to be applied? Yes. Kirill blocked EC without discussion because he believes he's some sort of "white knight" admin defending the Wiki - exactly the same problematic attitude as others have assigned to Yngvadottir (the irony of a femsle admin being desysopped for defending the admin that many are trying to paint as a sexist is immensely ironic). Common sense is NOT the same as IAR; if I am driving someone seriously ill to a hospital, a policeman is not going to stop me because one of my headlights isn't working. Similarly (and let's not forget EC's talkpage is littered with his comments that "I can't talk about that") there has to be some leeway to respond when you are being slandered. Finally, am I making insinuations about others involved in this? Yes, I am, because it stinks. In my opinion the chain of events is far too suspicious to be random. If that is "conduct unbecoming of an admin", then let us never question any off-wiki or administrative action made ever again. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• @GorillaWarfare:: how else would you characterise "...when someone has so frightened the admin corps that nobody else will step up to the plate."? Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• @GorillaWarfare:: Also, if you can confirm that the article is not based on an interview with you, I am quite happy to redact every sentence where I have said that. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GorillaWarfare

This is back on the Arbitration Committee's plate, two months after the last case relating to this issue was closed. It's been about eleven months since Eric Corbett was restricted in the Interactions at GGTF case. Since then he's been blocked seven times. These restrictions are clearly not working, and every time they're enforced, we have to suffer through dramatic arguments over the validity of the block, the fairness of the original sanctions, and whether the administrator who placed it is following some hidden agenda. I strongly urge you to take the case—the disruption has gone on far too long.

Please also clarify the scope of the case. Black Kite has not made it incredibly clear what they want this case to address, and the title of the case is confusing... What is "use of external websites" referring to? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, it's telling that Black Kite is referring to Kirill Lokshin's block as "white knighting". But then again, they seem to be a fan of these kinds of overdramatic and vaguely conspiracy-theorist accusations lately: they have decided that someone is pulling Kirill's marionette strings, anyone who disagrees with them must recuse, and on Wikipediocracy, that I "effectively wrote" the entire Atlanic article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite: how else would you characterise "...when someone has so frightened the admin corps that nobody else will step up to the plate."? As a fairly accurate statement of fact... And certainly not as an implication that Kirill stepped in because of ulterior motives with respect to women. Regarding my involvement with the article, my response here is the same as the one I gave on Wikipediocracy: "I'm mentioned in two small paragraphs within the article, and looking back through the interview I gave, I don't see much in there that was used in the rest of the article." GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

On 22 October, I blocked Eric Corbett for a period of 1 month in accordance with Remedy #3 of the Interactions at GGTF case. The block was prompted by Eric's comments here and here, which I deemed to breach points (ii) ["the gender disparity among Wikipedians"] and (iii) ["any process or discussion relating to these topics, broadly construed"] of the amended topic ban. The duration of the block was based on the guidance provided in the standard enforcement provision in the case, and the fact that shorter prior blocks for violation of this remedy had proven ineffective in eliciting compliance.

With regard to Eric having some hypothetical "right to reply" to the Atlantic article, which is being advocated by certain commenters here, such a right would necessarily have to be limited to replying to the claims the article makes regarding Eric himself. Prior to the pair of edits which resulted in his block, Eric made several additional comments which did directly address these claims ([7], [8], [9]). I note that he was not blocked for these comments. Rather, a block was imposed only when the subject of his comments became the existence of the gender gap itself.

The allegation that I was somehow induced to block Eric is mere aspersion, easily made and impossible to disprove. For the record, I had no communication with anyone regarding this block prior to having placed it. The suggestion that my lack of prior involvement makes my action suspect would seem to fly in the face of the Committee's own requirements, which stipulate that only administrators without such involvement may apply sanctions in the first place.

I ask the Committee to (a) reinstate the block on Eric Corbett for the original un-served duration (or an alternate duration that the Committee considers appropriate), and to (b) appropriately sanction Yngvadottir for deliberately violating the procedure for appeals of arbitration sanctions by unblocking Eric. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I have Jimmy's talk page on my watchlist, saw a discussion about the Atlantic article (which I had read earlier that day), and saw Eric's comments when I was reading the discussion. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I don't do much admin work in general (as I'm sure you know). That doesn't mean I won't intervene when I see a need—for example, when someone has so frightened the admin corps that nobody else will step up to the plate. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Keilana

Given that I've barely been around (due to much, much more important commitments in my life), I haven't been particularly following this bit of drama, nor was I involved. I was interviewed for the Atlantic in August and only talked about my work writing content with WikiProject Women Scientists, which I will be returning to post-haste, since I try not to let wiki-drama stop me from actually writing articles. Keilana (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42

• Jimbo's page is generally a safe haven, where even site banned users can drop in and speak.
• The thread in question was substantially about Eric, so it would seem WP:BANEX might apply, or at least a warning in advance of action. A month long also may be somewhat excessive for this infraction
• On the other hand Eric has certainly intentionally flaunted his restrictions before, and the remedy calls for escalating blocks
• However once the block was applied it was an WP:AE block, so Yngvadottir's unilateral unblock seems to be out of bounds. (Certainly though, points #1 and #2 could be used in a community/an/other discussion to reduce/revert the block)
• Eric and related controversy (both those who support him, and those who would like to get rid of him) are likely to remain controversial, and a hot potato nobody but arbcom can deal with. Arbcom has declined to block in the past, certainly they may do so again, but the community cannot handle this. The committee should accept (though perhaps resolve via motion) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite The block is a matter for the community/AE/AN as part of a standard WP:AE appeal (which I believe the rules currently dictate must be done by Eric, not by a 3rd party). The unblock is a pretty unambiguous circumvention of those same rules as a unilateral action overriding an AE. Perhaps the restriction is inappropriate. Perhaps the block was unjust. I don't think the first is going to be re-litigated here, and the second has other venues to be resolved in. The third is deep in the jurisdiction of the committee. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I'm guessing User:Yngvadottir might need to be added as a party, as the person who lifted the block.

I guess I can see how there might, in this particular case, be extraordinary circumstances, such as false and misleading information about an editor being published by outside sources and that information being repeated here, about a person who, apparently, is editing under their real-life name here. Perhaps the committee might think it not unreasonable to request that policies and guidelines be adjusted to perhaps allow editors who are being lied about or to, possibly in violation of WP:LIBEL, to do something in a expeditious manner to have such misstatements removed, and/or allow for them to do something to in a sense clear their name, whether that might be somehow a violation of other existing sanctions or not. Alternately, it might be possible to impose DS on topics like this, involving misrepresentation of facts about editors.

Under the circumstances, maybe the foundation's lawyers might be reasonably consulted here.

Having said all that, I would really love to see this whole thing just completely and utterly disappear. This is a dramah overdose of the worst kind, and if nothing else just bringing an end to it as soon as possible might be the best thing to do. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

More or less as per Hell in a Bucket and Montanabw below, I think it might make sense to at the very least amend the existing sanction to the effect that sanctions only be made through request at WP:AE. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

This would present several interesting issues:

1. Is Mr. Wales' an exempt zone - stated by him as such so that fully open discourse may take place? If so, then there is no "case" here.
2. Therefore if that user talk page is not open for free discussion, is the use of it to make claims about an editor who is barred from defending himself fully as improper as the editor defending his own position? I trust the committee would never make any claim that an editor should not be given an opportunity to deal with claims made about him or her personally.
3. If, rather, it is reasonable for any editor not under official "sanctions" (including "anonymous IPs who are quietly likely to be under a false flag of some sort, or who may be experienced editors who find it better to hide their true identity in order to wreak havoc and let loose the dogs of war) to make allegations about an editor who is under stricture not to respond, is a response then a violation of a reasonably interpreted sanction? Collect (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

It is no improvement to the project to use admin tools to promote more anarchy, as Yngvadottir has done. Binding is more than easy to understand and apply. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

I'm not directly involved in the case, as far as I can tell, and have made no other comment on it. I will note that User:Yngvadottir should probably be desysopped. In unblocking Eric Corbett, she offered the rationale (in the log): "Time served is sufficient for such a minor infraction of unjust Arbitration ruling."

• Yngvadottir did not participate any in discussion regarding the unblock, with the original blocking admin or anyone else. (She notified the blocking admin, Kirill Lokshin, only a minute before unblocking.) While the block was contentious, there was no discussion underway anywhere on the project which showed a consensus to unblock.
• Yngvadottir did not start or participate in an unblock discussion at any one of the three appropriate and customary venues for such appeals: User talk:Kirill Lokshin, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
• Yngvadottir decided to lift the block partly on the basis that she believes the Arbitration ruling under which Eric Corbett was blocked was "unjust". It is not within Yngvadottir's authority to personally decide ArbCom rulings are unfair and can therefore be overturned.
• Yngvadottir has offered no compelling explanation (or explanation of any kind) why she could not request and argue for an unblock through the usual channels, or why the unblock was so urgent that she needed to carry it out without any discussion and as her very first (and only) actions of the day on Wikipedia.
• Yngvadottir is well aware that her actions should lead to her desysopping: [10].

I expect to have no further comment or need to participate in this case/motion/whatever; clerks need not notify me of future happenings. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RO

Eric knew exactly what he was doing, as just a few days ago he made the right choice and declined to comment, stating: "Given the subject of that article I'm unable to comment". That's your mens rea. The guilty act is of course once again using his account to deny the existence of a gender gap. EC apparently cannot control his impulses, so I agree that he should be blocked until he learns to do so. His presence undermines all authority on Wikipedia, and his continuous boundary pushing is disruptive in the extreme. The block should be reinstated, and ArbCom should desyssop the unblocking admin, who has demonstrated clearly that they are here to protect EC from ArbCom. RO^(talk) 20:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: At some point ArbCom will need to address the issue of the EC Fan Club, who have so thoroughly frightened everyone, including most admins, into submission they are in themselves a more pressing issue than EC. They intimidate and tag-team anyone and everyone who stands up to the clique, and as time goes on it's going to get more and more difficult to address EC when he feels the need to defy ArbCom and the community. I strongly suggest a topic ban for the usual subjects, who I need not name, but I have no delusion that will ever happen. Nobody else would ever get away with 1/10th of the crap EC does, and it's high time we started treating him like everybody else who writes allegedly good content. RO^(talk) 21:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, per this comment: In that light, he may have temporarily lost sight of the fact that he was topic-banned from posting his response see this diff. Two days ago EC knew he was banned from commenting on that article. RO^(talk) 21:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

Yngvadottir unblocked with the express intention of rendering the governing Arbitration Committee ruling ineffective. That is wholly unacceptable, and justifies -- and almost certainly requires -- their summary desysopping. There's no need for me to repeat Ten of All Trade's cogent analysis in my more prolix fashion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

Trouts around. The enforcement provisions of GGTF clearly state, "An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary " (emphasis mine). KL showed poor judgement in creating this fracas by imposing an unnecessary block when he could have simply removed the comments and reminded Eric of the sanction. We have a pillar about using good judgement rather than mechanically following the rules; any notion that it was preventative is absurd; the unique circumstances of his being incorrectly described in a major publication are unlikely to occur anytime soon. NE Ent 21:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk

Why is GW listed as a party in this case? Protonk (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite, the statement "that cannot be disproven" is fundamentally distinct from "you can't prove that". If you accuse someone of being alerted in the manner that you did, there is no amount of evidence that they can marshall to disprove the accusation. They could open up their email, phone records, whatever and there still could be some vector by which they could have been influenced. They cannot mount a negative proof. To turn around and suggest that that plain statement of fact implies guilt is embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you and you should be too. Let's not forget you made that accusation (and suggested it was a violation of policy) without any evidence. Protonk (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Was there a justification for adding "use of external websites" to the case name? What "use" are we referring to? What websites are we referring to? Protonk (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

(Word count, not counting this parenthetical: 774, streamlined from the first draft’s 1400. I request a dispensation from the word limit to this extent.)

Eric Corbett was topic-banned from commenting about Wikipedia’s gender disparity, in light of his several unhelpful posts on the Gender Gap Task Force page and use of inflammatory language. I was one of the arbitrators in that case, and while I disliked having to bar a long-term editor from discussing an important project issue, I believed restricting Eric from this subject was better than banning him from Wikipedia altogether, which had also been proposed. (I personally thought it might be enough to ban him from the GGTF pages themselves, but others disagreed.)

Yesterday, Eric Corbett made two posts on User talk:Jimbo Wales. In one of these, he stated that he does not find a gender disparity among editors he works with; in the other, he said he does not see misogeny on Wikipedia. I disagree with the thrust of these comments. While Eric may encounter roughly equal numbers of female and male editors, overall, the fact that many more men edit than women is well-established; the existence of this unfortunate disparity cannot reasonably be disputed, although the reasons for it can. Regarding the presence of misogyny on Wikipedia, the comments yesterday on Jimbo’s talkpage by GorillaWarfare and Iridescent speak for themselves.

I believe that what Eric meant to say is that in his day-to-day content editing, he finds that editors treat each other respectfully and equally regardless of sex. I agree that most editors do not engage in sexism, discrimination, harassment, or vulgar and obscene abuse of their colleagues: only a small fraction of on- and off-Wikipedia interactions or discussions are sullied by these blights. But even a small percentage of misbehavior still adds up to a significant problem in the context of a project as large as ours. To those female editors who have repeatedly been targeted, the fact that other women have not been harassed, or that women are not always harassed, or that the harassment may come from a relatively small handful of people, is surely of little comfort. I hope that going forward, Eric Corbett, and some others, will be more sensitive to the fact that a serious problem can exist even if they do not personally encounter it.

By the rules of arbitration enforcement, the block of Eric Corbett was defensible. Eric did violate his topic-ban, and he has been blocked several times before under the same or similar remedies, of which he was on notice. It also bears mention that Eric would not have lost the right to comment as freely as any other Wikipedian in this or any discussion if he had not previously made a host of problematic comments. The blocking administrator, Kirill Lokshin, is a former arbitrator colleague, whose judgment and views I value, and who does not deserve the snarky comments aimed at him on Eric’s talkpage.

At the same time, there are several factors that, if I had reviewed the two disputed edits, would have led me not to block.

First, although I have disagreed with the substance of Eric's comments, they were expressed in measured language. They did not contain the sort of inflammatory invective or personal attacks that led to the topic-ban and several prior blocks.

Second, though perhaps least important, these comments were made on User talk:Jimbo Wales. While that page is by no means excluded from project-wide policies or from ArbCom editing restrictions, it is well-known that the page is sometimes a free-for-all (compare, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy).

Finally, and most importantly, the context of the thread on Jimbo's talkpage was the discussion of a mainstream non-wiki media article that specifically criticized Eric Corbett by name. He was also repeatedly mentioned by name in the on-wiki thread and indeed was pinged to the discussion. In that light, he may have temporarily lost sight of the fact that he was topic-banned from posting his response, and in any event, it is certainly understandable that he wanted to say something.

It would be contrary to the best interests of the project for the Arbitration Committee and the community to be subject to “Eric Corbett Block/Unblock Drama, Part Ninety-five”; I hope this matter can be resolved quickly. But to the extent this request becomes, in effect, a block/AE review, I find myself in respectful disagreement with the original block and more especially with its one-month duration.

As for the unblock by Yngvadottir, it was certainly “out of process”; but when I was an arbitrator I opposed the adoption of any policy by which a particular consequence would ‘’automatically’’ ensue for a given type of action, in favor of exercising tailored discretion in each case, and I hope that is what occurs here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Amortias: and the arbs: Thanks for the extension. I actually meant to ask only for the 774 I was using. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• My statement above was obviously written before the desysopping motion passed, or at least before I learned of it. As a procedural matter, this motion states that Yngvadottir may regain adminship (if she wants to, not a foregone conclusion) only via a new RfA. Procedurally, though, a "level 2 desysopping" is ordinarily subject to further consideration and revisitation by the Committee if the admin so requests. Was the motion deliberately worded to exclude that in this case, or was the wording just taken from a different context? (Note that any reconsideration would not, I hope, need to involve a whole, long arbitration case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN

I wouldn't mind arbcom looking at an admin who thinks they are Wikipedia's white knight, defending it "...when someone has so frightened the admin corps that nobody else will step up to the plate." [11] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley

I tried to warn you last year here and again here that traditional escalating blocks would not work for this case, and would result in this brought to your doorstep over and over again. If the punishment doesn't fit the crime there will be blowback, especially with the community's obsession with Eric Corbett. If User:Kirill Lokshin had made a 72 hour block there would have been no riot; but the perceived injustice of a 1 month block for a minor offense has led to yet another desysop. It's too late to save User:Yngvadottir but if you (Arbcom) wanted, you could take this opportunity to prevent the next desysop with an amendment putting a reasonable cap on the block lengths. ~Awilley (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by HiaB

I think the block was regrettable. It's also regrettable that the vocal supporters of EC are helping escalate this issue. I urge modification of the sanctions to arbs only, it will save a great deal of community time in these situations. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

User:L235 who are these nameless arbs running protection of fellow admin and arbs. If those two were the source of this article they are parties to this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

• I concur that if Jimbo's page is a free-fire zone, then Corbett appearing there is exempt from his restriction. Thus, no case.

• This is not the first time that a random admin has blocked Corbett.

• I also concur with those who suggest that to avoid problems like this in the future, it may be wise to revise Corbett's restrictions to state something like "only members of ArbCom may block Eric Corbett for violations of his GGTF restrictions, broadly construed. Other issues may be handled per standard procedures." Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

Firstly, let me call for some common sense: an editor gets smeared in widely read media article which is horrendously inaccurate, even on basic details such as Eric being an admin, and there is a thread talking about him, and he is not allowed to comment?

Ok, common sense is very uncommon, so let's try the law. If you are going to stick with the letter of the law, do it consistently. I would note that there was no request at WP:AE to block. On Kirill Lokshin's talk page, they state that since this was a clear violation of topic ban, so WP:AE is not required. Several other people have commented that WP:BANEX may apply, and the fact that Jimbo's page is a free-fire zone. Thus it was certainly not a slam-dunk decision. Keeping in mind these, and the unusual circumstances of off-wiki mention, surely there is a case for deliberative, instead of hasty action here. What was the need for hasty blocking anyway?

Lastly, I will note that for all topic ban violations, admins at WP:AE are allowed discretion on action. In a hypothetical thread at WP:AE, admins may have agreed on a topic ban violation, but may have disagreed on the length, or even the imposition of a block. Kirill's comments state pretty explicitly that they acted because they believe that other admins are afraid of acting on cases involving Eric Corbett (with justification). That does not seem a good thing to me.

I see Yngvadottir has been desysopped. Technically, this was merited. But, I can't help but chalk this up as another instance of the saying: "No good deed goes unpunished." Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

I join @Protonk: in wondering why GorillaWarfare is named as a party here. That could easily be seen as a cynical ploy, one very much of a piece with the situations Paling described in her article for The Atlantic.

Is User Talk:Jimbo indeed a safe haven where even topic-banned editors may post? If so, I presume my January block for posting there will be expunged, and that I shall receive a proper apology? I, too, was responding to international media coverage that mentioned me by name, and I was responding to what I reasonably perceived as a personal attack there by an arbitrator.

In point of fact, Wikipedia no longer has rules for User Talk:Jimbo or for any other page. It has one set of strictures for the privileged and well-connected, and another for the little people. It has one law for women, LGBT people, and others who might be vulnerable to sexual harassment off-wiki, and another for those in a position to shrug off such harassment. It continues to show no care or concern for Wikipedia's victims, but great concern for privileged pals. And now we have proposals here to place Eric Corbett above administrative sanction.

This is the world Arbcom has made; be glad and rejoice in it!

I call your attention to a significant consequence: this state of affairs places administrators in a hopeless bind. An outspoken faction of self-appointed enforcers now threatens their opponents with impunity, knowing that their supporters will exact a heavy toll on any admin who intervenes. An admin who acquiesces surrenders the tools to the self-appointed faction; an admin who does not will endure calumny, annoyance, and troubles dire. Either way, it's clear that the community places persons above rules, policy, considered judgments, process, and indeed the pillars. Civility is sacrosanct, and all animals are equal.MarkBernstein (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Opabinia regalis

Well, I had started to write a comment on Kirill's page this morning but got interrupted in real life, and now I see the situation has escalated just a bit, so I suppose I'll comment here instead.

• Eric's comments may not have been a good idea, but reacting to them as black-box "topic ban violations" is patently absurd. Elsewhere on the project we call inaccurate and negative information about a named living person a BLP violation. That he should want to respond to discussion in a high-profile venue about a press article in which he was named is entirely reasonable.
• All of these events are fairly representative of how the community tends to deal with gender-gap-related issues: people just react to proximal situations without thinking strategically. If you wanted to hand the men's rights activist types a doozy of a talking point, you could do worse than "Wikipedia editor responds to inaccurate reporting calling him a sexist and gets blocked for his trouble." I'd love to hear an explanation of how this block, or the inevitable ensuing drama, would be good for women on Wikipedia.
• Speaking of reacting to whatever hits you in the nose instead of thinking strategically: I see Yngvadottir's been desysopped already. Second rush-to-desysop in the last couple of months. So far, Wikipedians' response to this article about the gender-gap problem has consisted of a) blocking a man named and negatively characterized in the article for the offense of commenting on it, and b) removing a woman from the admin corps. Did anybody think this through, beyond the preservation of Arbcom Authoritah?
• Kirill says someone has so frightened the admin corps that nobody else will step up to the plate. Frightened? If you observe that other people have not taken an action you would like to take, it's awfully self-serving to conclude that they were simply too afraid to do so, instead of considering that, perhaps, they thought it was a bad idea. The implications of this attitude are actually quite a bit more frightening than the possibility of getting complaints on your talk page, and quite a bit more damaging than (the horror!) performing one "out of process" unblock. If you anticipate that a significant fraction of the community will object to an action, that is, apparently, an argument in favor of doing it, because others must be intimidated by the objections. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, and on the "sanctions enforced by arbcom only" idea: there is obviously no consensus in the community that some of these sanctions are enforced fairly, or that they should be enforced at all. Responding by bringing out a bigger hammer would look a lot more like a power play than like a real effort to control a problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

Would I be allowed to comment at JW's talkpage about an area I'm restricted from? If my name was mentioned in a off-Wikipedia story about that area, that I felt painted me wrong? I'm hoping EC's participation at JW's talkpage (that's all his comments there) will be judged as unblockable. It would be a relief for those of us other restricted editors, should we find ourselves in a similar situation in future. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mrjulesd

I would implore ArbCom to take over arbitration enforcement for Eric Corbett. Eric Corbett is simply too large a figure to be handled by the community. Community enforcement of sanctions against him are simply not working. How many more admins are going to be lost through arbitration enforcement against him? Please re-read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement/Evidence#The_arbitral_topic_ban_of_Eric_Corbett_is_in_practice_unenforceable_and_should_be_reconsidered , part of Sandsteins's evidence at the AE case. Of all thats happened concerning and about him, this presents the clearest picture. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Wehwalt

I urge the committee to take this case. Broad issues are involved here. The header to Jimbo's talk page is a fairly unqualified invitation to discuss issues, and Jimbo has proven himself capable of dealing with problems that arise there. I would argue that by community custom, and again subject to the whim of Jimbo (the reason I rarely participate there) normal rules do not fully apply. The use of arbitration enforcement under such circumstances, without discussion, and indeed with KL saying they needed no discussion, is troubling. Additionally, it does not seem to me that what Eric did rose to the level of anything actionable. He responded, rather civilly, to falsehoods that were referred to.

We are increasingly losing high-level content contributors to ill-conceived administrative interventions. I do not know if Eric will resume editing, and I am minded of the recent loss of GregJackP. I am not simply concerned with the rights and wrongs of each individual incident, but then, neither is the reader, who wants high-quality content. The learning curve on Wikipedia is extremely steep; the number of people capable of putting words together intelligently while surviving the many pitfalls of Wikipedia, and doing all that for free, is vanishingly small. That others agree, in the case of Eric, is evidenced by the fact that this is not the first time an admin has thrown themselves under the bus for him, some years ago, there was the case of User:Steve, who unblocked him and immediately resigned the bits. I think that says something.

I could give you a list of content contributors who have concluded that their time is better occupied elsewhere, but I really don't have to, you know them as well as I. Their loss has an effect on those left behind, as I can testify to. These are not problems you can solve, but I suggest that you consider in your discussions: that consistent with the standards that everyone must live by, this being 2015, both on Wiki and off, what counts is what we put before the reader. We are not here to, nor likely to, build some perfect society where we all get along. We take the cards that choose to deal themselves, and we advance the project as far as we can. And in this case, actions that risked a discard that harms the project were much too casually made.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin. You say "That doesn't mean I won't intervene when I see a need—for example, when someone has so frightened the admin corps that nobody else will step up to the plate." Does that refer to your block of Eric Corbett? If so, could you please, pursuant to WP:ADMINACCT, tell me when you first began to think that Eric Corbett (or if some other person on his behalf) had so frightened the admin corps that no one else would step up to the plate. Please explain fully the events that led you to that conclusion, and how you tested it (if you did). A general timeline would be helpful, so long it relates the events and other matters requested in terms of time to a) Eric Corbett's first comment at User talk: Jimbo Wales at issue in this arbitration request, b) Eric Corbett's final comment at User talk: Jimbo Wales at issue in this arbitration request, and c) your block of Eric Corbett. Also if the person referred to as "someone" is not Eric Corbett, I'd appreciate it if you could say who it is. Many thanks for your time and candor in helping me understand this matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved and unsuccessfully wikibreaking Dennis Brown

Newyorkbrad sums it best, and NE Ent makes interesting points, so I won't rehash. We've had a couple of admins reversing AE/Arb blocks, risking their bits for what seems to be a consensus conclusion. I understand this can be a problem for Arbs, but at some point you have to ask if the system itself is the problem. We talked about a "first to block advantage" last time, yet it still exists, particularly when you bypass AE altogether, and particularly in a case like this where input from other admin should have been sought, given the totality as presented by NYB. Good judgement was not exercised. I would hope we don't have any real sanction for the unblock, even if it was out of order, as it was clearly within consensus, once again, demonstrated by Brad's perspective. Fix the whole "first to block advantage" and you will quit seeing these cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• As it has been pointed out, the fact that we just desysopped a woman sysop who unblock Eric, is dripping with irony. This is not how you build a gender neutral encyclopedia. Quite the opposite, actually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Irondome

Not the project's finest hour eh? An excellent woman administrator deyssopped on flimsy grounds in less than two hours, while attempting to nobly defend a male editor (irony of ironies!) who was attempting to defend himself against completely false charges of sexism made by a lousy journalist. Something is rotten in the state of Wikipedia. I am fairly sure that the groundswell of community feeling would restore the bit to this appallingly treated admin in a new RfA by a considerable margin. Many have been quietly following this trainwreck of an arbcom decision today. I strongly suggest that Arbcom reconsider the removal of Y's bit, before a possible successful RfA shreds what credibilty the Arbs have left. KL's judgement has also been problematic. I would urge a complete rethink of this shambles, before further damage is done to the project.Irondome (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC) (originally posted about 01:15)

Statement by Rhoark

I second the concern raised by MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) about how a user with a WP:FACTION posse can become de facto unblockable. With thousands of admins active, the range of usual suspects rendering decisions at WP:AE is surprisingly small. The admins taking a "damn the torpedoes" attitude to this case are surely not too timid for AE. Rhoark (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

IMHO Eric was just defending himself, I appreciate he's banned from talking about certain subjects & whatnot but if someones making a load of claims against you you then have every right to defend yourself!, I'm not gonna be liked for this but I believe Kirill should be desysopped for creating this whole bloody mess in the first place and IMHO I think Yngvadottir deserves to be given the bit back!. –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dave Dial(DD2K)

If ArbCom cannot take control of this situation that arises constantly, then the members who refuse to take the mature, reasonable position should resign or WMF should revoke their privileges. This is beyond an embarrassment, by the same set of actors, for the umpteenth time. I should not have to even state my position, it should be obvious to any mature person with some sort semblance of common sense. Dave Dial (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ihardlythinkso

Discretion is advised. (Have any arbs been publicly accused of being misogynists? Do any arbs have experience editing under sanctions?) Blind bureaucracy is not a good thing, as KL s/ also take note. IHTS (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm

In September 2012, I had occasion to say, "If Bongwarrior deserves a trout for this block...then Black Kite deserves a fat fucking whale for perpetuating the absurd breakdown of our ability to function normally when Malleus is blocked." How little things change. No real opinion on the block, but Kirill Lokshin's explanation seems to serve as sufficient justification as to why this was a good faith block that could reasonably be construed as enforcing an arbitration decision. Beyond that, any accusations or implications of bad faith being at play, particularly those by Black Kite, are egregious, unsubstantiated personal attacks and I condemn them in the strongest possible terms as conduct unbecoming an administrator. This case request is not an honest appeal regarding a suspicion of bad behavior, but a result of perennial loyalty to Eric by Black Kite stretching back years (see ANI archives) and an attempt to punish and intimidate an administrator for blocking Eric. ArbCom should clearly do something here because this is too much for the community to handle, but that something is absolutely not investigating an administrator that was attempting to enforce its own decision. Swarm ♠ 03:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328

I have been most impressed by the lengthy, detailed and restrained descriptions that GorillaWarfare has written in recent days about the vile gender harassment she has endured for years. There is something about her calm and dignified self restraint that adds power and gravity to her story. This is a truly serious problem and the Wikipedia community needs to do a much better job dealing with it. Overt harassers must be ousted promptly and kept away.

I am in agreement with Newyorkbrad's observations. He says things more persuasively than I am capable of.

The blocking administrator said that he blocked Eric Corbett because "the subject of his comments became the existence of the gender gap itself." Consider, please, the precise words that led to this block: "In fact, if I were to go just by the editors I've worked with, particularly on FA/GAs I'd be inclined to think that it was about 50/50 between males and females. ", and "That's my experience as well. I'm just not seeing this alleged misogyny." The first quote is not about the gender gap across Wikipedia but rather about the much smaller circle of editors he has collaborated with himself. The second does not deny the existence of the gender gap but is an observation that he has not himself seen misogyny. Let me be clear: I believe that Corbett has a severe blind spot regarding the gender gap, gender based harassment and misogyny. However, as I read his words, he was not "denying the existence of the gender gap itself". Words have meaning.

Too often in such disputes, editors feel the need to respond to the call of the old coal miner's song, Which Side Are You On?, and line up firmly with their friends and against their enemies. It is often better to strive to see both sides of the story. We are dealing with a situation where a problematic personality who is also a person with feelings, was cast as the "villain" in an error-strewn article in The Atlantic, a very prestigious journal published since 1857. He responded in a very open forum, Jimbo's talk page, where overtly socking blocked and banned editors are allowed to vent and spin conspiracy theories. A forum where false allegations against him were being posted and repeated in an ongoing discussion of the Atlantic article. And he responded with relative restraint.

I encourage ArbCom to respond with restraint as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Wbm1058

I too agree with Newyorkbrad. I took a beating from the "content creators" in my recent RfA (though not from Eric, is he banned from RfA too?), I suppose because they feared I would not sympathize with their concerns. This incident gives me more insight into why. When I ran for ArbCom last year, Gerda Arendt asked a question about enforcement of another of these "discretionary sanctions". I said I didn't want to sanction editors for doing something which they might be expected to do... I'm reluctant to sanction an editor for any constructive edit. Edits which discuss controversial topics in a civil manner are constructive edits. So, I would not favor issuing these "broadly construable" sanctions in the first place, and if I did, I would not delegate the subjective determination of sanction violations to administrators who are "appointed for life", and who are, generally, only removed from their positions after an often lengthy and painful process – except, oddly enough, when they revert another administrator's subjectively determined discretionary sanction. What happened to bold-revert-discuss? Isn't it reasonable for two admins to have differing interpretations of a vague, broadly construed directive? Shouldn't they then discuss and come to a consensus on their interpretations of the sanction? Really, though, the committee should "man up" and publicly vote on their interpretation of their sanction, so that the "content creators" have a chance to evaluate that at the next ArbCom election. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

Agree that ArbCom enforcements which apply to a case as inevitably contentious and drama-filled as this case (EC's) always is should only be made by active Arbs. Agree that as the article in question made several inaccurate statements about EC including that he is an admin (and since Jimbo's TP has historically been a free zone, and, as Cullen notes, EC's two brief comments were very restrained and did not deny the existence of the gender gap itself), this was a borderline case and could have been dealt with otherwise, including if necessary removing the comment and warning, or having an active Arb make the block. Agree wholeheartedly that Yngvadottir should be immediately re-sysopped, and if her actions are to be questioned, they can be questioned here. If Yngvadottir is not immediately re-sysopped, the action of her de-sysopping should be questioned, investigated, and evaluated here. We've already lost two of our very best admins (Malik Shabazz and Floquenbeam) in the last couple of months because of similar odd circumstances; it would be a real shame to lose another excellent admin for the same silly reason. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC); edited 05:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

We may have lost Drmies as well; he just blanked his user and talk pages in apparent disgust, noting that "I don't really need to be here now". Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved lurker Sethyre

I echo Newyorkbrad's statement. Especially the bit where he disagrees with Eric but puts aside his personal opinions before making any decisions. That's something many people in America sadly have seem to have forgotten (to the point of South Park dedicating an entire season to blowing that narcissistic childishness out of the water).

Hopefully some editors here take some notes from Brad's book. In any case - I suggest unblocking the guy, giving warnings to all involved, and let everyone go on their merry way. But I also don't hang at wikipedia too often so I dunno if that would solve anything, haha. Sethyre (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• @Newyorkbrad: Word count limit of 1400 for this section of the case. Amortias (T)(C) 22:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• I have removed Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) from being parties of this case, per direction of several arbitrators on clerks-l. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Block of Eric Corbett: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1/4>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• I have been participating in the discussion on Jimbo's talk page, and have cautioned one other participant (not listed as a party here) about using personal attacks in that discussion. I do not think this makes me involved enough to require recusal, but I will reconsider this if asked. That said, it is worth making clear from the outset that we have no influence over what was published by The Atlantic, and we will not be re-examining the Lightbreather case here (yes, she was sexually harassed, no, that was not why she was banned. She was banned for her own repeated serious violations of policy). Pretty much simultaneously with the opening of this case request, we asked Yngvadottir to contact us regarding her unblocking of Eric, and I'm unsure if there is anything beyond that for us to do here. My gut feeling is that if there is, it is more likely to be a motion than a case, but this may change. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: What we choose to examine or not examine following a case request is wholly within the purview of the Arbitration Committee. Having a different opinion to you about that is not a reason for me (or any other arbitrator) to recuse. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Waiting for statements --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Also waiting for statements. LFaraone 21:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• For the record, Yngvadottir has been desysopped (see here). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Recuse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)